That must bug the hell out of all those liberal bleeding hearts ensconced in the bowels of the BBC plotting the revolution….or just another trendy arts programme (with climate change propaganda subtly threaded through it).
Top Gear if Roger Harrabin was editing
The Redneck (yes even James May…under that long hair he’s got a red neck) petrol heads bulldozer the lefty propaganda that the BBC fills 90% of airtime with.
Top Gear if Mark Easton was editor…how to smuggle Romanians into the UK
You have to ask if Top Gear is what the People want why does the BBC hand new presenter Laura Kuenssberg a £200,000-a-year deal on a show with only 600,000 viewers?
And give Paxo £800,000? Is he interested anymore? Are we that interested in him?
More Top Gear less Snoozenight!
Yep – it seems, given the choice, BBC viewers prefer televisual equivalent of the Daily Mail to The Guardian. Just like the real world really!
As pearls are being clutched and swooning is taking place, due to the numerous cases of the vapours TG’s popularity induces.
Oh, the humanity!
Is he interested?…animated?
Well, just heard him talking to himself as Samira Ahmed and Alistair Campbell shouted randomly over his musings, his blowback.
Between the three of the, you`ve got the complete picture of the old Beeboid, the new pretender and a politico who always gets his oar in.
Oh…the reason why they were there?…well some poor sod called Alain de Botton had put a bit of thought into who creates our news for us…how it`s chosen…and what his book suggests.
Oh dear-lots of agendas here that the media would rather we not get to see…who dare let sunshine in on the magic.
Lies-old quotes thrown back at each other, and all utterly unashamed of being found out as liars, double dealing cynics and massagers of truth.
Poor old de Botton was just the pretext to throw a bit of offal on the shark-infested waters.
Breathtakingly cynical and dreadful telly…de Botton deserved better!
“Breathtakingly cynical and dreadful telly”
An insight into the mindset of the parasites of the Left.
Thank goodness we do not have to pay for it.
Oh wait.
Approach with caution those who claim the moral high-ground yet accept money from the Devil!
The only reason Top Gear is still running in it’s present format is because it’s the BBC’s highest earning show, which speaks even GREATER volume when you consider that is only because it has such a huge worldwide audience.
The left-wing ideology that venturing out of the UK will open one’s eyes to a brave new world full of open minded, less bigoted and cultured peoples in a diverse spectrum of nations, and such like, is laid bare. They love Jezza as much as any orthodox Englishman. Not because he’s bigoted, but in spite of his blatant nonchalance.
It still won’t silence the hate mongers like Marcus Brigstock and his ilk.
Funny how the usual lefty comedians never have a go at Top Gear…………….just noticed that……………….
There was a fun episode of ‘QI’ (back in the early days) when Clarkson was clearly on to be patronised as ‘thick rightie who doesn’t know anything’ and proceeded to casually wipe the floor with Fry and the rest of the panel who clearly had no conception that someone who doesn’t parrot their shibboleths might have a functioning intelligence.
They attack it for the same reasons they attack the Daily Mail (usually in the same breath) because their popularity highlights the BBC’s total disconnect from consensus reality .
Well you know how the lefties operate? If they do not like their consensus reality, they simply invent another one which they fantasise will be better and fairer, and attack you for not believing in it.
Oh they have a better plan than that
In the words of berthold Brecht ” If the peole vote the wrong way, change the people”
Talking of Red Neck TV, look who won Celebrity Big Brother
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10604976/Celebrity-Big-Brother-the-final-review.html
‘In the end, Wednesday’s final came down to two completely contrasting characters: the 60-year-old tweed-suited Davidson and the 26-year-old N-Dubz rapper Dappy.’
And Davidson won.
New comedy series on Radio 4? The viewing public seem to like him.
Favourite Jim Davidson joke of all time:
“I really thought about donating money to starving people in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa.
And, then I thought……. nah, fuck ’em.
Although, when it comes to all those “Save the starving people of Africa!” charities, I DO believe the late Sam Kinison said it best:
Davidson better not get too cocky or present on the TV or else Operation Yewtree will pay him a visit. Remember they don’t need proof anymore just accusations and a record of non payment to certain funds.
They already did, and he wiped the floor with them.
That has revived my faith in common sense humanity. I love hearing the moribund, humourless, hypocritical intolerant, bitter, conformist lefties bleating about his win. It is utterly fabulous.
It is interesting to note what is served, and appreciated, and maintained abroad as well as at home… one wonders at what cost…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/blank-viewers.html
(I know it’s all commercial, or something, but the business models and funding streams can still intrigue).
Don’t worry everyone! No matter how awfully awful the BBC finds Clarkson et al, they’ll still manage to set aside that disgust as long as it brings in the cash to pay for them to recruit fellow members of the New Class on £200,000 a year contracts.
Well, quite. The lefties at the BBC have very selective vision when it comes to those lucrative woldwide sales figures. As much as it must chafe their delicate politically-correct sensibilities, the fact Top Gear remains probably the BBC’s most consistently profitable export is one huge elephant in the room for the entire BBC Politburo to navigate selectively around… Must be a very awkward topic of conversation at those upper-echelon dinner parties, lol.
Even more good news .anyone with a DAB radio will be able to hear Nick Ferrari,on LBC from 11th Feb ,nationwide. Give that bloody `Panto twat ` a good kicking !
Yes, great news. Here in Scotland I have only the choice of the BBC for news radio, so LBC will be a great change. have to switch off before James O’Brien starts his daily gig though.
Yeah, J o B can be a lefty knob , but he does have a few good points , He supports fox hunting & saw nothing racist of that black woman chair, that Roman A `s ( Chelsea Owner) wife / girlfriend has to sit in , but he does get on his liberal / lefty high horse quite often .
At last! Only live on Planet Thanet and only pick it up if I swing the radio out of the back window……its worth it for Ferarri.
I don’t understand this posting at all. The BBC produces an incredibly successful series, makes a lot of money out of it, supports it and recommissions it many times – yet this is evidence of some sort of bias? Or evidence that the BBC somehow hates the programme and is disgusted by Clarkson? That makes no sense. If they hated the programme, why wouldn’t they just kill it? If they hated Clarkson why do they continue to use him not only on this programme, but on others too?
Isn’t it the only programme on the BBC which doesn’t promote ‘climate change’?
Just sayin’, like.
When they use Clarkson on other programmes he is treated as some sort of freak with freakish politics. However when they use a leftwinger they just treat him as a normal person.
Danny Howard,
I have never watched Top Gear, and have no plans to ever do so, but I am aware (as surely you are as well) of a constant stream of disparaging comments about it (and Jeremy Clarkson in particular) in other BBC programmes.
This raises the question why the BBC broadcast it? The suggestion put forward here is that it makes the BBC a lot of money, and so they exempt it from the usual requirement to adhere to left-wing approved thinking that is such a feature of the rest of the output of the BBC.
The Left love money, particularly other people’s.
The BBC don’t make it Clarksons production company does that
Top gear was BBC program and was for many years ,becoming increasingly moribund before Clarkson joined it and stated to turn it around eventually ‘buying out’ the brand from the BBC in the early 2000’s
I don’t believe the BBC expected it to become the monster that it has ,but now it not only provides the viewing figures the BBC need to justify the telly tax ,but also generates a huge amount of money worldwide
A triumph of the free market over state-ism you might say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_(2002_TV_series)
I am not totally sure on this but Clarkson has (quite possibly) managed something unique at the BBC. He took advantage of the BBC practice of false ‘contracting out’ ‘cash-in-hand’ performers (to save on tax) and set up an independent production company with royalty ‘rights’ with the Top Gear merchandising name (I strongly suspect) are not the BBC ‘rights’ any more but exclusively Top Gear Limited. In theory they could move broadcasters entirely (if they get ‘pissed-off’ by too much BBC PC interference). And the BBC would look silly if they tried to ‘rebrand’ or try to replace ‘Top Gear’ as it’s most popular global brand.
@Bill Wright – “he is treated as some sort of freak with freakish politics”. Clarkson has made some very good TV esp about WW2. I don’t recall them being subject to a stream of invective.
@Wild – yes of course they make a lot of money out of it, and it is very popular. Two exemplary reasons to run programmes.
As for your argument:
Logically this is Proof by negation.
P: If the BBC has a policy of only publishing left-wing programmes then Q: the BBC will not publish a non left-wing programme.
But we have not-Q (the BBC has published a non left-wing programme), which calls into doubt the validity of the premise, P.
Students of formal logic will quickly pick up a potential logical fallacy here (confirming the consequent), which is why I didn’t say not-P, simply that the premise cannot be asserted unquestioningly.
The trouble with logic is that doesn’t always explain the human experience and is an a priori lesson in argument.
The BBC has long had a policy of employing a small number of people with right-wing views. This is so when people say the BBC is biased to the left they can point to their pet righty and say, ‘but what about …’
Trouble is the righty is rarely allowed off the reservation and when they are they are strictly controlled. If they stray too far to the right like Clarkson did with his JOKE about shooting strikers it allows them to be come targets for the foulest of invective. It will do nothing to protect them because in essence it hates them and everything they stand for.
Compare that to its left wing comedians who are allowed to say what they like and be as left wing as they like without censure. Only occasionally does a left wing comedian fall foul of the BBC ‘rules’ and then its usually just a case of kiss and make up.
Oh, and when these righties are finally disposed of they are then subjected to years of vilification in the hope that the viewing public will reject them they won’t get work again even outside of the BBC. Noel Edmonds and Paul Daniels are two prime examples of this.
@Pah – an revealing comparison would be the BBC’s gleeful reporting of the offence caused by top gear’s adolescent comments about the Mexican work ethic. Yet ignoring the fact that in the very same week ‘national treasure’ Stephen Fry was actually banned from Japan for making a joke of Hiroshima on Q.I.
@stewart “ignoring the fact that in the very same week ‘national treasure’ Stephen Fry was actually banned from Japan for making a joke of Hiroshima on Q.I.”
Stephen Fry Japan trip scrapped after A-bomb joke http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12361873
@pah “The BBC has long had a policy…” you are making the same assumption. If that assumption is untrue, then your argument falls.
“they won’t get work again even outside of the BBC”
Noel Edmonds has been on air pretty much without a break since 2005 when Deal or No Deal first came on air.
Oh yes page 94 of any other parish news again .As opposed to hysterical R5 phone in – find a new tatic while I’m at work will you
“Biased BBC Rule 1”: Articles on the BBC website can only be used to support perceptions of bias.
“Biased BBC Rule 2”: Using articles from the BBC Website to refute perceptions of bias is not allowed.
“Biased BBC Rule 3”: Only the “Biased BBC” blog owner can cite articles from the BBC website to support his views.
See http://www.atangledweb.org/ for numerous examples of Rule 3.
Deal or no Deal is not on the BBC.
Correct. Which rather negates the assertion “they won’t get work again even outside of the BBC” when Noel Edmonds has been in constant work outside of the BBC since 2005.
I assume, though as you say that might make my argument fail, that you can read? In which case your selective quote is thoroughly dishonest.
How often has Paul Daniels been on the TV since the BBC ditched him? According to his wiki page ‘not a lot.’
P1: The BBC has the power to ensure right wing presenters won’t get work again even outside of the BBC
P2: Fred Bloggs is a right wing presenter.
Conclusion: Therefore Fred Bloggs will not get work outside of the BBC.
That is a statement of inductive truth. If both P1 and P2 are true, then conclusion must be true (All men are mortal, Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal).
In the case of Paul Daniels the argument holds to be true.
However in the case of Noel Edmonds the conclusion is false, so one or other (or both) of the premises must be false. Either Noel Edmonds is not right wing, and/or the BBC does not have that power.
Since proof by negation requires only one instance to show an argument is false, the case of Noel Edmonds disproves P1 to be universally true.
You can still claim P1 to be true in some circumstances, or is a generality, but that is a pretty weak argument (under what circumstances is it true? for example).
That Paul Daniels has not been on TV a lot is not proof (that is another confirming the consequent fallacious argument). There could be any number of reasons as to why he isn’t on TV.
So dishonesty it is then.
The BBC hopes to influence. In some cases it works and in some cases it fails. Like your silly logic tricks.
Come back when
a) you learn to read or
b) you learn to debate honestly.
You scarecrow seller you.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had an argument at all. Sorry to have credited you with a stronger position than you had. I won’t make that mistake again.
Your position comes down to some indeterminate wish by the BBC to scupper the chances of success of former stars. And your evidence for this (and not just any evidence, but one of “two prime examples”) is Noel Edmonds, a man who has been on screen since 2005?
You cite two examples, one of which directly contradicts whatever it was you were trying to prove.
I guess logic is just something that other people do.
Come back when you learn to construct an argument that is based at least on some rudiment of logic, perhaps something even a first term AS student might have come up with.
“If the BBC has a policy of only publishing left-wing programmes then Q: the BBC will not publish a non left-wing programme.”
So one example of a ,celeb’ who isn’t a bourgeois liberal
compared to the plethora of pseudo trotskyites who are given unlimited access ( Just one ,topical,example would be the virtually unknown Rufus Hound) disproves the assertion that the BBC has a institutionalised left wing bias?
Students of BBC hypocrisy will recognise mealy mouthed obfuscation when they hear it.
Danny Howard,
I never said that the BBC is 100% Leftist crap. I said that my impression from the disparaging comments made about Top Gear (and Jeremy Clarkson in particular) on other BBC programmes (the ones I do watch) suggest to me that Top Gear is not full of the Leftist crap which is the standard fare of other BBC programmes.
My evidence for this is that the sneers about it on the BBC (not something I have noticed about other BBC programmes) are nearly always based on the claim that it (and Jeremy Clarkson in particular) is not sufficiently politically correct.
The assertion that the BBC always broadcasts left-wing crap (LWC) is a straw man. Finding an example of a programme on the BBC which is not LWC leaves the claim that the BBC in its programmes is generally biased to the Left untouched.
In short you have set up a straw man, knocked it down, and achieved nothing.
Wild says:
January 31, 2014 at 3:23 pm
“I never said that the BBC is 100% Leftist crap. ”
Wild says:
January 30, 2014 at 8:09 pm
“…the usual requirement to adhere to left-wing approved thinking that is such a feature of the rest of the output of the BBC.” emphasis added.
QED.
Asserting that “left wing approved thinking” is a familiar “feature of the….output of the BBC” is not the same thing as claiming that 100% the output of the BBC is left wing crap. As far as I am aware nobody on here has ever said that – you just made it up. The only thing you have succeeded in demonstrating is that you are an idiot.
Goodness me, in the space of one post I have been called dishonest and an idiot.
“As far as I am aware nobody on here has ever said that”. No they haven’t. The only person to say “100% Leftist crap” was you in an attempt to counter my argument.
Indeed you just used a similar phrase: “Leftist crap which is the standard fare of other BBC programmes”
What you also said in your original post was there exists “a requirement to adhere to left-wing approved thinking” and that that thinking is “a feature of the rest of the output of the BBC.” Not some of the output, but “the rest of” it. Every other programme with the exception of this one.
If that isn’t what you meant then why did you say “a feature of the rest of the output of the BBC.”
You are very confused about what you do mean. Resorting to insults won’t help you assuage that confusion.
Don’t worry – anyone who deigns to disagree with the party line is classed as an idiot, troll, “fokker” or BBC employee (or even all 4 at the same time).
They do not come here for debate – merely to rant and massage each others ego’s. You will note that even when a post is shown to be factually incorrect the “likes” continue to increase.
Give it time and you will be promoted to my esteemed rank – “useful idiot”!!!
Well yours certainly copped a ‘like’ almost by return. Guessing five more by close of play?
‘idiot, troll, “fokker” or BBC employee’
Hate to interfere with your and new chum Danny’s OT mutual martyrs’ bromance, but given your commitment to factual accuracy, care to show where the word “fokker” has been used?
Yawn!!!!!
Qu: ‘..care to show where the word “fokker” has been used?
Ans: ‘Yawn!!!!!’
One takes it you looked around the hole you dug and figured a quick kip would make it all better?
With debating skills like that, I think even your colleagues could see the word ‘useful’ sensibly demoted from your esteemed, self-embraced rank.
Yes my impression is that you are an idiot.
Yes I do think that “left wing approved thinking” is a familiar “feature of the….output of the BBC”.
No, I do not believe that the BBC pumps out left wing crap 100% of the time.
You have contributed nothing to the debate except poor comprehension skills. I suggest old chap you stop digging.
@Wild : And my impression of you is that you are befuddled and perhaps that is the cause of you being rude and discourteous.
I am glad we have been able to establish that you do believe there exists a “requirement to adhere to left-wing approved thinking” within the BBC.
I note in your 6.11 reply you are, however, trying to change your position. You didn’t say “familiar” feature, you said “a feature of the rest of the output”. Had you said familiar then you would be on a lot firmer ground.
But as you didn’t my original argument stands. That position is untenable. The existence of a programme that does not adhere to “left-wing approved thinking” that is a feature of the rest of the output proves that there is no such requirement can exist.
Thank you for your suggestion, but I think I am ok. In return I suggest you be more careful in how you phrase yourself in future. Perhaps English is not your first language which is why you are so easily confused.
@Albaman: I did notice on another post on which I had commented and proved the poster was incorrect that the original, incorrect, post continues to accrue likes.
I was going to ask those who liked it what exactly it was that they liked about it. It obviously wasn’t its factual content.
That does suggest that for those who liked it at least accuracy is not a requirement.
“That does suggest that for those who liked it at least accuracy is not a requirement.”
—
By sheer coincidence, I still await an answer on the topic of accuracy from your chum Albaman.
The obsession with anonymous support and what it represents seems familiar though… so what’s not to like?
Sorry, if that reply was for me, I don’t understand it. Why would Albaman be my “chum” and what “obsession with anonymous support”? If something is demonstrably false and someone else likes it, then obviously it isn’t veracity that is being liked.
“if that reply was for me, I don’t understand it”
—
It was. One way to tell is the link on the thread stream. The other is the quoted section.
That this has passed you by maybe explains your lack of comprehension elsewhere.
If you and Albaman are not on nodding terms, as someone once coined, ‘If you say so’.
As to likes, or lack of, due to system anonymity they are hardly worth bothering with. Only one category of forum poster appears to log each one and then projects magnificently every time.
Now, getting back to what kicked this off, about Albaman and accuracy… he dug yet another hole and then bailed. Hence your high horse mounting attempt with him was knackered from the off.
Yawn!!!!!
“Albaman says:
January 31, 2014 at 10:46 pm
Yawn!!!!!”
—
Always a joy to reach the single word level of exchange to coincide with the column width.
I can only presume you’ve let your parrot take over your keyboard, or are hoping repetitive attrition will substitute for having no legs left to stand on. Again.
Pop a [sigh] in lieu of rational exchange next time, and that will segue nicely if Scott continues the excavation over the weekend.
Danny Howard,
Swallow your pride and stop digging.
Well that was Top-Grrrrhh! – and now back to the BBC studio for some light bias followed by medium bias, (pause) followed by Climate change lies and friendly comedy banter ridicule and the Shipping forecast and ‘gay rights’ update.