A reader sent me this a few days ago and I think the point remains pretty valid.
“It’s 7am on Saturday morning, 27/06/2015. People, mostly Brits, were shot yesterday on the beach in Tunisia and the top stories in the carousel on the BBC web site home page are:
BBC Now – Catch up with Friday’s best bits from Glastonbury
Entertainment – Jay Z and Bey overtaken as richest celeb couple
News – USA legalises gay marriage nationwide
Lifestyle – Which sun cream offers best protection?
Knowledge – Sir David tells Obama how to save the planet
Sport – What’s next for the Premier League top six?
Unbelievable.”
I too noticed that the savage Muslim fanatic beheading in France quietly slipped down the old page, too, being overtaken in precedence by a story on the England women’s footy team.
Al-Beebia is probably waiting until the authorities can find a bent doctor to produce the regulation diagnosis of ‘schizophrenia’.
Just a thought, regards the licence fee, and whether or not Islamic State will continue to enforce it when they’ve taken over the country.
In Saudi Arabia apparently they have a sort of “morality police” who go around poking their noses into what you’re getting up to in your own home, so I think they will love the licence fee, it would give them an excuse to knock on your door and barge their way into your home and tell you what you should be doing.
Yes,the world is falling apart and Beeb is celebrating gay marriage and Obamas interview of Attenborough.
Seriously, you would think events in Tunisia had hardly been covered on the BBC. This is what I mean when I say that this site is a fantasy world.
Has it not been the top story since it broke? Has it not led every bulletin and been constant on the 24 hour news channel?
I just realised the reader is talking about the home page not the news homepage. So he’s only getting one news feed and it happens to be US gay marriage. As he says, its a carousel, so it probably alternates. Read over it again. What would he have had on the Lifestyle or Sports pages, they’re hardly going to be Tunisia related. So understanding that, what point does he actually have left?
f course, all he had to do was go to the news page for coverage of the attacks in Tunisia. How do you get from that, to the BBC not covering the attacks in Tunisia, because they have some kind if sympathy with the jihadists?
I can understand why Mr Vance wasn’t keen on the while gay marriage thing though, but its the bbc that’s biased right?!?
You have to be a verbal contortionist to defend the BBC.
I’d hardly call that verbal contortions, but am aware some readers here don’t cope well with words or facts.
It must be confusing for you to be confronted with reality occasionally.
http://www.bbc.com/news
Well, nary a mention of Tunisia on the ‘news’ section this morning.
It did actually happen, didn’t it?
How’s this ?
Scott and his mates indulge in a propensity of bombastic loquacity,
but they don’t tell us why they are on this site.
I guess some think the BBC is Biased and that this site (which used to do a good job holding the BBC to account affecting actual change) has slowly drifted into an unpleasantly dank racist enclave where someone like David “Uppity” Brims is approvingly quoted and thought to have something to contribute to the debate. Pulling it back from the brink could see it once again be an effective monitor of the BBC. Did you know BBC staff used to read and even contribute here? Those days are long gone.
Others no doubt just find the lively cast of characters hilarious.
Aspergers Pinder, Froggie Old Goat, Pompous Guest Who, Military Fantasist Pounce.
Although your Spamming Schtick makes you a rather limited new arrival Smerched.
Have you signed the Save BBC Three petition by the way? It’s nearly at 300,000. How’s your little campaign going?
https://www.change.org/p/to-the-bbc-trust-savebbc3#share
Careful; ‘some’ take a dim view of pseudonymous posting.
Non-pompously, of course.
One from the ‘who would have thought?’ Files…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/30/bbc-threat-success-market-ideology-conservative-mps?
Interestingly, some Graun posters have alternative suggestions to those Polly puts forward as to why the BBC is under threat.
Very surprised to see the level of kicking the BBC is getting. Maybe UKIP Central have invaded today. Or perhaps Polly’s economic illiteracy and use of non-sequitur argument is too much even for your average Grauniad reader.
“Have you signed the Save BBC Three petition by the way? It’s nearly at 300,000.”
That’s because the audience for BBC Three is mainly teenagers.
BBC staff ‘contributed’, did they?
As someone who was here at the time, I can tell you that with just one exception that I can recall, their ‘contributions’ amounted to little more than bland denials and a refusal to even consider the possibility that there might be a problem.
Incidentally, if BBC Three has only managed to gather 300,000 supporters given its recruiting platform, then I’d suggest the case for its closure is pretty conclusive.
@ De-cloaks. Very good post and needed saying. A once great website in terminal decline. Just read a post from ” Vengeance is mine”, in the open thread. Anybody new to the site will be revolted, and not being sexist, what of our female readers ?
Mr.Vance, you need to act and PDQ.
Uh-oh. Imposter alert.
Guess not Guest, time to go to Spec Savers, I understand it’s free eye tests for your age group. Get some incontinent pants whilst your at it.
wow so funny! do you do children’s party’s ? being a BBC fan no doubt you do !
Ironic isn’t it, to those that support the bBC you can’t question immigration or terrorism (racist), women (sexist) or gay marriage (homophobic), yet to this poster it would seem ageism is OK.
A conditioned lefty response – resort to name calling and personal attacks…
I voted UKIP
Think again. The name’s already taken.
To search for that only proves you have too much time on your hands. And as the saying goes Idle hands etc, proves how this website is going down hill fast with contributors like you and your bum chums.
‘To search for that only proves you have too much time on your hands.’
If that doesn’t cause a wince and some dark looks amongst the fellow archive-addicted Flokkers at the day’s end debrief, what will? Some will be dezolated, bless ’em.
As to the last, as now deemed old, white and gay it seems BBBC may soon get a Supreme Court endorsement too. Which is nice.
You keep reacting, don’t you. Get out for a walk the weather’s good, how much time do you spend on here ? could be unhealthy
.
Not so up to date as you pretend eh? There’s a fantastic invention called the mobile phone or tablet which with Wi-fi or mobile data (know what that is?) enables you to keep up to date wherever you are, on a walk , in the shops or even at work, which certainly you ain’t.
You’re the unhealthy fool probably sat in a grubby bedsit in front of a PC with your Big Mac, is it the school holidays already?
‘You keep reacting, don’t you? Get out for a walk; the weather’s good. How much time do you spend on here ? Could be unhealthy.
Indeed I do. But like those Graun posters tipped by the author to get in first with a ‘anyone who disagrees after me is a Daily Mail reader’ trying to constrain the discussion, it is cute and can be effective, but only if it works.
As it happens, just back from a stroll… after a bit of work, which seems not an issue for you, despite all that time not on your hands. Apparently.
Look forward to your concern for the health of others, especially any on station from Friday to Sunday evening, though for one at least that is a boat long sailed.
Careful how quickly you answer; the irony dial only goes to eleven.
Says the man who was posting between 09;35 and 15;16hrs
It was a lot more boring when it just held the BBC to account in an un-sensationalist way though. Apocalyptic doom-mongering is quite entertaining.
You also blind ?
“Free eye tests….and incontinent pants ” eh? What gives you the right to be ageist eh ? You and your ilk are forever ageist in a way that if it was against women or brown eyed people would get you in a spot of bother. And yet you carry on safe in your sneering way that you and your pals have against the previous generation.
What makes you think you will not grow old ? Guess what ? When you are old and if you have your way, you will be in a minority in more ways than you could possibly imagine in your worst nightmares.
“Did you know BBC staff used to read and even contribute here? Those days are long gone.”
Long Gone, no.
The BBC Trotsky department, like the UK Government reads, these pages avidly.
To become aware of what people are thinking.
To enable them to modify their lies and propaganda accordingly.
To fine tune their bias, to anticipate difficulties.
“an unpleasantly dark racist enclave”.
No a place where people come for answers to questions like :-
“Why are the Governments of Western Europe working for the extinction of their own people?”
“Why are the achievements of the West in philosophy, painting, sculpture, music, literature, architecture, science, technology and industry ignored, belittled, derided?
Why are non Western activities in these fields so consistently promoted and praised?”
“Why is a public sector allowed to exist whose policy was to hide the fact that tens of thousands of white girls were systematically gang raped by Muslims?” “Why is it the policy of the BBC to put the interests of non-whites first?” “Why does the BBC take every opportunity to criticise white society?”
Questions which the BBC never answers, no it is worse than that, the BBC tries to stop the questions being asked.
Every one of the BBC stooges, like yourself, has come here with a closed mind and an unalterable sense of their own superiority.
Can you give one example where this blog held the BBC to account and affected actual change? Most people here would see the BBC as unchanged entirely.
It’s just a load of old blokes mouthing off, there are a few very interesting contributors but just recently it seems to be dominated by a group of back slapping geriatrics with too much time on their hands.
They must be laughing their socks off at the bbc at this pathetic attempt to bring them down.
Thanks for that. I should have said my comment was addressed to De-cloaks, who claims that in the past this blog did affect change at the BBC.
BBC bias is covered by the MSM with a frequency that wasn’t seen when this blog started.
And the verb is ‘effect’.
Indeed.
It is becoming another of those things which people remember because it is said so regularly and often casually in articles nowadays that it is gaining quite a bit of traction.
As many on the left know that is one of their classic tools of repeat it often enough and many believe it must be true.
Classic BBC attempt being the fox hunting smear on David Cameron by Andrew Marr during the election interview.
Again with the grammar, but thanks for the reaction love.
Thanks. I accept what you say about the MSM and BBC bias. I still wish to hear a specific example of how the BBC changed from De-cloaks.
‘They must be laughing their socks off at the bbc’
Given the claim is that no one at the BBC reads or bothers that is quite a feat in reaction.
Currently the young studlies (by inference) mouthing off mostly seem to be you and your tag-team partners.
Odd choice of venue to camp on if no one cares.
Go figure.
And again, note the casual ageism from one who, no doubt, bangs on about ‘racism’ ‘homophobia’ and all the rest of the Lefty shibboleths.
What a bore.
“Too much time on their hands”
And what exactly is that you do between 9am and 3.30pm every weekday guess who?
For one, It helps to promote this link ……………………….
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Save yourselves some money and sign up. Tell your mates .
“Did you know BBC staff used to read and even contribute here?”
……Now how would you know that?
‘Don’t tell him Pike!’
Because they wrote about it;
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/10/biased-bbc-blog-in-the-bbcs-ar.php
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my-biased-view-of-the-biased-b.php
A nothing blog dating back 8 years with just 7 comments Wow!
…Now why would you be reading such a blog?
Yes, it appears ‘he’ did. 19,999 to go.
Ok, looking at the comments, 19,995.
Actually quite interesting.
Especially the ones cautioning generic all-incusivity and using the excuse of individual excesses on a free, unmoderated site as an excuse to blind one to legitimate criticism.
Have you read the posts on the BBC World Facebook dark racism enclave?
As one championing the tricky art of censoring free speech I am sure you are on these too decrying failures to moderate?
Or happier to roam elsewhere making personal attacks?
Yours in pomposity,
I remember junior BBC staffer Hannah Bayman getting a battering on this site for some anti-Bush comments on her blog and turning up in the comments with all guns blazing. Google says that she’s now a weather presenter so the political insight maybe didn’t go so well.
I think the difference is that back in the day the site had quite a pronounced political slant which was a bit libertarian and a bit neo-con, which very very clearly weren’t getting a air airing on the BBC. Now it’s all a bit “modern life is rubbish” which is far easier to dismiss.
“modern life is rubbish, which is far easier to dismiss”
Yes because Liberal twats think that suicide bombings, FGM, beach shootings, gay marriage, ISIS, hate crimes, overcrowding, overbearing immigration, loss of individual freedom, speed cameras, green taxes, windmills, carbon footprints, global warming, beheadings, child rape, child grooming etc etc etc is far far better…
Get your head out of your derriere…
Rose tinted glasses are never a good look on the elderly
Neither is the sunglasses look on the blind…
It seems ageism is OK in your Liberal world where little else is, but you assume too much, not all with right wing views are over 40.
One day you too will be old and when the caliphate are your masters try not to don those rose tinted specs yourself…
I’m already old enough to be very aware of the recognised psychological affliction of misguidedly convincing oneself that your physical and intellectual prime coincided with a better age, despite all evidence to the contrary. fighting it and embracing the present make you a much happier person IMHO.
But still too inexperienced to have learned that the words ‘progress’ and ‘modern’ are not synonyms for ‘better’.
Not always, but certainly most of the time
Twaddle.
Nothing worse than an ageing lefty, who unlike most has not benefited from the wisdom that age brings, but happy to reiterate lefty twaddle like above. Shows a low IQ and lack of personal critical thinking skills….
I’ll have a long hard think about my critical thinking skills while I enjoy the sunshine with a “modern” cocktail or twelve somewhere “progressive” tonight. If I conclude that it would have been “better” 20 years ago drinking rancid bitter with a bunch of sartorially challenged blokes in a slum I’ll bow to the powers of wisdom. Or just top myself. Ciao.
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my-biased-view-of-the-biased-b.php
Over a coffee, and on topic, I offer a quick personal, ‘views my own’ ‘analysis’ based on selective editorial integrity techniques and guidelines pioneered by the BBC and CECUTT…
‘I’m sure that I qualify genetically as a Beeboid… when I worked at the BBC’
Hugs will be glowing.
‘But I never, to my knowledge, ever worked with anyone at the BBC who thought that it should be abolished’
So, though redundant, he could have added to his list he never worked with turkeys. Insights like this really show the calibre engaged.
‘Biased BBC was much more raw, and untouched by BBC moderation’
Now, what ‘moderation’ would that be?
‘..a lot of people at the BBC would dismiss the crowd at Biased BBC as a bunch of right-wing cranks, fantasists, and conspiracy theorists who believe that there is an organised cabal within Broadcasting House plotting to use the airwaves to bring about a socialist and/or Islamic utopia.
Luckily none of them visit this site. Any more. Apparently. Just… ‘well-wishers’?
‘When the News Sniffer site was launched … Since these were left-leaning causes, the initial reaction on Biased BBC was to distrust the software’
If you say so. Me, I look at what is quoted, and changed. And it doesn’t seem the BBC is that keen to have its ‘evolutions’ highlighted, and indeed works to avoid that happening, so it’s fine by me. And others, who use it a lot.
‘It was also at least partly as a result of the Biased BBC comments thread that the notorious From Our Own Correspondent piece where Barbara Plett said she cried about Yasser Arafat has been appended with a note that the piece had been the subject of a complaint that had been upheld by the BBC Governors
Woo. P. Doo. And that was when? Yet still even the appending of a note months later is a Herculean task to effect. Damning by faint citation?
Good post Martin.
Nick Reynolds (BBC)
Mandy Rice Davies would be shocked.
‘I think it is important to remember that Biased-BBC is an umoderated site. There is no “groupthink” behind it at all. There are no groups. Anybody can post there. Picking on a particular individual is therefore pretty disengenuous. It is a free-speech site’
Hi Phil. I disagree – I think I have identified several different kinds of “group think” on the Biased BBC blog as I’ve identified above. I don’t believe my post does pick on a particular individual – it uses anonymous quotes to illustrate the kind of points made on the site. It would just be a long list of sweeping generalisations without specific quotes to back it up
As someone might say… Bless. His belief in his belief would do a BBC ECU Director proud.
This may be one of a series of posts looking at the other ones he claims to have posted as they represent a rich seam, but I sadly have no time to read and address now. But may later as they have been kindly brought to our attention and highlighted. The beauty of the internet, eh?
De-cloaks. Explain how comments questioning behaviour regarding murders and rape carried out by a belief which has adherents from all skin colours in the world and the apologists who cannot fit this behaviour into their narrative is racist please? Your bias is showing.
That’s just “Whataboutery” and shows just how far this website has fallen;
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery
If you believe so.
With the absolute option to leave, enjoying a full refund.
Not quite what the BBC offers, despite plummeting in just about every way.
Still, many have found ways to express their dissatisfaction, with news today that (currently) legal measures of viewing have already created a £150M shortfall.
Jon Snow asked a teenage girl just returned for Tunisia if she`d be returning to Tunisia for a holiday anytime soon(Channel 4 News/29.6.15).
Sensitive little chap isn`t he?…apparently if she says no, then the terrorist have won!…those poor Muslim hoteliers in the tourist season.
Says Snow from his air-con studio living off his days in Saigon or such. First whiff of grapeshot, and he`s got his juicer at the ready-or Krishnan as he`s called.
Any chance of finding whether Channel 4 or BBC is the preferred option for REAL Muslims?…my leanings are towards Snow, an evil dead man shoed` thickie suckup.
S`now joke!…well it is but only Islam is laughing.
Search is on for the lone wolf gun man of Tunisia’s alleged accomplices. And I thought he was just another normal man, with no extreme views on anything, who just went off the rails.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/tunisia-releases-beach-attack-suspects-images/ar-AAclMmF?ocid=ASUDHP
.