Lost In Obfuscation




The BBC’s College of Journalism will have to buck up its ideas.  Just what have they been teaching the BBC’s finest and brightest?

I had always thought that the point of an interview was not only to ask questions and to get some answers to those questions but ultimately to publish those responses for public consumption.  Apparently I was wrong, the idea is to write up only those responses you wanted to get in order to ‘prove’ whatever point you are trying to make and then quietly shelve the rest of the interview if it tells awkward or  inconvenient truths that undermine your wonderful and powerfully made narrative.

The BBC interviewed a very important man today, the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, and then went on to bury the interview.

Look as I could I couldn’t see this interview on the website…surely an interview with the Foreign Secretary about a highly controversial subject as the immigration farce at Calais in which he makes somewhat ‘bombshell’ statements would be headline news.

But no.  I found the ‘report’ eventually, such as it was, tucked quietly away on the sidebar under the anodyne heading ‘More can be done on channel security’.  This insignificant little heading doesn’t even make it to the Frontpage, lurking on the UK page instead.  Anyone would think the BBC were trying to hide it.  Having heard a BBC radio report on the interview I now realise I didn’t get the full story there either.

Why would they do that when they go to town over a ‘church’ in the Calais ‘Jungle’…which will be broadcast next Sunday…along with God’s own little left wing storm trooper Giles Fraser?

Maybe the Telegraph’s headline, and it is the main headline, tells us why the BBC seek to hide what Hammond said:

Millions of African migrants threaten standard of living, Philip Hammond says

The BBC’s own write up gives us very little to go on merely saying that Hammond said that “more that can be done to enhance the physical security” of the Channel Tunnel and returning migrants to their country of origin was the solution to the problem of “large numbers of pretty desperate” migrants in Calais.

You have to watch the video to find out the rest of his comments about us being swamped, my word not his but his by implication, by immigration which will essentially destroy Europe as it can in no way absorb the millions of immigrants likely to come here.

Now that’s just common sense and what critics of mass immigration have been saying for a long time….but I think it is the first time I have heard someone as senior as Hammond make such a dramatic statement of truth.

It is an issue of overarching importance and has profound implications for the future of Europe and indeed the world.  Europe is clinging on as one of the few bastions of political, social and cultural freedom in the world, an area of the world that others still look to for their values and for protection and support.  If Europe breaks down, as it inevitably will due to massive immigration, who will be that ‘light’ that gives hope to many people of the world?  America?  It will probably retract into itself or become far more aggressive.  How about Russia, China, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?  LOL.

The BBC would say that is precisely why the immigrants flock here, and yet they bring with them the seeds of Europe’s destruction.  It is impossible to provide a safe harbour for all the people in the world who say they feel oppressed or downtrodden or feel like they’d like a bit more cash in their pocket. Ironically it is the BBC’s World Service that is an example of what part of the solution is…it provides that ‘soft power’ intended to influence people and ’empower’ them with information and techniques to do battle with undemocratic regimes.  People are encouraged to be the masters of their own destiny and to take back their own countries…but paradoxically the BBC also sends out the message that says ‘Sod all that…drop everything, forget your own land, your culture, your family and friends…come to Europe to live off handouts and charity.’  That’s not sustainable, it’s impossible.  If the BBC thinks people in Europe will continue to tolerate millions of immigrants forcing their way into Europe they are mistaken.  It will not end well.

Here’s my grand solution…one that not only occupies the immigrants but also eventually solves the problem at source.

All those immigrants of fighting age, those who so vigorously assault the defences at Calais for instance, should be conscripted into an African army, trained, armed and equiped and sent back to Africa to do battle with those who oppress the African nations and that includes Syria.  Your great grandfathers or grandfathers probably fought in the last war against the Nazis to maintain the peace and freedoms of Europe….they were more likely than not conscripted into the forces to fight for years on behalf of certain values and beliefs.  I see no reason why those who come here should not be made to similarly fight for the same values in their own lands…if they aren’t prepared to fight for those rights, to put themselves at risk, why should they expect to be allowed to be the recipient of all the benefits of a Europe that so many did lose their lives to defend?  I wonder how many such immigrants would make their way here once they knew they might have to ‘live the cowboy’ and actually do something positive to end the ‘desperate’ situation back home which they’ve left their fellow countrymen to deal with when they ran off for a better life elsewhere.

The BBC’s solution?  Open the borders, open huge refugee camps, open your wallets, keep your mouths shut, and hope all hell doesn’t break loose.






Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Lost In Obfuscation

  1. chrisH says:

    I`m no expert, but there was clearly a conscious move by the BBC-and indeed all journalism training outlets-to promote the “journalism of attachment”.
    This theory first came to my attention as US journalists found themselves dependent and embedded with US forces in South Vietnam…the likes of John Pilger took note, and decided that objectivity and dispassionate accounting of events was now for the birds.
    Unless it moved the greater forces of history, set the never-ending revolutionary narrative in train..it was just dead white male talk.
    Our press and media since then have been steeped in it-and it`s the few renegades like Hitchens and Booker who are the exception in still thinking for themselves…and having outlets to do so.
    Like teacher training became the State cipher for delivering condoms and EU tripe foe the New World Order…journalists are bought and sold on their liberal prejudices being articulated to house styles like the BBC and CNN, Guardians and Times`.
    Really dangerous when your hacks are as monoglot and cloned in the new Esperanto of UN Press Releases…to emerge with an independent mind after all the steeping in PC slurry all those years-that is some achievement,but there`ll be no job for you at the BBC or its favoured pods of consensus crap.


  2. GCooper says:

    I would suggest the BBC’s pretentiously named College of Journalism has a level of credibility similar to McDonalds’ Hamburger University.

    Neither organisation is where you would go for the best in its chosen field. Both are measures of ridiculous self-importance and conceit.


    • Span Ows says:

      “ridiculous self-importance and conceit”…not so: the Hamburger University may be a silly name but it’s a corporate site to train McDonald’s employees in restaurant management; you go there if you work for McDonald’s not if you’re a budding chef learning about meats, the different cuts and how to best produce and prepare them.


      • GCooper says:

        I was aware of that but not being a corporate drone, I find the title absolutely preposterous – though pretty typical of the megalomania exhibited by the bloated egos of those who run most large corporations. Including the BBC.


  3. Icantbeleiveitsnotbias says:

    Seeing as the liberal/ left (BBC) say that immigration is so good for a country then any potential immigrants from anywhere should be despatched to Africa. Africans need a leg up more than we do .


  4. john in cheshire says:

    My solution? Bring home all our forces, place them on the coast and have a strict no entrance policy for all illegal immigrants. My view? No immigrants, no refugees, no asylum seekers, and most emphatically no Muslims.


  5. Guest Who says:

    ‘..the idea is to write up only those responses you wanted to get in order to ‘prove’ whatever point you are trying to make and then quietly shelve the rest of the interview if it tells awkward or inconvenient truths that undermine your wonderful and powerfully made narrative.’

    The very definition of editorial by omission as perfected by the BBC or, as (c) A. Newsroom Tealady used to try and spin it, ‘news’ vs. ‘not news’ via the BBC filter.

    A bit like here:

    ‘the opening report took us to Westminster Cathedral to, in Sian Williams’s words, “hear” some “views” – all of which opposed the UK’s retention of nuclear weapons. ‘


    ‘So far they’ve looked at North Korea and Eritrea, both authoritarian states (one communist, the other secular). “


    ‘asked him about anti-Semitism’s links to Christianity but, puzzlingly, no mention was made of what appears to be the main reason for the recent upsurge in anti-Semitism in Europe – and especially its violent manifestations’


    ‘the BBC prefers to talk to people who want to talk up the race problem in the U.S. rather than those who don’t. ‘


    ‘Sky’s lead story is obviously not one which the BBC believes deserves attention. It is literally absent from their news homepage and their UK page.

    Maybe there just wasn’t space for ‘full’ accuracy?

    I would dearly love to hear a professional BBC explanation for such selectivity, but CECUTT would doubtless go the ‘editorial’ integrity route to getting all about right, and an FoI would see a transparent ‘purposes of’ blocking from the ever trusted national narrative filter.