Being an unbiased site about BBC bias we bring you the alternate claims to the substantiated ones we usually bring you ….

The God fearing IHRC organised a protest yesterday about the BBC’s coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict…amongst other concerns..

Palestine activists will highlight the BBC’s pro-Israel bias in an annual protest against the occupation of Jerusalem, which coincides with the first anniversary of the Gaza War.

Activists marched from the BBC’s Broadcasting House at Portland Place to the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square as part of Al Quds Day demonstrations, held annually on the last Friday of Ramadan.

The Islamic Human Rights Council (IHRC), which organized the protests, said the US Embassy was selected as a rallying point because of Washington’s “heinous support of Israel.”

Speaking to RT, IHRC Communications chief Nadia Rasheed said the BBC was chosen as a starting point of the march because of its “pro-Israeli” bias.

“We’re starting near the BBC in protest of what we deem to be the bias in their reporting of the situation in Palestine and their pretense of impartiality when in reality their coverage is pro-Israeli,” Rasheed said.

Here’s little Owen Jones from a similar protest last year...BBC reliable as ever in acting as Israel’s propaganda foghorn for Gaza attack

And yet more protests in August…Belfast demonstrators protest at BBC Gaza coverage

Tony Hall fends off the mad rush to buy BBC subscriptions

The BBC is thinking of introducing subscription for the over 75’s….though it’s voluntary and you can still watch the BBC if you don’t cough up regardless of your income.  However if you are a poor, bedraggled single mum with 18 kids, impoverished and made homeless by the Tories cruel welfare reforms, the BBC will still seek to have you banged up for non-payment….and blame the Tories for it.

BBC urges pensioners to voluntarily give up free licence fee

The BBC is to urge pensioners to voluntarily give up their free licence fee to save the corporation and protect their favourite programmes.

The BBC is to ask the over-75s to opt out of their entitlement to free licence fees, hinting that it will help secure the future of television or radio programmes.

A senior executive at the corporation said the elderly will be invited to pay at least £145.50 each year to the “cost of the BBC’s services” after it takes over responsibility for funding free licence fees in the years to come.

Curiously the cost of any largesse towards pensioners has suddenly shot up from £650 million…

Heath has now warned the cost of the over-75s television licence will amount to £725million per year carved out of the BBC’s budgets; substantially more than the £600m regularly quoted previously.

Another shot across the bows from the BBC in the propaganda war it fights so relentlessly on its own behalf using licence payer’s money to defend its entrenched privileges and over-dominant, ‘imperial’, position.

If they can have subscription for one group why not everyone?  I imagine most people would still buy it so what’s the problem….are the BBC not as confident in their own quality of programmes as they claim…..

The case for the BBC doesn’t rest on ideological arguments, nor on debates between economists. It rests on what we do.

We’re here to make great programmes and services. That’s why people like the BBC. That’s why they enjoy it. That’s why they trust it. That’s why they value it. That’s what they pay us to do.

.

Tony Hall….Put your confidence where our money is then…..test that assertion without threats of court action, fines or prison to encourage us to buy into your product.

The Tunisians are building an anti-terror wall, as are the Saudis…I wonder if they had Israeli advisors?

Nary a peep from the usual suspects about these apartheid walls….unlike for Israel’s ‘wall of shame’.

We looked at the BBC’s hypocrisy when it comes to Israel’s security barrier before…..they must ‘avoid the political connotations of ‘security fence’ (preferred by the Israeli government) or ‘apartheid wall’ (preferred by the Palestinians). ‘

Never mind that it is a ‘security fence’, and it is mostly a fence, and is there to stop Palestinians murdering Israelis in terrorist attacks….the BBC’s ‘impartiality’ and balance is in reality partiality.  As I say below...’.all very difficult if you have an agenda whilst trying to appear not to have.’   All ironic considering John Humphrys has said (H/T True Too on this site and Craig at Is the BBC biased?)…

My point is, if we shy away from words we feel might cause a bit of offence….if we try to find euphemisms then it’s a dangerous road to go down. We’re not exactly where Orwell was but we’re taking those tiny little baby steps towards that unhealthy state of affairs.

By using the term ‘barrier’, ‘separation barrier’ or ‘West Bank barrier’ the BBC hides the nature and source of the violent threats that made the wall necessary.  It hides the fact that Israel is under terrorist attack by an orgainsation that wishes to wipe it off the map, literally.

From Biased BBC last year….

Degrees Of Separation

Look familiar? That’s not Israel or the West Bank but Northern Ireland

What’s in a name?

Build a wall and it seems the most pressing problem is how to define what that wall is intended to do….what to name the construction…..all very difficult if you have an agenda whilst trying to appear not to have.

In Northern Ireland walls that keep the warring parties apart are ‘Peace Walls’…and they’re still being built….as this BBC report from 2013 reveals:

New ‘peace fence’ at St Matthew’s Church in east Belfast

and here explains the history of these ‘Peace walls’ as the BBC is happy to call them:

Peace walls were first erected in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s as a temporary measure to minimise violence between nationalist and unionist communities.

Four decades later many are still in place.

Belfast’s ‘peace walls’ treble after ceasefires

Funny that the BBC, so willing to recognise that the walls in NI are there to stop terrorism and violence, but can’t bring itself to admit the same motivations are what caused Israel to build its own ‘Peace Wall’.

The BBC’s advice to journalists on what to call the security barrier?

Barrier

BBC journalists should try to avoid using terminology favoured by one side or another in any dispute. 

The BBC uses the term ‘barrier’, ‘separation barrier’ or ‘West Bank barrier’ as an acceptable generic description to avoid the political connotations of ‘security fence’ (preferred by the Israeli government) or ‘apartheid wall’ (preferred by the Palestinians). 

The United Nations also uses the term ‘barrier’. It’s better to keep to this word unless you have sought the advice of the Middle East bureau.   

Of course, a reporter standing in front of a concrete section of the barrier might choose to say ‘this wall’ or use a more precise description in the light of what he or she is looking at.  

By using such non-descript terms the BBC is in fact using ‘terminology favoured by one side’…the Palestinian terrorist …because the bland, inoffensive, anodyne phrases strip the ‘Barrier’ of all meaning….and imposes another…the suggestion that this is about ‘separation’….feeding into the activists loaded ‘favoured terminology’ of  Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state.

This is a deliberate attempt by the BBC to play down Palestinian violence…just as it does with Palestinian rockets…invariably described as ‘homemade’ and ‘inaccurate’…the intention being to suggest they are essentially harmless and not a justification for Israeli retaliation.

Stripping away the real reason for the construction of the security barrier, to stop Palestinians bombing Israelis or shooting at them (hence the concrete sections), is a political intervention by the BBC on behalf of the Palestinians.

The BBC is hiding the fact that Israel has been under attack for over 60 years and is using language favourable to Palestinian terrorists.

(Remind me…why did the BBC spend £300,000 hiding the Balen report?  Does it say in effect ‘BBC News kills Jews‘?  Just which journalists and management are being protected?)

Perhaps the BBC should take note of what a Palestinian called the ‘Separation Barrier’….

Mohammed Assaf, winner of the Arab Idol says:

‘There  are many ways to make a difference in life, but my way is as an artist,” said Assaf, a graduate of Palestine University who has just become a UN youth ambassador. “I’ve always wanted to make my voice heard around the world, to sing about the occupation, about the security walls between communities, and about refugees. My first ambition is a cultural revolution through art. Palestinians don’t want war – they are tired of fighting.”

‘Security Wall’….So called because it provides security to Israelis from Palestinian terrorism.

Simple really…unless you have a political agenda and want to send a message.

Those perverters of religion, they’re everywhere….

A crucifix sculpted in the shape of a hammer and sickle presented to Pope Francis in Bolivia has caused a stir among Catholic commentators.

The Pope was given the item, combining Catholic and communist symbols, by left-wing Bolivian President Evo Morales.

One Catholic bishop suggested that Mr Morales had sought to “manipulate God”.

Does this mean that Morales isn’t a Christian for having ‘politicised’ Christianity, and what of Giles Fraser that turbulent priest?  Allegedly he has a copy of ‘Christianity for Dummies and Marxists’…proof that he has no idea of what Christianity really means.

Shameless Milne in the Guardian shows why religion, of all kinds, is an ally for the Left...Religion is now a potential ally of radical social change.

Of course possibly not quite so harmful when you get into bed with Giles Fraser but when you also take to your bosom the godly men and women of ISIS and its ilk such alliances take on a different hue and potential for danger….the Left should of course learn from Iran which is a goood illustration of what seemed like a good idea of  siding with your enemy’s enemy but which turned out not to be such a good idea.

‘Render unto Napoleon’

Talking of Giles Fraser and Marxism….he recently gave us his Thought for the Day and chose as his subject the Battle of Waterloo…or rather the missed opportunity in not allowing the anti-Establishment revolutionary ideas from France to land on our shores.  Curiously he tells us that the Church should not be the voice of the State, he worships the Prince of Peace and not the Duke of Wellington…but paradoxically that doesn’t seem to stop him praising Napoleon and championing his beliefs and ideas on what shape a State should take.

Fraser tells us Napoleon would have ‘Proclaimed a republic and the abolition of the nobility and the house of peers, and brought liberty, equality and sovereignty of the people’ to England.  Fraser suggests many Christians would applaud such beliefs.

Unfortunately Fraser wasn’t being strictly honest in telling us what Napoleon actually said…certainly he said those words but there was a lot more…

“What a ballad my life has been,” he once proclaimed, as he insisted that “the laws of morality and convention cannot be applied to me.”

“If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.”

And in relation to the invasion of England in particular he said…

I would have published a proclamation (which I would have had ready) declaring that we were only come as friends to the English nation, to render them free and to relieve them from an obnoxious and despotical Aristocracy, whose object was to keep them eternally at war in order to enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the blood of the people. Arrived at London I would have proclaimed a Republic , Liberty, Equality, Sovereignty of the people, abolished the Monarchical Government, the nobility and the House of Peers, the House of Commons I would have retained with a great reform, the property of the nobles I would have declared to be forfeited and to be divided amongst the people, amongst the partizans of the Revolution, a general equality and division of property. By these means I hope to gain a formidable party, to be joined by all the “canaglie” in such a great city as London, by all the idle and disaffected in the kingdom and that, perhaps, I might ultimately succeed.”

I would cautiously have avoided saying anything about annexing England to France, on the contrary, I would have declared that we came only as friends to expel a flagitious and tyrannical aristocracy and to restore the rights of the people. That when we had done that, we would depart as friends. The hope of a change for the better, of a division of property, would have operated wonderfully amongst the “Canaglie”, especially of London. The “Canaglie” of all nations are nearly alike. There are traitors to be found amongst all nations. I would have made rich promises and could have had a great effect to “Coglionare” them all.

I would have “coglionato” you with treaties and their other means.

‘Coglionato’?  ‘In O’Meara’s letter to Lowe of 5 June, 1817 (British Library, Ms Add. 20214 fol. 82v) it appears that ‘coglionare’ was translated by the British on Saint Helena as ‘to humbug’, or to trick or con.’

So Napoleon’s strategy was to promise the English whatever it took to get them, or at least as many traitors as possible, on his side and then do what ever he liked once in control.

‘Promise everything and deliver nothing’…a man of his word.

Hardly the ‘People’s’ champion celebrating equality, liberty and the sovereignty of the people as Fraser wants us to believe, just another lying ‘politician’ saying whatever it takes in order to con the people.

On the Today programme (08:33:30) a while back we also had a look at the legacy of Waterloo and they also seemed rather disappointed that Napoleon had lost…..though apparently the battle was a useful illustration of the benefits of a united Europe which scorns nationalism and borders…we ‘have a lot to learn from co-operation…and the consequences of the battle’ they told us.  Mishal Husain pressed her own point that suggested that Europe today was the united Europe that Napoleon dreamt of.  Another reason to celebrate the crushing of Napoleon….how much worse would things be now if he had won!

Husain says that the unintended consequences of the defeat was the rise of German nationalism.

Apparently the victory over the dictator Napoleon was not a victory for democracy and a fairer society but was one that led to Hitler’s rise and the evils of nationalism which is rather curious as the general belief is that it was the Napoleonic Code of laws that led to the unification of Germany and thence nationalism and ‘the rise of Hitler’…and Mussolini…..

Dieter Langewiesche described the code as a “revolutionary project” which spurred the development of bourgeois society in Germany by the extension of the right to own property and an acceleration towards the end of feudalism. Napoleon reorganised what had been the Holy Roman Empire, made up of more than a thousand entities, into a more streamlined forty-state Confederation of the Rhine; this provided the basis for the German Confederation and the unification of Germany in 1871.

The movement toward national unification in Italy was similarly precipitated by Napoleonic rule. These changes contributed to the development of nationalism and the nation state.

Good old BBC, rewriting history once again to promote the ‘European dream’…of the great dictator Napoleon.

Don’t know if anyone caught the BBC News on Radi0 4 at One but they managed to find a UK tourist in Tunisia who took exception to the Foreign Office advice to leave that country due to the “highly likely” nature of another terrorist attack. The gentlemen concerned said “It’s what you would expect from a Tory Government”. Now then, last time I checked, it was a Tunisian Islamist who massacred 30 of our fellow citizens of the beach in Sousse. Nothing whatsoever to do with OUR Government. Just how does the BBC hunt down these visceral Conservative haters even in places like Tunisia?

Mark Mardell must have dropped dead when he saw this piece by Nick Bryant…and if so will be steadily rolling in his grave at the blasphemies being uttered by Bryant….The decline of US power?

Its fairly standard stuff about Bush and his wars, Guantanamo and economic woes dragging the US’s reputation down and its influence in the world down with it.

However there is a long blast at Obama, the usual stuff about his lack of interest in foreign affairs and unwillingness to engage….but there is one thing of unique interest….

One of the reasons why the world has become so disorderly is because America is no longer so active in imposing order……Washington has lost its fear factor.

World leaders nowadays seem prepared to provoke the wrath of the White House, confident that it will never rain down on them.

It explains why the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, after unleashing chemical weapons against his people, continues to bombard them with barrel bombs.

Why Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, and also offered a safe haven for the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Assad’s flouting of American warnings is especially noteworthy.

In killing so many civilians with chemical weapons, he flagrantly crossed the “red line” imposed by Obama, but escaped punishment.

The president was unwilling to carry through on an explicit threat, in what was the biggest foreign policy climbdown of his presidency and also one of the most significant in the past 50 years.

Even supporters of Barack Obama believe he made a fatal strategic mistake, because it demonstrated endless flexibility and a lack of American resolve.

Needless to say, despots around the world took note.

Powerful stuff and a ‘damning indictment’ as the phrase goes.

But there is something missing from the picture. No mention of the man who promised to tackle Assad but then backtracked on his promise and told his party to vote against taking any military action against Assad.  That man being Ed Miliband…the man who claimed it was a great victory and whom the Left has applauded for his cowardice….a cowardice that then spread to Obama who also backtracked on his determination to bomb Assad leaving him free to continue his murderous rampage.  Not tackling Assad also had the unfortunate side-effect of boosting ISIS as Assad released members of that group from his prisons and left them to their own devices as they became a proxy army for him attacking the other ‘Free Syria’ forces who were fighting Assad.

So Miliband’s betrayal has allowed Assad to continue his vicious war and led to the rebirth of ISIS…..Just think, he could have been our Prime Minister!  Obama has followed on and used Miliband’s betrayal as cover for his own reluctance to tackle Assad in any meaningful way.

And the result is….as said above by Nick Bryant…’a fatal strategic mistake of which, needless to say, despots around the world took note.’

The BBC always seems reluctant to mention Miliband’s role in the Syria vote….I wonder why?

Good that the BBC uses its own ‘news’ and analysis resources to once again promote its case for maintaining the licence fee and its privileged, pre-eminent position…

Free-to-air broadcasters around the world are finding it tougher to afford the spiralling costs of sports rights at a time of mounting competition and demand from pay TV. In the UK, the emergence of BT Sport as a true challenger to Sky has pushed up the value of rights.

Sport has become one of the few remaining ways of offering must-see content in today’s fragmented, multi-media environment, enabling broadcasters and advertisers to reach significant audiences. It is the ideal way for media companies to drive subscriptions towards other related services such as broadband and phone lines. The result is inflation. As recently as the 1970s, the BBC was able to pay just £5,000 for each rugby international it showed live. Those days have long gone.

Many worry about sport’s migration towards pay TV. They argue the country’s biggest sporting moments are cultural events, like a royal wedding or Last Night of the Proms, and should, by their very nature, be available to as many people as possible.

Sport, by this logic, ultimately belongs to us all. The concern is that taking sports away from free-to-air platforms invariably means smaller audiences, a lack of visibility and the removal of a crucial source of inspiration for young people who don’t happen to have parents who can afford pay TV.

The BBC has its supporters though…

It is instructive that in the wake of the Six Nations deal, Clive Efford MP, Labour’s shadow minister for sport, said: “In the face of significant cuts to the BBC’s budget this sort of partnership between broadcasters may be the only way that major sports events will be shown on free-to-air TV.”

The BBC wants more sport to be handed to it on a plate…

But as well as more collaborations between rival networks, another result of this will be a renewed debate around regulation, and the list of ‘crown-jewel’ events the government ensures must be shown on free-to-air television. Currently, only the Olympics and Paralympics, football’s World Cup, European Championship and FA Cup final, the Grand National, the Derby, Wimbledon singles finals, the rugby league Challenge Cup final and the Rugby World Cup final must be broadcast on free-to-air TV.

But at a time when terrestrial broadcasters are under unprecedented pressure over the cost of sports rights, some would now like the government to step in and help by having a longer list.

A clue as to what sticks in the BBC’s throat…..

For some, Australia provides a sound example. There, much to Rupert Murdoch’s annoyance, 1300 sports events – including Test cricket – appear on an ‘anti-siphoning list’, which must be offered first to free-to-air networks.

The government must do what the BBC wants…

New Sports Minister Tracey Crouch is working on a landmark new sports strategy for the UK, designed to tackle falling participation rates……perhaps Crouch should also look at the way sport is delivered to us, via a broadcasting environment that is changing before our very eyes.

And then what?  Fix it so that the BBC gets the ‘Crown Jewels’?

All that’s missing from this bit of special pleading is an explicit final plea for you, the Public, to contact your MP and push the BBC’s case for them…..I imagine though that is what is expected of you,that being the whole point of this ‘analysis’.

Judging by the headlines today I’d be pretty hacked off if I was Joe Root….the BBC is far from alone in pushing this line….you have to ask why so much is made of Moeen Ali’s contribution….

Ashes 2015: Moeen Ali gives England the upper hand in Cardiff

Apparently Moeen is the ‘main man’…. Pint-sized Ashes: Moeen the main man …….he scored 77 and took two wickets.

What of Root?  England were pretty much in free fall and it looked the usual story until Root, and Ballance, stabilised the team and set them back on the road  to respectability with Root scoring 134….almost double what Ali scored.  The BBC acknowledges that Root was actually there and scored some runs but that is the only mention in this match report….

In the bowling Ali took two wickets but cost 67 runs in 14 overs whilst Anderson, in 16 overs, cost only 36 runs with 6 maiden overs….so is the BBC’s assertion really true?…..’Moeen is England’s key man’

To paint Ali as the saviour of the England team seems somewhat disengenuous when his record, in comparison to his team mates, whilst good is not quite as inspiring as the media are portraying.

Can only think ‘pressure’ has been applied on editors by certain activists to show Muslims in a good light and the result is a higher profile for a Muslim player and the attempt to turn him into a role model…play cricket not Jihad.

Never mind his open support for Hamas and a ‘free Palestine’.…of course it’s only natural that he show concern for the outrages inflicted upon the world by the dastardly Jews/Israelis…such as this……

A good role model indeed.

I wonder if the BBC will get around to defining the massacre of innocents on that beach in Sousse as ‘travel based violence”? The reason I ask if because of this…

BBC #wato says #sevenseven victims were “killed by extremists” – not “murdered by fundamentalist Muslims”. Ever-present bias. @DVATW

— Dalrymple Forum (@dalrympleforum) July 7, 2015

Sanitising Islamic driven terror seems fundamental to the BBC narrative and if they can turn the slaughter of 7/7 into just an “extremist” attack stripped of all context then anything is possible.

I came across this tweet from comedy writer Armando Iannucci.

Could those complaining to me about ‘left-wing’ bias in the BBC point me to specific examples? Otherwise it’s difficult to respond.

— Armando Iannucci (@Aiannucci) July 1, 2015

I have invited him to read this site where we have around some 10,000 examples of such. You may wish to tweet him in order to help inform his better?