Yearly Archives: 2015

Monday morning and a fresh week of BBC bias I fear. Detail what you discover here!

Curiously we’ve had two articles today, one from AA Gill and one from Janet Daley, both questioning the BBC’s right, self-appointed or otherwise, to use the news, current affairs and entertainment programmes as vehicles to manipulate the audience’s opinions and behaviour.

Gill’s words have already been looked at here…but I reproduce them below for comparison….

Gill targets Danny Cohen as ‘a man of committed, right-on, social interventionist, politically precise principles.’

He says Cohen is ‘One of a cabal within the BBC who think broadcasting has a mission to guide, nudge and encourage society to be better….promoting a broadly homogenous, inclusive, positive, left-of-centre perspective on the world….and more importantly, expunge contrary or critical views….that the BBC has a duty to manipulate the country through information, education and entertainment.’

 

Daley says…

The BBC is not just in the programme-making, or the news-disseminating business. It is an actual player in the quasi-political social service sector.

This is certainly no bunch of ordinary media guys. It’s an arm of government which has the peculiar advantage of never having to submit itself for re-election. So this is where the BBC finds itself: being kicked around for its presumption and self-importance, even when it suspends someone whose behaviour was completely unacceptable, but refusing to relinquish the advantages that its anachronistic position confers. I find it hard to sympathise.

 

The BBC, far from being independent, is indeed an ‘arm of government’….one that is ambiguously obligated to be impartial and yet biased at the same time…set the task of maintaining ‘civil society and sustaining citizenship’ by its Charter…as set up by the politicians…so perhaps Cohen and his cabal are right….’…the BBC has a duty to manipulate the country through information, education and entertainment.’

The question is… who decides what those aims mean?…what is ‘citizenship’?, what is a ‘civil society’?  And more importantly who decides what those things are..and how they should be supported by the BBC.

It seems that it is the BBC itself which decides these issues which gives it enormous power, sanctioned by government and yet claiming to be independent of and unaccountable to government.

The BBC and its employees are entirely unelected and yet, just by virtue of the fact that they work for the BBC, are handed unlimited power to decide what are the acceptable ways of thinking and then to police those thoughts, given the power of judge and jury to denounce and malign anyone who doesn’t meet with the BBC imposed orthodoxy.

The BBC’s Charter is up for renewal…perhaps it should be stripped of its power and obligation to ‘sustain citizenship and civil society’ as it does seem that the values and beliefs it seeks to impose are those of a very narrow segment of society that are essentially left of centre and entirely unprepared to allow any other views a chance to speak. The BBC sets out to shape our nation in its own image and because it mainly employs people who already conform to that image or adapt to it in order to survive inside the organisation things are unlikely to change without outside interference.

Perhaps such a process is already under way as even Rona Fairhead has been forced to admit as she calls for outside overwatch of the BBC…

BBC Trust chair calls for external oversight of corporation

A radical overhaul of the BBC’s governance appears almost certain after the chair of the BBC Trust joined with vocal critics in both main political parties calling for the internal regulator to be abolished.

She said there was a “faultline in the blurred accountabilities” between the trust and the BBC management it was supposed to oversee, saying the corporation had been “damaged by a spate of issues in recent years”.

Responsibility for corporate governance should be given to a new unitary board, with an independent chair and a majority of non-executive directors – while regulation would be best handled by a “bespoke regulator” specific to the BBC.

She added: “The cleanest form of separation would be to transfer the trust’s responsibilities for regulation and accountability to an external regulator.

Below is a longer version the above written a while back….

Now that’s all very well, and indeed what this site has been suggesting for a long time, however there remains the crucial question of what exactly does the Regulator regulate and how?

The BBC’s Charter sets out the powers and responsiblities of the BBC and what is expected of the BBC therefore if these don’t change will the BBC ever change regardless of who regulates it?

The BBC is biased to the left, it supports mass immigration, it supports closer integration with Europe, it supports Islamist extremism here and in the Middle East, it supports Labour and it supports an ideologically based approach to climate change.

It supports all these things almost regardless of the Charter.  The issues are deeply felt by many in the BBC who use their positions in the organisation to promote their own personal political and social agendas.

The Charter paradoxically gives the BBC licence to be biased despite it also having a legal requirment to be impartial.

The Charter tells us that…..

The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—

(a) sustaining citizenship and civil society;
(b) promoting education and learning;
(c) stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
(d) representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities
(e) bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
(f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

 

The major purpose that gives the BBC unlimited power to do as it sees fit is the first one, the requirement to sustain citizenship and civil society.

Who sets the limits of exploitation on that?  Who defines what ‘citizenship’ is or what a ‘civil society’ should look like?  And then who defines how the BBC should carry out those purposes?

The BBC is free to do both, to define citizenship and civil society and how they should be promoted,  giving it enormous power to ‘engineer’ Society along the lines it thinks acceptable.

Demand a measure of control over immigration the BBC can label you a racist little Englander, question the teachings of Muhammed and you’re a racist Islamophobe, raise any doubts about the science of climate change and you’re an ignorant blogger in the pay of Big Oil and probably deeply psychologically flawed, not want to be subsumed by Europe?…you’re again, a racist little Englander harping back to a non-existent golden age of the 1950’s.

The BBC sets its own agenda and is free to define what sort of society it favours and thence to promote it by various means…both positive and negative.

It is free to be ‘biased’, it is in fact charged to be biased by the Charter….the trouble is, as said, it is also free to decide what to be biased in favour of, making it almost unaccountable.

The politicians laid out the form of the Charter and so can hardly complain of the BBC’s bias when it is they who have given the BBC such free range to be so biased.

If the BBC favours Labour’s ‘Plan B’ or Labour’s NHS or welfare policies Tory politicians have few grounds to complain for if the BBC deems Labour policies to be the most likely to ‘sustain citizenship’ and a ‘civil society’ the the Charter would seem to give them carte blanche to be so biased.

With Charter renewal coming up next year perhaps the Tories should start to consider just what those requirements really mean and if they are necessary.

Trevor Phillips, in the Sunday Times (paywalled), tells us of the ‘stark warning of the passions that were being roused, even in this mild-mannered nation, by Britain’s growing ethnic and cultural frictions’.

He tells us that he came to the conclusion that ‘whilst beautiful in theory, in practise multiculturalism had become a racket, in which self-styled community leaders bargained for control over local authority funds that would prop up their own status and authority.  Far from encouraging integration it had become in their interest to preserve the isolation of their ethnic groups.’

Phillips goes on to conclude that ‘If we are to tackle the problems of racial inequality and segregation, we at least  have to name the problem…and we have to face the consequences of our mealy-mouthed approach to race….Britain’s lack of frankness is echoed in every major European country and it is fuelling a growth of angry, nativist political movements across the continent…..People need to feel free to say what they want without the fear of being accused of racism or bigotry.’

The BBC takes the opposite view…hence we get the abuses that happened in Rochdale where the Authorities looked away and were allowed to look away because organisations like the BBC, that are there to challenge the Authorities and ask awkward questions, also ducked the issue as too racially and culturally sensitive.

The same with immigration where all we hear is how wonderfully beneficial immigration is, the real truth, about the enormous pressures on housing, schools, the NHS, the legal system and so on, are glossed over and downplayed.  The BBC doesn’t want to give you any information that would lead you to think immigration, whatever the numbers who come here, is anything but good for Britain.

Maybe one day the BBC will bring us the real news.

This all plays into another article in the Sunday Times, one by AA Gill in support of his friend Jeremy Clarkson.

Gill says that the BBC has ‘ruinously lost touch with its audience…having an arrant disregard for the viewers’.

Gill targets Danny Cohen as ‘a man of committed, right-on, social interventionist, politically precise principles.’

He says Cohen is ‘One of a cabal within the BBC who think broadcasting has a mission to guide, nudge and encourage society to be better….promoting a broadly homogenous, inclusive, positive, left-of-centre perspective on the world….and more importantly, expunge contrary or critical views….that the BBC has a duty to manipulate the country through information, education and enterrtainment.’

Gill goes on to say that the BBC has ‘Given up on making programmes for Top Gear’s audience…making programmes only for metropolitan types…wanting to dismiss Top Gear’s audience as UKIP voting dinosaurs.’

He says that the BBC ‘has to make programmes for all licence holders not simply the ones it approves of…if it cannot show that it is serving the nation as a whole then it should be a subscription service for those who want to watch it.’

I’m sure we’ve heard that all before somewhere.

Naomi Klein is female, left wing, anti-capitalist and now it seems, fully onboard the climate change bandwagon enlightening us all with her scientific expertise and sense of moral outrage….what’s not to like for the BBC?

Indeed the BBC has leapt aboard the Naomi Klein bandwagon on the grand occassion of her latest publication being released into the wild (all monies going to a good cause no doubt).

Klein is once again berating Capitalism, this time as the cause of climate change, at war with the environment, in her new book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate…., The Guardian, The New York Times and little Owen Jones are drooling over it…as is the BBC.

Klein pretty much gets a free run at putting her case…Jenni Murray only interrupting to suggest that there might be some sceptics out there…or as Murray put it….’There are of course climate change deniers’ …so quite clear how she thinks about climate change and anyone who dares raise doubts about some of the science.

Klein dismisses all ‘deniers’ as rightwing free market ideologues who realise that if man-made climate change is real Capitalism is finished…according to Klein’s own ideology….though still no proof that it is ‘man-made’…but let’s not let the facts spoil a good read.

Klein says that we shouldn’t debate whether there is a climate crisis or not with such people because she knows that there is one…whether she knows what the cause’s climate change is debatable….er….

She is of course talking to the converted at the BBC….whilst Klein has absolutely no scientific credentials to her name she is allowed to lecture us courtesy of the BBC platform she has been granted almost unchallenged….and the reason she is allowed to do this?  Because she supports the BBC’s own view that the ‘science is settled’ and is in line with the supposed 97% of all scientists who are said to also back that view.

If, like Nigel Lawson, you raise awkward questions that throw doubt upon the whole charade you are about as welcome at the BBC as a reborn Jimmy Savile, or Jeremy Clarkson…which must seem a curious way to run a news and current affairs media empire that is charged with entertaining, informing and educating us…..only bring people the news and information that the BBC agrees with….all very Big Brother.

And speaking of which, the Royal Society, another BBC favoured climate change champion, gets a blast from professor Michael Kelly..

Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world’s leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows

 

Reading his take down of the Society’s approach to climate change you can readily see a comparison with how the BBC has decided to report climate change….

The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’.

The Society has become more, not less dogmatic. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all.

This flies in the face of the confident predictions made by nearly all the climate computer models that the temperature would continue to rise as it did from 1975 to 1998. More than 60 different explanations have been proposed to explain why this ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has happened, and their sheer number is the clearest evidence that the system that climate scientists are seeking to model is irreducibly complex. Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.

Yet the Society continues to produce a stream of reports which reveal little sign of this.

Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.

 

 

A month ago the BBC was proclaiming that the Iranian Islamic revolution was a good thing for women….the BBC is rather too keen on promoting Iran’s interests for some reason….the BBC sees its job as an effort to combat and counter those who characterise Iran as a malevolent force in the world which aims to destroy Israel, arms and funds a variety of militias and terrorist groups and has been a major opponent of British forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

But the BBC’s belief that everything is relative, there are no black and whites, no good and bad, means even Hitler would have had his spokesmen on the BBC during the war…and in Iran’s case the BBC likes to portray it as the victim of an aggressive America with enemies surrounding it intent in its destruction…much indeed as they portray Putin and his drive to rebuild the Soviet empire.

If as part of that drive to polish Iran’s reputation and image the BBC has to manage the truth then so be it….here it reports that Amnesty International has criticised Iran…Iran birth drive ‘turns women into baby-making machines’, but the report is remarkably short and very unlike the usual BBC analysis that goes into deatil about such cultural and social issues.

How different to this positive one about the wonders of Islamic feminism where we get much more information…How Iran’s feminist genie escaped telling us that ‘Iran’s 1979 revolution may have put an ayatollah in charge – but for women it had plenty of positive side-effects… in education, in the workplace, and even in the home, discovers Amy Guttman during a ride on the Tehran underground’.

‘Positive side effects’ such as these from the Amnesty report that the BBC has decided to omit from its report…..

Despite claims by Iran’s authorities, including statements by President Hasan Rouhani that men and women in Iran are treated equally, in reality this is far from the truth. Sexual violence and discrimination against women in Iran is rife and women in Iran are denied equal rights with respect to marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, travel, and even in their choice of clothing.

Iran’s Penal Code penalizes women and girls as early as nine years old who fail to cover their hair with a headscarf and comply with compulsory dress codes with imprisonment or a cash fine. These laws are regularly used by the police to harass and detain women in public for their appearance and clothing.

According to Iran’s existing Civil Code, a woman would not be entitled to spousal maintenance if she refuses to comply with the “duties of marriage”, which can include refusing to have sex with her husband or leaving the house without permission .

A woman’s testimony in court is valued at half that of a man in legal proceedings and reparations paid for killing or causing injury to a woman are half those payable for same harms to a man. The age of criminal responsibility for girls is just under nine years old but just under 15 years for a boy. Rape within marriage and domestic violence are not recognized as criminal offences. Engaging in lesbian sex is punishable by 100 lashes with a fourth time conviction resulting in the death penalty.

Early and forced marriages are common with 41,226 girls between the ages of 10 and 14 getting married, according to the 2013-2014 annual report by the National Organization for Civil Registration, and at least 201 girls under the age of 10. At some universities women are barred from studying certain subjects, ranging from engineering to English literature, as a result of quotas that seek to reverse advances made in the number and proportion of female university students. They also face restrictions on watching sports in public stadiums.

 

If they are examples of that ‘positive’ side effect of the Islamic Revolution life must have been really, really terrible before.

I was just having a look at the BBC Scotland news portal and noticed that the decision by SNP leader Nichola Sturgeon to stay away from the Afghanistan Memorial service in St Paul’s yesterday does not merit a mention. Thank god for the Daily Mail then. Given the number of brave Scottish soldiers who made the supreme sacrifice in Afghanistan fighting the savages in the Taliban, it does seem to me to be newsworthy that the Scottish First Minister chose to snub them, But the BBC seems disinterested. All about priorities I guess, which is why this sort of story DOES merit BBC Scotland coverage…

“Rangers director Chris Graham resigns over Mohammed tweet…”

It’s relentless. 

The first of four missing London schoolgirls who have travelled to Syria has been named as Sharmeena Begum.  The 15-year-old, from Bethnal Green, is thought to have left the UK in December to join Islamic State (IS) militants. A picture of Sharmeena was given to the Daily Mail by her father, Mohammad Uddin. Three of her friends from Bethnal Green Academy, Amira Abase, 15, Shamima Begum, 15, Kadiza Sultana, 16, are now believed to have joined her. All four teenagers are thought to be in Raqqa – the headquarters of IS.

I would ask you to contrast the sustained BBC coverage concerning these three Islamic State collaborators with their studied indifference to the 1400 teenage girls abused by predatory Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham. Why IS it that the BBC instinctively like to play the “Muslims are always the victim” card when they simultaneously ignore the victims of Muslims? Dhimmified from within.

Can I politely ask readers to try and not swear or engage in banal ad hominem on this site? It only brings the many great points made here into disrepute and allows our critics to have a go at the site? I am VERY keen on maintaining your right to free expression but please, think twice before you vent and go nuclear and so provide our opponents with free material to undermine the site. Thank you.

Friday arrives and the weekend beckons! Here is a new OPEN thread for your completion. Detail the BIAS here.