Two stories, guess which one the BBC chooses to lead with and which one it chooses to totally ignore.
Donald Trump defends the 2nd Amendment (translated by BBC that he wants Hillary Clinton assassinated)
and…
Father of the Orlando nightclub Islamist mass murderer backs Hillary Clinton.
Every day, the BBC seems intent to whip up a storm of protest against Donald Trump whilst sanitising the grotesque Clinton. Why does it think that it can influence the outcome of the US Presidential election? Just like with Brexit, the BBC discards even the pretence of impartiality and cheers on Hillary Clinton.
I watched the whole rally via live stream . Donald Trump said no such thing or implied any such thing.Basically he was rallying 2nd amendment voters to get out and vote if they want to keep their rights because once Hillary is elected she will appoint her judges and they won’t be able to change it.
I think Hillarys people must watch every rally to pick up and magnify any small thing to blanket the news and not report any of Hillarys shenanigans. Trump speaks without notes ,that’s one of his appeals ,but it makes him vulnerable to this kind of misinformation. I knew BBBC and that leftie OBrien on LBC would be leading with this as soon as I saw the comments in the States.
D
“no such thing”
Please go to the Guardian and comment on their appalling Trump demonisation today.
Cannot do it myself, banned, they do not like the truth.
I will give it a go .Im banned from Conservativehome over Cameron remarks so don’t know how it will go down at the Guardian. ive had a go on the Spectator silly Trump bashing articles.
CIF banned me too, but it took them years to do it. No doubt they would ban everyone who disagreed with their lefty idiocy, but they need the advertising money that clicks provide.
Unfortunately he definately was, joking or otherwise, making a flippant remark about members of the gun culture maybe taking action. Surely he should be more careful in what he says. He knows the world’s left wing media are gunning for him and dissecting every comment looking for something detrimental. I am beginning to think that maybe he is trying to get out of it.
“…gunning for him…”
Surely you should be more careful in what you say, you don’t want to be accused of inciting violence do you!
The General, I agree. Trump has made quite a few blunders due to lack of control but that was by far the worst.
The students at West Virginia University have correctly predicted the last ten presidents and they said this time it would be Bernie Sanders.
So if someone does assassinate Clinton…
The people rising up through the ranks of the BBC and the rest of the MSM are the immature left-wing, self-important arseholes I despised whilst at college in London in the late 80s. To these people, who do not live in the real world where policy decisions actually have an impact, politics is a game.
BBC news content is easy to understand in the context of a Morning Star carrying student. They are out to impress each other, nothing more. Thankfully, they are actually in the minority and it is only elections and referenda that allow the majority view to come to the fore and slap these idiots in the face.
I`ve given up on the MSM re Donald Trump.
Channel 4 and the BBC seem to think that their opinions matter…that we`ll do a Tower Hamlets and send boxes of Clinton chads over to the marginals, if they continue to make up stories, or simply act as the Democrats sewer pipe or green exhaust that simply vents and blows rings.
We have no vote-whether Its Clinton or Trump is not in my gift-so what the hell are they playing at?
Despicable bias 24/7 and the US people will do a Brexit Dump of Dumps upon them in November.
The BBC seem not to notice that Clinton says nothing,meets no-one and is unstable, a liar a fantasist and has a hooky rapey hubby.
Anybody else would be accused of “refusing to answer questions, to meet the press or answer her critics”.
But no-Hillary is being a Zen Mistress, calm collected and reflectful…whereas even if Trump sneezes that would be mocking a Muslim baby in the Bronx.
STFUBBC…lying liberal scum.
A potential President who stands up for the Constitution…….must be a first for some time. As I understand it Obama has driven a coach and horses through it which is not supposed to happen. It was written to serve a purpose, to prevent an overriding executive from doing wrong, a check and balance to keep the People free.
Funny how the entire axis of left wing msm seem to want to stay away from looking too closely into the Clinton Foundation. There’s a real hornet’s nest of controversy waiting to be unleashed there, should any of these ‘world class journalists’ ever decide to make good on their professional vocation.
I cannot recommend this video enough – not sensational; not based on rumour or conspiracy theory – just good research and facts, facts, facts…
The Clinton’s are rotten, corrupt and immoral, through-and-through. Will we have to wait for Queen Hillary to be crowned before anyone on the left starts to actually sift through the facts and bring these truly awful people down?
They won’t, whoever gets elected. There is a lot of grime in Obama’s past but his skin colour earns him a free pass from the BBC and its kin. The Clintons are protected by virtue of being Left wingers who can. by definition, do no wrong.
That grime is nothing to do with me, I can assure you!
People who try and investigate the Clinton crime family seem to end up dead with remarkable frequency. Often they “commit suicide” or die in unusual accidents. Still, it must all be a coincidence, there is no way such a corrupt cabal would want their enemies dead is there?
Indeed.
Wasn’t there a chap who committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Twice?
It defies logic, which likely explains everything.
The % of voters in the USA the BBC can swing with propaganda is negligible yet by joining what is obviously a liberal media cacophony of partiality, inaccuracy and lack of objectivity and integrity, anything they come out with is either suspect or will backfire.
Think Operation Clark County, from the wonderful person who now brings the nation Newsnight.
Ah, but the US mainstream media (MSM) organisations regularly run snippets on their programmes which ‘look at how the rest of the world perceives the US’….and particularly their political candidates…. It was used to great effect with the Obama run for President when he was depicted as the subject of absolute adulation in Europe, for instance.
If such coverage constantly plays into the US MSM mindset, it can be an effective message that – ‘look – even the rest of the world agrees with our viewpoint’ – implying that anyone in the US disagreeing with such a viewpoint must be a complete fool.
And the BBC is a very willing stooge in this respect.
Agree with you Richard. The BBC broadcasts regular news feeds throughout the day on US radio stations and its pernicious bias is not just in the US but world wide. What may seem irrelevant to the Brit tuning in to radio 4 is probably pitched so it will be heard when rebroadcast abroad.
PS This from 2011 BBC site.
More than 480 public radio stations in the USA and a number of local radio stations in Canada broadcast BBC World Service programmes on terrestrial channels via FM, AM and increasingly on HD.
These may be individual programmes as a supplement to their own schedules, or blocks of programming broadcast over several hours.
Over 5.4 million weekly listeners tune into the BBC World Service programming in key US markets including Washington DC and New York
You think it’s NEWS when actually it’s an ADVERT that you are watching ! A #NewsVert inserted intoa news prog.
– As commenters have said it is not just the BBC, but the whole MSM seems infected by the mental illness of ProgLefty Zombism. To an extent that is due to London bubble, but also it depends on material is FED into them by PR professionals in corps/NGOs/political parties.
So why did last night’s ITV news LEAD with a 5 minute #STopTrump advert ?
Was Trump’s one sentence of importance to UK people ? Especially given that the US election date is November 8, 2016* ?
NO NO and no,
– My theory is that infotainment (news) progs are not made by editors sending out reporters to FIND the important stories but rather by filtering the wall of stuff that is pushed at them by PR people.
Eg News : “Scientists say” that chocolate is actually healthy for you ..according to new research …paid for by the chocolate company
..Em that is not news that is an ADVERT inserted into the news.
Eg 2. “Corbyn will say this at a speech tonight” ..is not news as it hasn’t happened
..Rather it is an advert inserted into a news prog by SPIN-DOCTORS handing it on a plate with pressure to the media org
Eg 3 : “Mr Z has said this blah blah..you can see more in our BBC2 prog next week”
..That is not news, but rather a Programme trailer advert.
Eg 4. when you get a #STopTrump item as news, that actually seems like ADVERT for HILLARY fed into the media by her very heavily resourced and financed campaign team.
I’m guessing that as well as outside PR people, certain dogmas effectively also already have staff already within news progs placing such news-verts and SUPPRESSING other news items The way Harrabin et al do with Green magical thinking, while suppressing challengers.
Dictionary : “Trumps said XYZ” = Trump didn’t actually say “XYZ” but we are MISREPRESENTING what he said in our words.
Cos usually if you listen to the audio clip, then you hear that he didn’t actually say what they implied.
In any 30 minute news prog a few items of REAL NEWS , items that are new, novel and important for UK citizens are interspaced between these adverts. Eg something like “X holiday company has gone bust” etc. But of course with all those news-verts in the prog there is less space for real news and you find yourself wondering..“hey why did BBC, C4, ITV, Sky NOT cover this, this and that ?”
* BTW when I googled the election date ..guess whose photo Google chose to put at the top of the page ? (Not Trump’s surprise surprise)
Super, Mr. StewGreen.
An excellent summary of how they operate.
Watched a clip on Hillary spazzing out when being asked questions by a bunch of journos.
Hillary Clinton suffers epileptic seizure. YOUTUBE.
Most bizarre… And she’s got a nasty looking hole type thingy on her tongue!!!
Thote thor Thillary BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You are right, Hillary Clinton seems to be mentally damaged and is falling apart. She cannot climb stairs and is followed everywhere by a large black man who protects her when her brain seizes up and carries an emergency tranquiliser pen. In one video clip she seems to have had a petit mal fit when two reporters asked her a question at once. But as far as the MSM is concerned, none of this matters because…Trump just said something!!!
Bill Clinton clearly isn’t well either. By contrast I was quite surprised to learn that Trump is 70 – I assumed he was in his early sixties.
Yes, Trump is fit and vigorous, whereas Hillary is feeble. She is prone to coughing fits, unsettling bouts of inappropriate laughter, and seizures, yet as far as the MSM is concerned, none of this is true. Who are you going to believe, the left wing media or your lying eyes?
As to Bill Clinton, many think he looks like he might have Aids, which, given his lifestyle, has to be a possibility at the very least. I don’t care about him, I just feel sorry for the many women he has raped in his long life of crime.
Problem is, if the MSM get their way, that this mentally challenged heroine of Benghazi will have her sullied fingers on America’s nuclear arsenal.
Now that really is something to worry about – a seriously explosive Clinton blow-job.
Link:
Imagine Trump having this sort of health issue? Doubtless it would be all over the BBC.
the reason the retarded msm and their leftoid fellow travellers in cloud cuckoo land are trying to spin this like this is an easy one to fathom
two words….increasing desperation
they know Clinton is in trouble.The ore the msm spin crap,the more popular the Don becomes.An entire underclass of dienchanted and disenfranchised voters in the US has been mobilised,and its starting to sink in.
Now I dont know about the US media,but its probably as retarded as that in the UK…..and the UK msm obviously hasnt leant any lessons from the fearmongering they kept churning out pre brexit
Now if clinton was so confident about beating the Don,why do you think her campaign had to resort to photoshopping a rally photo because so few people turned up?Only 171 in fact
http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshops-hillary-crowd-to-make-her-audience-look-bigger/
thats in a hall with a 4000 capacity 🙂
its like the referendum campaign…..I genuinely met 1 person who was voting remain….and that was my dumb brother in law who hasnt made a good decision in years.And how did the media play it?Resounding vitory on the cards for remain?
99.99% of people I knew were for brexit
the media are lying toerags….but unfortunately more and more people have realised this and now source real news from elsewhere.Any wonder the elites want to control and censor the net?Genie is out of the bottle and its gonna take a job to get it back in and they know it.
You only watch so called bbc and sky for a laugh nowadays
I love watching self satisfied lefty morons being brought down a peg or 6
and remember-the closer to the target,the heavier the flak
The MSM really think they can still control the news agenda. The days when 99% of Americans did not even know their President was in a wheelchair are long gone, but the MSM does not realise it yet.
Trump is not perfect, but Hillary Clinton is clearly a sick woman, who has without any doubt compromised national security with her cavalier attitude towards her email server. She is not fit, either physically or morally, to be President. But as far as the MSM is concerned, she is a liberal with a vagina, and that is all that matters. They may just find that that is not what matters to the real people. I certainly hope so.
I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the referendum; I also have a Borther who voted remain. But wherever I travelled in the weeks running up to the vote, and believe me, I DO get around. . .I never met anyone who was not vehemently FOR Leave. I guess that the only reason Mr, Cameron had no ‘Plan B’ in case he lost, was that he thought that the vote had been ‘Fixed’ more than sufficiently with dodgy postal votes and other shenanigans; and was dumbfounded when the Leavers actually won. On the subject of the Clintons, well,. . . it is interesting to note that all further ‘Rallies’ for the Democrats have now been cancelled in favour of fundraiser meetings, as Hillary isn’t attracting hordes of admirers . . .but to listen to MSM both in the States as well as in the UK, you could be forgiven for believing the polls putting Hillary way out in front. . . Hmmm. . .
Interesting times are a comin’ buddies. . . .roll on November.
Sadly, the more I see of Trump, the more I subscribe to the theory that he is a Clinton stooge, a mole put into the Republican ranks to destroy their campaign, but maybe this is what politics has come down to.
Apologies if this has been posted here before but this makes interesting reading regarding all the deaths “associated” with the Clintons, especially after they carelessly “lost” two more DNC campaigners recently http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/body-count/clinton-casualties/
Scott Adams brilliantly explained the rise of Trump, more than 1 year ago.
You may not be aware since the MSM and BBC keep expressing surprise at Trump instead of directing you to Scott Adams info (He’s the Dilbert cartoonist)
In February Adams published a summary of the story so far
basically : Reported phrases of Trump might seem mad, but he chooses the real phrases he is using come from master hypnotism type persuasion techniques. That’s why he keeps winning all the time.
– One technique is not to be bothered with what the people who are NOT going to vote for him think.
– The wall …is actually already built in parts . People aren’t generally aware that the US built it was built years ago in key parts.
– I’ve read his energy policy ..and the guy who wrote it really knew what he is talking about ..It’s not fantasy magical thinking of the greens etc.
BTW Adams has never said he supported Trump and made an official endorsement for Hillary … cos he said he was getting too many death threats from her supporters (read that how you will)
Like you @Lakeman from the beginning have wondered if Trump is merely a Hillary stooge.
but if he does win ..Adams says .you’ll have one hell of a smart guy in charge of the White House.
… and Hillary is a colander full of holes.
I’ve mentioned Scott Adams blog here before, and would thoroughly recommend anyone here who hasn’t looked at it to check it out.
Hillary seems to have her own master persuader on board now, hence the questioning of Trump’s sanity, so things could get interesting.
I’ve watched most of his live rallys not just sound bites and he is a genuine honest non PC guy. The thing is he is not a politician with guarded PC words and maybe that will do for him in the end . Being a New Yorker he likes to show humour .Thats not a bad thing but no way could what he said be construed as assassination.
It’s not working, they still haven’t learned that this approach gets them the opposite of whst they want. Current social media figures suggest a landslide for Trump, despite the media’s best efforts. The American media is so apologetic towards Clinton that it actually does make the BBC seem moderate and objective in comparison. Thank goodness for Breitbart.
Did anyone listen to the Radio 4 drama on the Clintons last weekend? I’m afraid I didn’t, my stomach isn’t strong enough. But I wonder in what sort of light they were portrayed, positively I would wager.
We commented on the weekend thread :
“The R4 Clinton history drama yesterday probably wasn’t what the BBC buyer was expecting..It featured Hillary being deceptive as his team struggled to cover up all his past adulteries and the Clintons put on the happy family face ..There are 2 more episodes to come (episode 2 already online )” StewGreen August 7, 2016 at 9:03 pm
Donald trump has so much baggage on Hillary Clinton he must be waiting for the debates. Her only chance will be sympathy.
Can we have some of this on the so called bbc?
Whaddya mean no?
Knowingly defending a rapist she knew was guilty of raping a child…..and laughing about it into the bargain
The bitch is satan with a vagina
BBC Online News:
“”US election: Trump blames media for ‘gun threat’ row””
“”He told Fox News “dishonest” reporters had twisted his remarks, which appeared to suggest that gun rights advocates could stop Mrs Clinton if elected”” (BBC brings in Fox News. They hate Fox News. And we are expected to share their hate).
“”The businessman-turned-politician denied incitement and said he was exhorting his supporters to vote”” (BBC hate capitalist businessmen. And we are expected to share their hate. He denied incitement…a clever use of words to suggest guilt).
“”The comments on Tuesday afternoon sparked a firestorm of criticism”” (The firestorm was confined to the BBC/Left).
“”Some interpreted his comments as a dark suggestion that gun owners could take up arms against Mrs Clinton, while others said they were at the very least irresponsible remarks that could have violent consequences”” ( Who is ‘some’? Who are ‘others ‘? As always, the BBC quotes non-existent witnesses to support their bias.
“”And Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren said it was a death threat by a “pathetic coward” who was sore because he was trailing in the polls to a woman”” (I rest my case, m’Lud).
So, this is the ‘death threat’, word for word:
“”The Republican presidential nominee said of his Democratic opponent: “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment, by the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.
But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.””
How the hell is that a death threat?
The BBC hate Trump. Total and absolute Left wing fascist bias.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37036624
“”Some interpreted his comments as a dark suggestion that gun owners could take up arms against Mrs Clinton, while others said they were at the very least irresponsible remarks that could have violent consequences”” ( Who is ‘some’? Who are ‘others ‘? As always, the BBC quotes non-existent witnesses to support their bias.
So true. That’s the way the lazy propagandists work.
But Trump knows the left is going to jump on him at every opportunity and it’s dumb of him not to be more careful.
There is certainly justification for interpreting his words as a veiled threat.
I’ve tried to look at what he said as impartially as possible, and I just can’t see how it was a veiled threat. He seemed to be saying to gun-owners that Hillary Clinton would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would attempt restrict gun ownership. They might be able to fight that with the second amendment, but there’s no guarantee. So do you want to take that chance by voting for Hillary?
That said, there may well be nuances in the USA that go over my head – but isn’t it up to the BBC to explain them to those of us in the UK instead of blindly following the Democrat views?
Roland Deschain, I support Trump and I really hope the catastrophe of a crooked Hillary presidency will not happen. Here’s the problem with what Trump said, though: first he said that if she gets in, there’ll be nothing people can do and then he added that perhaps second amendment people will be able to do something about it. So the concept of her being voted in had already been introduced, which made the additional comment really suspect.
True:
Trump often speaks off the cuff. He is not a political robot. The hysterical claim that he was advocating the assassination of Hillary Clinton was a a left wing hatchet job which the MSM took up enthusiastically. I truly believe that, as with Brexit, we have reached peak MSM, and the people no longer believe their bullshit.
Aren’t second amendment people those who will champion the second amendment to strike down any action by HIllary as unconstitutional? Why would anyone assume he means they should shoot Hillary? Perhaps it’s an American thing, the nuances of which should have been obvious to Trump but they aren’t to me.
Here’s Trump:
Hillary Clinton short-circuited again … when she accidentally told the truth and said that she wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.
Hilarious! Blunders aside, the guy can be incredibly perceptive and entertaining at the same time.
Just before 27 minutes in:
something you will never see in mainstream media
http://www.infowars.com/assange-hillarys-campaign-reeks-of-mccarthyism/
The BBC seems to have figured out that jumping on the 00Donald bandwagon wheels are falling off, but can’t quite let go.
So their new tack is to selectively quote people reacting to selective quotes, and use these as headlines and image captions as one degree of separation misinformation.
Oh dear…..another story the hypocrite media brushed under the carpet and hope doesnt surface again…..
http://www.infowars.com/flashback-hillary-strategist-calls-for-assassination-of-wikileaks-julian-assange/
FLASHBACK: HILLARY STRATEGIST CALLS FOR ASSASSINATION OF WIKILEAKS’ JULIAN ASSANGE
“There’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch”
A dead man can’t leak stuff,” Beckel told Fox Business’ Eric Bolling in a 2010 interview. “This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I’m not for the death penalty, so… there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”
The remarks were highlighted by the media organization Wednesday amid a media meltdown over the source of the Democrat National Committee leaks which have led to the resignation of four DNC employees.
If true that’s amazing … They can make an actual death plan and that’s OK.
Trump makes some vague 1 line joke and the whole world implodes.
Is it odd that the BBC are not all of a lather over Trump’s claim that Obama & Clinton created ISIS (see Telegraph)? Perhaps the BBC see that as more credible than their usual daily Trump hate stories.
BBC – Impartiality: Introduction – Editorial Guidelines:
Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.
So, in other words, it is meaningless. Nothing more than a fig leaf behind which the BBC hides its biases.
Reporting on Donald Trump makes Donald Trump look bad. This is because of what Trump says and does, not the fault of those telling you about it.
Go on telling yourself that, Kikuchiyo. I’m sure it’s a mantra you and the rest of your MSM colleagues find deeply reassuring on the rare occasions your consciences stir.
Personally, I have no time for Trump. Then again, I have even less for the BBC’s absurdly partial reporting of the US election.
Reporting on Donald Trump makes Donald Trump look bad.
I totally agree with that. Trump makes Trump look bad. The only problem is that when Hillary makes Hillary look bad, and there are a lot of examples, it is never reported.
The wilileaks DNC expose
The Clinton foundation controversy
email sever scandal
sniper fire in Bosnia
The list goes on. take a look at alternative news sites.
I’d say that reporting on what Trump didn’t do or didn’t say can make him look bad. Thus, he did not suggest that Hillary Clinton be assassinated, nor did he “attack” the parents of a muslim soldier. However, if the utterly biased left wing MSM report it as if he did, then, yes, it can make him look bad.
But I seriously think that the MSM have shot their bolt now. They are not the gatekeepers of knowledge they once were. We can see through their lies and duplicity. We see that they are advocating shamelessly for a woman who, by any objective standard, is a criminal and a security risk.
i am hopeful that the American people will reject the lies of the MSM and elect a patriot to the White House in November.
‘Thus, he did not suggest that Hillary Clinton be assassinated, nor did he “attack” the parents of a muslim soldier. ‘
My ears either deceive me then, or there’s a very good lookalike/soundalike of his touring around.
I suggest new batteries for your hearing aid.
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See.
Coming from the weekend duty glee club of the ‘Oo, look… Squirrel’ broadcaster, also priceless.
The DNC expose?
That would be the one the Party chair resigned over?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36879197
Email server scandal? Never heard of it…..oh wait?!?!
The DNC expose?
That would be the one the Party chair resigned over?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36879197
Email server scandal? Never heard of it…..oh wait?!?!
Kik
How much coverage did it get on BBC TV?
Was this reported on the BBC?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek8mr8zodk4
If the BBC has to provide Trolls, at least they should provide informative and intelligent people.
I think you object to trump’s tone rather than what he says. Hillary’s said many similar things .You’ve joined allegiance with as the indigenous population supposedly said ( white man speak with fork tongue).The reality is mr trump speaks with passion and emotion of the damage to his country.The anarchy,the left’s attempts to change america forever.It will be yet another defeat for the liberal left,people are know longer fooled by the media’s LIES.
I don’t object to his tone.i know I don’t have a vote but I would still like the BBC to report fairly the substance of what he and Clinton are saying.
What people mean by his ” tone “is he does not speak PC language and they are all having a fit of the vapours.
Problem is Debs, there is no substance to what he says.
Nor any in the BBC’s reporting – either of what he or Clinton says.
We are here to discuss bias. You refuse to see it even when it couldn’t be more manifest if it exploded in your face. For the umpteenth time: where is the BBC’s coverage of all the awkward questions being asked about the both Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Sorry Kiku-I think you`re making a simple category error above.
You say that the median “make Trump look bad”-but based on what he says and what he does.
Rewind it.
The media have yet to catch Trump out on what he DOES-because he has no political track record, save for a few bindigs around tax affairs and employees at his colleges when the Sugarhill Gang were in the charts.
No-they continue to pepperspray Trump only on what he SAYS..what he IS.
But what he IS is too well known-and he`s a blowhard who`s hit the liberal nerves much as Boris or Nigel did here in the UK recently.
BUT-he has not colluded in rape, not betrayed national security with secret emails, not had US Embassy staff killed because she`d rather suck up to Islamists in Benghazi than do her damned job.
Nor has he given Mexican drugs cartels free guns to shaft the NRA-only to have the same guns used to kill border guards in the USA.
Nor has he cost the state billions in kickbacks, crap deals, foundation funds in her family name-and he pays his own way, as opposed to sucking at Wall St teats.
Whereas all the above-and lots more-DOES apply to Hilliary Clinton.
And-as yet, the BBC seem not to be applying that toothcomb of theirs to Clinton.They just want a woman President-no matter how ill, greedy, corrupt and creepy she is.
Has she even DONE a Press Conference yet?…or spoken as Trump does at rallies?
Double standards..if Trump was being a Zen monk, the BBC would be merciless-but they choose not to wonder why Clinton won`t talk to us…
You`d think they were biased..but , as we know-we voted Leave despite them…and their pathetic impotence as Trump storms home in a country that they hate only slightly less than Israel-well, WE know what they`re up to.
Chris:
Very true. For the left wing MSM it is a case of vote Hillary because… vagina. Her numerous crimes and misdemenours are less relevant than the configuration of her genitals. Oh, and her left wing views of course. If a black woman such as Condi Rice had ever been the Republican candidate, the MSM would still have treated her like something they found on their shoe, because… Republican.
The day the whole MSM crashes and burns cannot come too soon for me. I hope the demise of the “Independent” was just the start. Let’s hope it’s the Guardian next, and then the BBC!
What he says is part of what he does. He’s been doing it for weeks now, and it’s fair to judge what kind of President he might be based on his behaviour, which is in public.
He also has a long and well known record, and the results for people’s lives are there to see. As is how this conflicts with what he says.
But then I can see why a vacuous, racist, ill-informed, misogynist, demagogic autocrat would appeal to many here.
And I can see why a far Left broadcasting organisation which refuses to equally explore the faults in both candidates would appeal to others.
You deliberately misunderstand. Few here would complain about Trump’s treatment by the BBC if the BBC equally judged what kind of President Hillary might be based on her behaviour, which is just as public but strangely less used by the MSM.
So chicken pox should be considered the same as ebola?
Frothy nonsense. You need to get such hysterical tendencies under control. Heaven knows where they may need.
A more sober analysis would be that neither of these clowns should be allowed within a mile of the Big Red Button.
Kikichio
I will gladly offer a list of what I regard as faults with Trump and I share with many Republicans that dilemma of whether to support someone who we have expressed concerns with in order to defeat Hillary who will be a disaster.
Consequently I find offensive your remarks about the kind of people here who support Trump, which is different to the complaints here that the BBC is reporting Trump in a very biased way.
Can we consider just one accusation here. Racist. In what respect does Trump qualify as a racist? Does he discriminate on the colour of people’s skin? Why do prominent and highly intelligent black Americans like Allen West support him? There is no evidence to support the charge of racism. The other accusations have been met many times over by informed women like Ann Coulter.
Enjoy these two Trump supporters – a pair of racists?
He’s not gonna to walk onto stage and say ‘I hate blacks’, but it doesn’t take much reading between the lines.
Mind-reading now? Is there no end to your list of talents?
It goes with the various doctorates (awarded by Leftoids to Leftoids/Beeboids only) which allow the recipient to –
Pronounce learnedly on mental illness based on supposed voting pattern
Pronounce learnedly on political leaning based on alleged overheard shouting at the time of a murder (unless such shouting was ‘Allahu Akhbar’ when it doesn’t count)
Pronounce learnedly on age based on supposed voting pattern
Ignore any evidence contrary to the ‘doctor’s’ received wisdom
Define ‘racism’ by the objection to the overwhelming influence of Muslims on decent patterns of behaviour long accepted as a minimum requirement by the indigenous (qv) peoples of this country
Deny that pre-1997 the UK had an indigenous and broadly homogenous society .
“…doesn’t take much reading between the lines”
Go on then; you know you want to, like that application to be a BBC editor of integrity.
You’ll ace it.
“But then I can see why a vacuous, racist, ill-informed, misogynist, demagogic autocrat would appeal to many here. ”
The inner troll always comes out in the end. Do you feel better now?
Quoting BBC Guidelines the BBC wrote for the BBC, and still often break…. priceless.
Morning, campers…
https://bbcwatch.org/2016/08/12/bbc-earth-article-contravenes-style-guide-with-inaccurate-terminology/
the reporting on Trump is in direct proportion to the lack of reporting on Clinton
what you arent hearing about the witch is far more important than what you do hear
Unlike Trump,The father of the terrorist is not standing for election as President. It makes sense from a journalistic point of view to focus on the candidates. In this case, I do not see any evidence of deliberate bias.
Your first sentence is factually correct. Your second rather misses many points on who and what the BBC focuses upon, often after a period in the edit suite, and who and what their editorial integrity does not have time for. By sheer coincidence your third reads like an ECU Director’s attempt to close down a valid critique.
I am not attempting to close down the critique. I accept that, for the most part, the BBC is biased against Trump. However, that does not mean that every item reflects that bias. I am merely trying, unlike the BBC, to be fair, unbiased and impartial in my assessment of its output. There are better examples to bring to the table demonstrating the BBC’s predominantly anti-Trump bias
rogertidy – you have a fair point however as many have stated on this site on a daily basis the fact that is being pointed out is that trump is scrutinised under the largest proverbial microscope available and has sentences lifted out of an hour long speech to fit an agenda. Clinton on the other hand who has well documented skeletons in her closet is hailed as some sort of archangel when she is not, any of her shortcomings are never reported. What a lot of people don’t realise about this site is that the contributors are not asking for the BBC to run with a pro Trump agenda – we are asking for simple, honest, fair news reporting, that’s all. However as I say I do accept your point but also challenge your ‘”that does not mean that every item reflects that bias”, please post a link to any BBC article that backs this claim. As cynical as posters on this site may be, sadly they are more often than not correct!
There are better examples to bring to the table demonstrating the BBC’s predominantly anti-Trump bias
As this site is dedicated to exposing BBC bias, and as that’s exactly what contributors do, could you please enlighten us with some of your own ‘better’ examples….
And yet carterdaniel above lists a number of matters directly about the other candidate which the BBC has decided not to focus on. To which you can add her apparent health problems, which I’d humbly suggest is a massive issue if true.
I honestly don’t believe the BBC has a leg to stand on with regard to its coverage of the US election. This should surprise no one who has seen it at work in the past. With both GWB and Obama it showed total disregard for even the vaguest principles of impartiality. The difference is that, this time, it has gone completely overboard in its constant attacks on Trump.
That said, let’s not pretend the BBC is unique in this respect. Hardly any British newspaper, indeed hardly any British writers, have done any better. The difference, of course, is that we are constantly told the BBC is a paragon of virtue in its impartiality. Self-evidently, this is a bare faced lie, as this election has proved beyond doubt.
All quite true. This month I cancelled my Sky subscription (after four years) in sheer disgust at their pathetic lack of objective, unbiased journalism. On everything from climate change, to the so-called ‘migrant crisis’, to Trump they simply parrot the same regressive propaganda as the hated BBC.
When will the UK actually get a news broadcaster that is not infested with unprofessional, completely biased regressive morons?
ObiWan – any chance u could shed some light on my post in the midweek thread its about 20 posts up as I believe your one of the tech savvy posters on here
Hey I’ve got hold of a leak of Next Tuesday’s MSM headline news !
– “Trump caught picking his nose” : they will open news progs with 5 mins on this.
Then
– On Wednesday the same progs will open with “Hillary reacts to Trump picking his nose”
…Those stories will have the same relevance to UK public as what was shoved in their faces this week
Trump is always the bogey man.
#PayToPlay: Hillary Clinton faces corruption scandal after links between donors & State Dept exposed
https://www.rt.com/usa/355447-clinton-emails-state-department-foundation/
“Clinton’s biggest fear is WikiLeaks’ Assange, claiming to have Clinton’s emails” – commentator
I’ve been watching the non-news on Breakfast when they have been concentrating on the Olympics. However this morning there were some actual news stories. Call me cynical (or Dave) I was just wondering if it was an excuse to run this “tragic” story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37053699 You remember http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2988918/Now-s-police-s-fault-MI5-blamed-evil-Jihadi-John-runaway-girls-families-accuse-Met.html the Met were to blame MI5 were to blame. Seems that once daish were getting their asses kicked after Russia started it’s death from above program, funny how all the other bombing by other countries hasn’t appeared to have the same effect, she suddenly felt the need to return to the UK. So “feared dead” by whom exactly?
Friendly advice to Trump. Be careful, don’t take the bait.
Tomi socks it. They don’t have her balls in the BBC