Apparently the media have to stop being nasty to Corbyn. Can’t say I’ve noticed the BBC being nasty, being very restrained and grovelling yes, nasty? no.
Is the BBC biased? draws our attention to an article by Newsnight’s James O’Brien, the man whose stock in trade is a hefty dose of deep unpleasantness combined with lies, outraged moral anger and smug self-righteousness but who thinks poor old Corbyn is having a hard time….the media must be nice to him and his wonderful policies…
James O’Brien said today that it was time for the media to change the way it talks about Corbyn.
He said: “The media, myself included, now have to stop talking about Jeremy Corbyn like he is some sort of pimple on the backside of British politics and start talking about him as the only alternative Prime Minister to Theresa May.
“That is what he is.
“I’m not going to lie to you. I’ve made a conscious personal and professional decision to leave the scepticism at the door and will now treat this party and this man as I treat all politicians – with a degree of cynicism but not as some sort of aberration.
And questioning the negative media reception to Corbyn’s polciies, he said: “Try this on for size. We spend far too much money on war and weapons and we should be spending that money on the poor.
“What’s not to like about that?
“Why is that even controversial?”
He added: “I used to call it undergraduate, quasi-Marxist. Parking all that language, it’s over, it’s finished, it’s meaningless.
“You begin to look for finer detail in the policy. You struggle at the moment to see it, but who comes up with a fully-fledged manifesto within a few weeks of being leader, or a year? He’s not got an election to fight.”
Praising Corbyn’s qualities, he said: “You see a strength in the man, a lot of other people would have buckeld under the sheer weight of abuse he has recieved from his own party let along the media and establishment.
“You’ve got a leader who really does appear to represent a profound alternative to the notion of business as usual.
“Why has that been treated so negatively?”
Possibly because he’s a dyed in the wool Marxist with policies that would destroy the economy, our defences and our society…never mind presiding over a steep rise in anti-Semitism and violent abusive behaviour in his party and rather than do anything about it actually ignored the anti-semitism before greeting one attacker with praise and a slap on the back, and of course he is the man who gave a peerage to someone who was supposed to be holding an inquiry into that anti-Semitism…perhaps that explains why the inquiry was such a white-wash.
Speaking of which…good old Andrew Neil interviews a very Shifty Shami:
Raises a few questions about Corbyn as well doesn’t it? Not allowed to ask them apparently.
Still, Corbyn is an honourable man…no?
O’Brien should never have been given a job on Newsnight to start with, he got it solely on the basis of his hatchet job attack on Farage so bigging up Corbyn won’t be seen as an obstacle in his new career.
I wonder what the BBC Trust would make of it…presumably they’d say, ala Packham, that he wasn’t a regular BBC employee…however he is of course involved in news and public policy related output…..surely he is breaking editorial guidelines on impartiality…speaking of which….
The new editor of a BBC wildlife magazine has said despite the BBC Trust ruling on Packham she would not have allowed him to use the language he did.
New editor of the magazine Sheena Harvey told the BBC Trust: “Coming to this magazine as the new editor and with a fresh eye, I will say
that I feel some of the language used by Chris Packham in that column was somewhat flippant and the use of a phrase such as ‘nasty brigade’ would not have been let through had I been overseeing the content.
The BBC’s response?
The BBC Trust complaints committee said: “The committee considered that the fact that BBC Wildlife Magazine’s new editor would not have allowed the term ‘nasty brigade’ to have been published, together with the fact that both complainants had been given a right to reply to it, meant that the issue had been resolved and no further action needed to be taken.”
Hmmmm….so even though it looks like Packham was wrong to use the language he did and should have been brought up by the Trust for saying it the Trust has decided there is nothing to see here because in future he wouldn’t be allowed to use that language.
How can a complaint be dismissed because someone agrees something is wrong but says in future it won’t be allowed? That just opens up all sorts of possibilities and a world where no complaint is successful….unless you put one in now for future programmes in the expectation someone says something that is controversial and they do.
Bet the Nazis wished they’d thought of that defence at Nuremberg….sorry, won’t let it happen again.
A peerage for Shifty Shami. Nigel Farage deserves a peerage for what he’s done for this country much more than this disgraceful woman
When headmaster Ray Honeyford was driven from his job and into a suicidally miserable last years of his life, his tormentor-in-chief was a black, Marxist professor called Chris Mullard. Honeyfords “racial crime” was wanting children at his school educated in English, rather than Urdu, thereby enhancing their life chances. Mullard thought this racist, but then again Mullard had no time for well educated non-whites simply because happy, successful ethnic minorities were useless to him in terms of Communist revolution. Mullard had this to say in one of his books:
“Already we have started to rebel, to kick out against our jailers…As more black Britons leave school disgruntled, as more black Britons discard their yoke of humility, the ultimate confrontation will become clearer…Blacks will fight with pressure, leaflets, campaigns, demonstrations, fists and scorching resentment which, when peaceful means fail, will explode into street fighting, urban guerrilla warfare, looting, burning and rioting.”
Honeyford died disgraced and suicidally unhappy. The wonderful, brilliant, moral, kind Roger Scruton, who argued for Honeyford, lost his academic job. Professor Mullard though….. was awarded a CBE for “Services to Education”
Without a real, physical counter-revolution, England will disappear well before 2050. The rewards for evil Mullard and Shami Chakrabarti alongside the persecution of good men like Honeyford, Scruton and Farage tell us all we need to know about the absolute necessity of genuine counter-revolution.
Paul
This is proof of course that the likes of Chakrabarti are part of the establishment. They really are strange creatures in that on the one hand they are ‘anti establishment’ then on the other they apparently are keen on the trappings of ‘the establishment’.
I think I have been wrong all these years about the far left, they really are power junkie stooges after all they can get, let’s not forget how much that great socialist stalwart Tony Benn left in his will, and of course the revelations coming out about that other socialist wrecker Arthur Scargill.
By the way, well done on your quoting Sir Winston which I saw on YTube! Your arrest was quite frankly unbelievable.
Shami is a vile , nasty, repulsive piece of work.
And questioning the negative media reception to Corbyn’s policies, he said: “Try this on for size. We spend far too much money on war and weapons and we should be spending that money on the poor.
“What’s not to like about that?
“Why is that even controversial?”
Says Corbyn/O’Brien.
Where do these people think spending on ‘war’ goes and how could it be directed to the ‘poor’? Modern defence spending largely goes on paying wages to skilled designers and well-paid workers, the material costs, the ‘steel’ in ships etc. is a small part. Divert that budget to pay for extra fags, booze and sugar for the ‘poor’ and what happens to the export income and all the unemployed in the defence industries and the armed forces?
A case in point is the so-called ‘Trident renewal’, very little to do with nuclear weapons and pretty much everything to do with keeping submarine builders busy in Barrow.
The simple solution is indeed “undergraduate (primary school?), quasi-Marxist thinking”.
An excellent point.
In a dangerous world we spend a mere 2% of our GDP on defence. What is so hard for a brain dead leftist like James O’Brien to understand about that?
This guy “James O’Brien” works on both LBC and Newsnight and writes in the Guardian as well!
On LBC he sounds a dim raving lefty.
Some journalists are thick and left-wing, like the ghastly Kay Burley, but I can almost forgive them because they don’t really know any better.
James O’Brien on the other hand is highly intelligent. He is also the most repulsive, malevolent, sanctimonious, biased, bullying, wicked man I have come across in my life.
As a result, I’m sure he is very popular within the BBC.
As a rule it is totally inappropriate to wish ill on another human being, however, in the case James O’Brien I’d make an exception.
Paul
I used to think O’Brien was intelligent, however he has lot’s of time to read unlike most of the rest of us who generally have 9 till 5 jobs. He does a three hour show five days a week, he researches his topics well and knows his stuff by wrote in many instances. I have also seen him on a losing side of the argument and he certainly is clever in the way he can deflect and divert from an awkward situation he finds himself in.
‘Intelligent’ yes but ‘highly’ no, for ‘highly’ think arrogant, obnoxious, loud, blinkered, and extreme leftard.
O’Brien is a totally obnoxious individual. A stain on humanity, in fact.
BTW this outrageously calling bias when none exist, and basking in playing the victim …is something I have seen with climate change PR people …the kind of devious thing done by those Momentum people caught by the undercover filming in C4 dispatches 8 days ago.
I cannot stand that socially awkward, sanctimonious motor mouth o brien. He just talks loudly, fast and over people. Pillock.
The BBC and all the rest will be good with anyone supporting unlimited migration, the demise of the western way of life, open borders, the demise of brexit etc…It’s not about parties. Kay Burley supported Cameron because he supported ( some openly some not so openly) all the above. I kind of start believing david icke apart from the reptilian stuff. One world order. A small elite and a massive serving low wages lot under. Islam serves well because it still works as a submission/controlling tool. Christianty is now too diluted and optional. As far as I am concerned parliament is now 4/5 of the above sort and 1/5 opposed to the big melting pot. Those are the parties.
O’Brien really is an absolute disgrace to his profession, he has over the years come to the stage where I no longer listen to his programme just the odd snippet to see where the enemy is headed.. rather like the ‘One Show’ it is important too see where they are headed next.
O’Brien absolutely lambasted Trump’s in his debate with Illary Clinton on LBC, such was his rampant opinion I almost thought maybe that was the case as I never watched it. However having read many articles it appears a draw is about right. this of course shows the blinkered views of the likes of O’Brien. His appearance on Newsnight is almost incomprehensible such is his lack of self awareness and decency to others of opposing views.
Obviously desperate for his peerage.
Vowed never to watch Newsnight a few years ago and haven’t, so don’t know this brave and challenging journalist. However, it seem there is a clear consensus about him on the web. Wonder if the BBC know?. . . http://is-a-cunt.com/2016/08/james-o-brien/