Marr says, and I interpret and give voice to his intended meaning, that, ‘as a news service‘ [lol], the BBC would be dishonouring all those who fought the Nazis to not quiz Marine Le Penn in light of the next big threat to Western security…ie the rise of Trump…and of course by implication Brexit and Le Pen herself…all lumped together and branded a ‘threat to Western security’.
Rather think the only people who have betrayed those who died fighting tyranny and oppression are in the ranks of the BBC which even now hunts down our soldiers labelling them war criminals whilst defending and excusing those who seek to kill and murder them on the streets of Britain and around the world.
As for Trump being a threat to Western security who is more threatening? This man…
…or Trump who wants dialogue with Putin?
Odd how times change…not so long ago the BBC was criticising Clinton for her failure to ‘press the reset button’ on the US’s relation with Russia…..
Whatever happened to the reset button?
Early in the life of the Obama administration we were treated to one of those cheesy “made-for-TV” moments that was just about too corny even for our exalted medium.
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton travelled to Geneva to meet the Russian foreign minister and pressed the reset button.
A real-life big red button, symbolising a new start, a better relationship.
So Obama wanted dialogue with Putin, but failed…was he a ‘threat to Western security’ then?
Just last month the BBC were asking…
Russia and the West: Where did it all go wrong?
It is hard to imagine a period since the end of the Cold War when relations between Russia and the United States have been quite so bad.
The Russian president has spoken explicitly about the worsening climate between Washington and Moscow, insisting that what the Obama administration wants is “diktat” rather than dialogue.
Whatever its immediate strategic intentions, a permanent war in Syria doesn’t benefit Moscow any more than Washington.
But without that basic level of trust and understanding between them, any dialogue rests upon shaky foundations. It was never supposed to be like this. The end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new era.
So where did it all go wrong? Why were Russia and the West unable to forge a different type of relationship? Who is to blame? Was it US over-reach and insensitivity, or Russia’s nostalgia for Soviet greatness?
Sir John Sawers, the former head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), is also a former UK ambassador to the United Nations and has watched Russian diplomacy unfold over recent years.
In a recent BBC interview he said that the West had not paid sufficient attention to building the right strategic relationship with Russia over the last eight years.
“If there was a clear understanding between Washington and Moscow about the rules of the road – that we are not trying to bring down each other’s systems – then solving regional problems like Syria or Ukraine or North Korea – which is coming rapidly down the path towards us – would be easier,” he said.
Several experts I spoke to also pointed to the flat-footedness of the Obama administration’s diplomacy and the mixed signals it has often sent.
Fairly clear, NATO expansion, failure of diplomacy [ie Clinton’s failure] and lack of dialogue ended in a failure to develop good relations with Russia. So how is Trump’s wish to have amicable relations with Putin a threat when not so long ago the BBC itself concluded such dialogue was necessary?
As always the BBC changes and shifts its new output and conclusions to suit its narrative…this time it hates Trump so everything Trump does is bad…never mind under Obama such a policy of dialogue and diplomacy would have been good.
Marr is so worried about his own popularity with his coterie of fellow-travellers that he feels obliged to issue a long and grovelling apology before an interview takes place! Clearly, for him, Godwin’s Law is only a problem if it’s invoked by those who share different opinions to him and Churchill’s ‘Jaw, Jaw’ is less preferable than ‘War, war’.
Great start, Andrew, to once again, displaying your and your employers total non-impartiality – well that’s guaranteed to enrage half of your viewers before an interview even takes place.
Once upon a time, the BBC used to dig up the dirt for the Nation now it just digs a deeper hole for itself.
Marr? Well above market rate, but not the sharpest chisel in the tool box.
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/more-on-marr.html
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/mr-marr-meets-jeremy-corbyn.html
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/shut-up.html
As Mr. Marr could win a gurning contest without pulling a face, such a turn of phrase is….brave.
Along with weighing in on issues of locker room antics, as a few ladies I know feel a dirty old lecher grabbing a staffer’s frillies down her strides, in public, is not the act of a gentleman still employed by the BBC to quiz titans of integrity that will also still include Prescott, J. Even if one bottle shy of a heart attack by way of ‘explanation’.
Thanks for the links to that blog, great stuff.
Andrew was also quite free with his descriptive powers this morning, describing Donald Trump “sitting there like a silverback primate” with his family on CBS and describing Nigel Farage’s smile in that photo with Mr Trump as “gurning”:
For’Descriptive powers’ read subjectivity – well outside of the BBC’s Charter obligation to impartiality when it comes to matters political.
The BBC and liberal establishment aren’t interested in protecting the people or the country. They’re simply angry at having been beaten.
All Lives Matter. The BBC are simply angry at having been beaten?
We, we merry band of brothers, are also extremely angry because they have no right, ever, to analyse the news, massage the facts, give their own opinions or contend that their views are the right ones. They are truly sore they have backed the wrong horse on the last 3 occasions. They need to get out more!!
They contend they are impartial? What a joke – in fact it’s gone far beyond a joke now.
The threat to Western security comes from the BBC and their like and the mass import of peoples that do not share our cultural values.
On the positive side at least the BBC has made available to us the views of a European politician, (surely a first?), which, for a Europhile broadcaster is remarkable.
Sadly for them Le Pen’s message derives from the roots of the French constitution that arose from their bloody revolutions, namely one united nation with a secular society. To anyone with a ‘conservative’ mind the idea of family, tribe and nation united sounds like a recipe for stability and happiness. Why would anyone want to replace that with the universal hatred that is inevitable with ‘multi-culturism’ and ‘open borders’? The former is a model that has worked for generations; the later is a theory of ‘intellectuals’ that has no basis on human nature and, indeed, requires humans to change to fit ‘the system’.
Hopefully ‘Brexit’, Trump and Le Pen will be part of the fight-back to sanity and the natural order.
What makes the BBC’s position even worse is that it only ever wishes its multiculti, ‘all cultures are equal’ paradise on Western democracies – people of other nations, especially African and Middle Eastern (except Israel, of course), are always shown to be lovely, lovely, lovely whilst ignoring their overt mono-culturalism (of which they are usually very proud) and comparative deficit in democracy and social development.
BBC Sounds better in German: Britische Rundfunkanstalt.
As I said in another thread. Is it dubbed so anyone understanding French won’t be able to hear in true context? Makes it easier to misquote and take things out of context for the general public.
The Marr interview with Le Pen had an active translation which was badly attached to the interview. A recent interview by S.Sakur with Marine Le Pen had English subtitles and was not confused with sound.(in that particular interview she memorably said to Sakur when he accused her about a poll rating ” Monsieur, You are British and you still believe in polls?”)
The practise of having an English verbal translation simultaneously competing with a French dialogue is deliberately confusing since the questions are put in English and the answers are over-talked with a French/English reply. This is very bad for the listener/viewer, unfair on the interviewee and illustrates poor consideration for the audience.
In the interests of fairness (because after all this site is about fairness) I would like to give kudos to the BBC for broadcasting this interview. However, is all what it seems?
First, is it mischief-making to schedule it on Remembrance Sunday in order to stoke up the cries of foul? The BBC loves twitter, so it will have been loving this or possibly instrumental in whipping up any “twitterstorm”.
Second, Marr’s “apology” is simply a chance to demonize Marine le Pen. Look, I am pretty centrist in my politics – some ideas from left of centre, some from right of centre, and I have a great mistrust of ideologues – but this is blatant signalling to the BBC’s bubble. I want to be allowed to hear an interview and make up my own mind, not have it framed in this way. Does he apologize for the far-Left loonies he interviews on a regular basis, far less call them out? What about Paul Mason, or even Corbyn – do they get introduced with a disclaimer?
Third, Marr makes several insulting conflations, not least that of making sure that the viewer links Nazism and the Front National. Any other careful listeners notice the way he asked whether her brand of politics was “on the march”? Plenty of other casual insinuations in the language, too. I would have been far more interested to know exactly where he thinks the parallels are, and debate this. I am not saying this as a supporter of Madame le Pen, just as someone who sees the dangers of simplistic assumptions to suit the political narrative, especially at a time when calling people by these tired labels is being shown every day to harden their attitudes.
Fourth, I am unhappy about the way the interpreter spoke over le Pen, so that those of us who speak French had no way of telling how well her words were being translated. When all trust has gone in the national broadcaster, we needed to hear her speak.
Good post Raphael. Your analysis of the way the Le Pen interview was “framed” is a good example of how BBC bias works.
As it happens we could make a direct comparison with the way in which the far leftist, Corbyn was handled on the specific issue of anti Semitism.
I was nonplussed at watching “far right, nationalist party leader” Marine le Pen being asked to explain her fathers 30 year old comments on the Holocaust….after the comment had been spun slightly by Marr…an “accident” (which le pen senior didn’t say) elided with a “detail” which I’m told he did say. This was early in the interview and thus framed the interviewee as being on the defensive from the start.
Corbyn on the other hand, had his cuddly credentials confirmed by the story of his “dear old friend” accompanying him to the Cenotaph, but at no point did Marr ask Corbyn about his personal and his party’s more recent troubles with and relationships with anti Semites in the Hamas influenced Islamist Palestinian terrorist groups. Nor was Corbyn asked about the questionable ennobling of Shami Chakerabati following her whitewash inquiry into anti semitism within the Labour Party this year.
Why? Bias that’s why. Blatant bias.
Thank you, embolden and johnnythefish. Thanks to this site, too, for providing the forum to debate this. It is clear that the BBC’s lamentable grasp of journalism has to be called out in public. Equally clear that there’s no point in making a direct complaint because they will always tell you that they “got it about right” even when they are lying through their teeth.
Actually, their journalism – like that of the US mainstream media – has been not only lamentable but downright dangerous. Of course Clinton’s aggrieved and not very bright but “caring” voters, along with the UK’s fellow travellers think the world is coming to an end – they have been fed a false narrative for far too long. They don’t even know which way is up, what’s a lie and what isn’t, let alone what real fascism is. They feel awful, they express themselves by violence and emotion. They know they are right and that something has gone horribly wrong but they haven’t yet worked out that it’s because they have been taken for a ride.
Third, Marr makes several insulting conflations….
Conflation is a finely-honed component of the BBC Subversion Toolbox.
The New York Times is appealing to it’s readers to continue supporting it as readership numbers plummet after it’s BBC long jaw moment post election result.
We promise not to be biased in the future blah blah blah.
Too late assholes, last one out turn off the lights.
http://www.mediaite.com/print/nyt-publisher-promises-to-dededicate-paper-to-fair-reporting-after-trumps-election-win/
Anyone believing that sanctimonious crap will need to have their bumps felt. But at least, unlike the BBC, they’ve put their contrition on record and henceforth can be judged accordingly.
Reasons why Marine le Pen is right…
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones
I have been thinking about that link concerning areas of France that are no-go zones because of Muslims, I was astonished how bad it is in France,if this sin’t sorted soon,(and it will take the army to sort it out), then France is a goner to the civilised world.
My wife and were touring France in the 80s and went to visit her cousin who lived near Narbonne on the south coast, we told him we had gone through Beziers and he said “stay away from there,too many Arabs”, (his words), and that was a long time ago.
It really makes me wonder what the hell our EU leaders such as Merkel really think they are playing at letting more and more in from these countries, it will not end well?
Whilst true, this is an old report. More up-to-date reports are required to continue the narrative.
Exactly, Wild Bill. Yet again, more news that we are NEVER told by our despicable broadcaster.
Marr begins with an apology to members of the red army standing outside with the SWP banners.
Then, predictably he asks if she is a racist.
Anyone who follows Marr’s pals in the SWP/UAF will find that they chant about Le Pen being a fascist but only produce one sentence to establish this – a remark by her father to the effect that the Holocaust was a detail in history – and of course Marr produced his comrades statement . She was truly insulted – not because she has repeatedly disavowed it as her belief and has done so for years. She was insulted because she was confronted by such a dickhead.
Can’t the BBC hire people who can conduct interviews.
For the record – the man who long ago employed Marr worked over a couple of days for me. He was not a big success. Nuff said
It should be a crime to accuse someone of Racism without proof. But I do not know of any scientific definition of Race, that stands up to scrutiny.
The definition of Race was defined as visual differences between people who can interbreed, but now we have evidence that different species of Human could interbred. So in science we now have a definition that classes all dead Humans into different Species, and all Living Humans classed into different Races. There are no living species or dead races of Human. Also there is evidence that Red Indians exterminated Aboriginal Americans as they populated North America. So Racism could have evolved to eliminate competitors, not irrational hatred of the other.
But being a Mensa member, I don’t mind immigrants replacing white people at the BBC or the Labour Party or other low IQ white lefties. Just me, my family, UKIP supporters and all other intelligent Yorkshire, English and British patriots.
And Canada should build a wall to keep the White Democrats out.
Racism is a device created (or at least exacerbated) by the left to silence dissidents and to disguise and justify its own racially-motivated homogenisation policies.
Looks like you’re all wrong. Here’s a totally unbiased opinion in a publication noted for it’s honesty.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/13/marine-le-pen-bbc-right
Hahaha! That is quite hilarious! Seriously, how far into far-left delusion do you have to be to think this? My God, a person who is genuinely far-Right appears on the BBC in 2009, so that’s the basis of the balance?! By this reasoning, surely Mills is inferring that there have been none since, until Marr and La Pen yesterday.
Good to see plenty of comments challenging – and we must not forget that is an Opinion piece, not what everyone at the Guardian thinks (well, mostly). Probably placed precisely so that the slow worms at the BBC can say “Look, lots of people think we are too Right-wing so we are getting it just about right!”
And, just for some sport, we Google Tom Mills and in a matter of minutes we see that he is some kind of academic – sociology, of course. He retweets Momentum. He puts the word fascist in the same line as Trump. He also seems to hammer the world as it is into his narrow view to “prove” his points. And he quotes, with apparently straight face, the findings by Cardiff University researchers that the Right – Cons and UKIP – made up 80% of political sources during the EU referendum.
Now let us normal people think about that for a moment. 80% Right wing? But surely they are counting government figures from a Cons-led Remain campaign, seized upon at every opportunity by the BBC to please its EU paymasters? Conservative politicians and commentators who were for Remain? And I am pretty sure that they’d count Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry as Right wing. Then we come to the times Gove and Farage were invited to speak (Right wing) only to be knocked down and sneered at. I think that 80% percent figure could be interpreted in a number of ways.
The not hilarious and really irritating thing about this so-called academic is that he is on to something about the BBC being in thrall to certain parts of the Establishment and the EU. He just can’t see the real story for his own prejudices. Like Marr, he had the chance to open an interesting discussion, to find out what is behind the situation we find ourselves in and have a grown up debate about the issues. If Marr hadn’t been so keen to smear Marine le Pen with a 30-year-old idiocy from her genuinely unpleasant father, viewers might have enlightened about where her lines in the sand are and make their own minds up accordingly. For me, I think she is harder Right on immigration than she came across in the interview, and if Marr had been up to the job we might have got sight of that.
But Marr seemed more interested in pandering to protesters outside and the twittersphere with the obvious slur that he lost the chance to do some genuine journalism.
DT: “BBC editors too often seem to view their airwaves as intellectual game reserves where liberal herbivores can safely graze.” (I would have said ‘bovine’)
Good opinion piece by Robin Aitken on Le Pen / Marr /beebistan…
Aitken is the author of ‘Can We Trust The BBC?’ Readers of this blog will know the answer to that question.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/censoring-marine-le-pen-damages-a-free-society/
(Apologies this was inadvertently posted earlier in the wrong thread)