They say the past is another country, certainly the BBC’s rewrite of our past makes Britain unrecognisable to most people, but truth itself is pretty unrecognisable if left in the BBC’s care. History is a Past Truth Era for the BBC, one to be altered at will to suit the present and to shape the future to their liking.
Consider the Obama loving Justin Webb. The archetypal, stereotypical, dyed-in-the-wool BBC Stepford wife who is so on-message and soulless you could just replace him with an algorithm and not notice the difference.
Not his finest day today if you believe in free speech, investigative journalism and holding politicians to account..and not just the politicians you don’t like.
Discussing Julian Assange, Webb on the Today show (08:25), had quite a lot to say and it made interesting, if disturbing, listening because he confirmed for us the thinking that we all possibly believe informs the BBC’s approach to its journalism, what information to report, what tone to take and what line to take.
Assange published the Clinton and DNC emails that were either leaked or hacked because he believed they had information in them that was important and relevant to the election. The BBC was never concerned with reporting the contents or investigating why they might be damaging to Clinton, instead they tried to cover up for her by concentrating on the source of the emails and attempting to spin the Democrat’s narrative that this was the Russians interfering in the American elections with Trump’s collusion, turning it from a story about Clinton into one about Trump, trying to delegitimise him and his campaign by claiming he was a Russian stooge.
Webb continues with this narrative disregarding the emails and their contents and instead tries to suggest the content is of no matter if the source is an ‘enemy’…
‘Well, on Wikileaks and what it has done, according to many Americans, particularly Democrats, is illegitimately assist in making sure Hillary Clinton wasn’t elected President’
The response from the guest was that Clinton was a terrible candidate and if Assange has important information about a major political figure that is true then he feels he should release it.
Webb went on…
‘Yes but does he not care about the provenance of that information and why it might be put into the public domain via him…in other words isn’t it a bit naive just to take him at face value and say OK he doesn’t support one candidate or the other but that actually the actions he took had the effect that he must have known they’d have?’
A fascinating insight into the mindset of a liberal journalist who will decide whether information should be reported based on, not the importance, relevance or truth of that information, but on its source….and of course the ‘target’….if you like the target ignore or discredit the bad news, if you don’t like the target ignore the source and hit the target for six.
You can see the reverse effect of that at work in how the BBC reports the wave of allegations about Trump published by anti-Trump newspapers in the US, the New York Times and the Washington Post, who are trying to force the US President from Office….unsurprisingly the pro-Clinton BBC does not see anything ‘illegitimate’ in this media coup d’etat. Whilst the Wikileak emails could be seen and read the information that the NYT and WP release is without any backup…it’s all ‘an anonymous source says’ but no evidence…look at the latest about Trump…The NYT merely tells us that it is from “a document summarizing the meeting” that was “circulated” (it does not say by whom). The Times does not have the document. An “American official” simply “read quotations” to the Times. It could have been anyone at the end of the line…maybe Clinton.
No proof, no documents, no evidence, no witnesses willing to speak openly…and the only witnesses that do speak say these things never happened. As Breitbart says…..
The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Post stories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.
And as Breitbart asks…where is that evidence? So far there is absolutely none…it is all rumour, gossip, wishful thinking and lies..
Dems, Media, Intel Folks Fall Into ‘No Evidence’ Column on Trump Campaign Collusion with Russia
With headlines swirling and lawmakers meeting behind closed doors, it’s not difficult to conclude there is trouble in the Trump White House.
But a deeper dive reveals that lots of people who would not consider themselves Trump supporters admit there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Trump campaign regarding alleged collusion with Russians.
Many senior intelligence officials stated on the record that they’d seen no evidence so far of any collusion between the Russians and Trump’s campaign team. However the likes of the BBC always put the sensationalist claims in the headlines and only later slip in a word of caution that there is absolutely no proof of any of this. Here’s a perfect example from Reuters….
Reuters ran a story on Thursday with the headline “Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians sources”
But buried in the story is the real headline:
“In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time. The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.”
The BBC and the “progressive” Left in general, genuinely does not believe that there is something called the “truth”. There are only an infinite number of interpretations, each of equal value.
So the only thing that matters is the narrative, which is essentially what one feels should be right. Whoever’s narrative is spoken more loudly and often, wins.
The Left’s narrative is always based on the Victim v Oppressor tale, with the Left’s vanity relying on its unquestioning support of the Victim, no matter what facts or reality, say.
This is not just my opinion; Leftist academics are on record as linking facts and reality to racism. There is a US professor who has stated that “Reason is white.”, that the use of truth in political debate is an act of oppression. That’s why the Left hates debate; even to talk about these matters is to give ground to the evil realists.
That doesn’t make the Left “progressive”, in my opinion, but profoundly regressive. If we abandon facts and reason in favour of feelings, then we return to the era of burning people as witches on the accusation of someone whose cat died mysteriously the day before.
There is a superb hoax that has come to light which illustrates the above.
Two bogus academics wrote a paper called “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,” filled it with deliberate high-sounding anti-male nonsense (including the notion that the ‘conceptual penis’ is responsible for climate change) and sent it for peer review in a respectable journal. It passed with flying colours and was published.
What it said felt right, even though it was carefully constructed to be meaningless and idiotic.
Well worth a read.
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/
Looks to me as if the world has become flat again with all the planets and stars orbiting us.
I know this is true because I think I heard it on the BBC and the Goverment agrees.
And if you dont believe it well ……………………….
You just better believe it!
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/20/tory-manifesto-reveals-plans-to-crack-down-on-free-speech-on-and-offline/
Interesting that the BBC has also chosen just this moment to threaten anyone with being reported to their employers, if they make statements that the BBC doesnt like on their comments section.
I think all of us here can expect little change in the way the BBC is governed when Theresa gets re-elected. Theresa and the BBC appear to have become two sides of the same coin.
Frightening.
President Trump is in the Middle East. He is saying stuff. The BBC is reporting it. Not always accurately. Plus ca change.
https://bbcwatch.org/2017/05/21/following-complaint-bbc-corrects-inaccuracy-in-trump-abbas-meeting-report/
Maybe James Harding’s Unit 731 were on a bonding day again when that slipped through?
In George Orwell’s book 1984, Winston, is being “re-educated”. His educator holds up four fingers and asks him how many fingers he’s holding up. Winston responds correctly and it hit with an electric shock. This happens over and over again. Finally, Winston pleads with his educator saying, “How can I see anything but four? Two plus two equal four.” His educator says, “Yes, sometimes two plus two is four. But sometimes it’s five or even three. Sometimes it’s all of those at the same time.” Winston is confused. How can this be? The answer he is given is that reality exists only in the mind. If it is in the Party’s best interest for two plus two to equal four. Then it’s four. If it’s five, then it’s five.
The BBC is trying to force it’s own “truth” on us more specifically, it is trying to control and reshape our reality of what is “news”.
American Psycho
Here’s a message for the BBC – US writer Bret Easton Ellis on the Left’s Trump psychosis
I think we can now safely say that the DNC email leaks came via Seth Rich, who has since been murdered, just as everyone who crosses the Clintons seems to get murdered. Obviously, that is nothing the BBC would want to investigate.
Another thing the BBC does not investigate is what was in the DNC emails, and why they were damaging to Hillary Clinton? If it were not for the internet, I would not know. The MSM did not want to go into the corruption they revealed.
If the Russians did not hack the DNC, what sort of collusion can there have been between Trump and Russia? It makes no sense. Thus the BBC and MSM have to keep alive the myth that Russia hacked the DNC, otherwise their false narrative crumbles, and they have no stick with which to beat Trump.
As for poor Seth Rich? Dead men tell no tales. It’s something that Bill and Hillary Clinton have found seems to work to their advantage over and over again.
If someone has done you wrong, have you ever wished them dead? I know I have, yet in reality they continue to live. Bill and Hillary Clinton must have some strange power, because when they wish someone dead, they really die. An investigative journalist (not a BBC hack, obviously) might find that interesting, and wish to explore it. Problem is, he’d end up dead.
I don’t know. It must be the Russians.