CNN…BBC…Different names…same old Sh*t



CNN….American voters are ‘stupid as shit’….manipulation of interviews,  filtered information and fake news….how very BBC….


Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to CNN…BBC…Different names…same old Sh*t

  1. Wild says:

    It seems that the CNN is almost as unreliable as the BBC, but at least in the USA they have a choice if they want to fund it. In this Country if you don’t want to pay for BBC 24/7 Leftist spin you are sent to prison, and many are each year. Which system is more sinister?


    • TrueToo says:

      The rot in CNN goes way back. Here’s how they ‘reported’ from Iraq under Saddam Hussein:

      <>(7) Eric Fettmann writes in the New York Post (“Craven News Network” – April 12) that Eason Jordan’s revelation is “like saying that the best interests of journalism would have justified suppressing stories on the Holocaust during World War II in order to keep a U.S. news bureau in Berlin so as to be able to tell Nazi Germany’s side of the story… This astonishing confession doesn’t just undermine CNN’s claim to be “the most trusted name in news” – it wreaks incalculable damage on all journalists’ ability to be trusted… Indeed, CNN’s silence seems to have cost as many lives as it may have saved.”

      And when Yasser Arafat was reigning over the Palestinian terrorist enclaves, Jerusalem Report Editor David Horowitz blasted a CNN anchor over his network’s ‘reporting’ on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

      So it’s unsurprising to see CNN carrying on like the state broadcaster in an Arab dictatorship (except of course that they are lamenting the defeat of their lefty heroine Hillary). It’s also deeply disturbing that millions who are glued to CNN daily imagine that they are being informed rather than indoctrinated.


  2. Owen Morgan says:

    When it comes to the United States, most British “news” organisations seem now to take CNN as their starting-point for news stories. This isn’t anything particularly new, but it may be more blatant. At the time of the “Fast and Furious” scandal, the “Telegraph” used to take comments, so I pointed out to then US correspondent, Toby Harnden, that he hadn’t written a single word on the subject. His response wasn’t altogether pleasant, but he did finally produce one piece – just one – on F&F, before b*ggering off to better money at the “Mail” and taking American citizenship, so he could even vote for his idol.

    The standard of reporting in the British press today about American matters makes even Harnden seem like a consummate professional. American television sets the tone, worthless though its content so often is, and the British media follow like the Gadarene swine. Even the “Spectator”, which manages, in general, to retain much better analysts than the “Telegraph” (although I exclude Parris and Rifkind), can’t produce a decent article about the United States, because it accesses the same sources in New York, Washington DC and the west coast as all the other politically correct hacks.

    The ‘Spectator” can plead poverty (Fraser Nelson should cut down on all those photos of Nicola Sturgeon), but the Beebyanka is deliberately and slavishly ploughing a rather well-ploughed furrow. Beeboids don’t want information that challenges their sense of reality and they certainly are not going to set out to look for it. The US MSM feeds it what it requires.

    Our National Treasure, however, tries to argue that its income can be justified by its global reach. Why, then, do the Beeboids never cover original stories in the US? Why do they always ignore the same stories as the MSM ignores, like Fast and Furious, or the Solyndra scandal, and never tackle new stories of their own?


  3. Wild says:

    “Why…do the Beeboids never cover original stories in the US? Why do they..never tackle new stories of their own?”

    Because it is a gravy train. You could sack every single BBC foreign correspondent, and nobody would notice. The same goes for BBC local news reporters. Even the smallest local UK newspaper, and the smallest local American TV station, has better reporting than the BBC.

    The BBC at it’s best is a State funded mediocrity. At it’s worst it’s purpose (other than providing employment for talentless Leftists) is as Lenin said, education, education, education i.e. indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination. It is as I would imagine Catholic TV would be in the Middle Ages, except the religion it is promoting is not Catholicism but Leftism.

    Anything of value on the BBC has been created by the British talent (which exists in abundance) despite not because of the BBC. It is very noticeable that this talent nearly always ends up despising the BBC, because they see it for what it is, a Leftist job creation scheme for mediocrities, whose sole interest in life is justifying their own greed and hypocrisy.

    P.S. That is why they love the EU so much.


    • Wild says:

      A good example of their smug awfulness is on the BBC tonight. Melvyn Bragg on TV. It is the thoughts of that talentless mediocrity Labour Peer Lord Bragg and his chums, telling you what to think. What are they are telling you? Well one of the things he is keen to tell you is how terrible inequality is, and how TV is part of the fight for equality.

      Cast your mind back Melvyn to that board meeting at LWT when you decided to launch LWT on the stock market. There was a debate about whether the shares should be distributed equally to all the workforce, or just to Melvyn and his chums on the board. Yes you guessed it, this great champion of equality voted to give all the shares to himself and his chums. Typical sanctimonious New Labour Party place man, always on the look out for his next sinecure.