Many people posting about al beeb bias describe the language it uses to shape views. So I thought we might list a few . I like the term “ extreme right” which seems to describe anything al beeb doesn’t like . Examples welcome .
Excuse the language
Bookmark the permalink.
What still really gets me about the BBC is its abuse of the words militant, fighter and extremist to describe cold-blooded Islamic mass murderers of innocent civilians.
The BBC is not entitled to mutilate the English language in order to scratch and satisfy its collective ideological itch while bowing to Islam.
But of course it does so anyway.
Have we had ‘Populist’? As in populist policies; ie. Those things that the people, who pay the bills, want for their money.
In the last few days a famous actor and a famous comedian have had close shaves with violent muggers, on foot and on motorbike.
Perhaps this is the only way the luvvies, the glitterati and the liberalati will have their noses rubbed into the brave new world of wonderful diversity they have helped create.
Enjoy.
Oops, the above posted in wrong thread by mistake.
Problem is the 2011 London riots affected some of their favourite areas, such as restaurants in Notting Hill, and yet it didn’t change their opinions.
The terms ‘BCE’ and ‘CE’ instead of ‘BC’ or ‘AD’ really pees me off!
Anything to denigrate Western Christian civilisation. Soon it’ll be BM and AM, Before and After mohammad.
Vlad, please do not give the BBC ideas!
Good point. But I’m sure they’ve already thought of it, and are working on it as we speak.
When does the new Mo-lennium start?
That’s very much an American thing. They also like to deliberately use “she” instead of “he” when referring to a nameless person in a textbook, book, etc.
“ community “ – in londonistan when al beeb uses this term it usually in the context of a black criminal being shot followed by members of the criminals’ Family explaining what a good dad/ footballer he was and didn’t deserve to be shot .
Second one
“We want justice “
This really means -we want compensation /taxpayers money -often used by lawyers on the civil rights gravy train and given much time by al beeb.
Besides the use of “issues” instead of “problems”, one of the words that most annoys me these days is “access” when it’s used in phrases like “access services” which you hear quite often on BBC programmes. What’s wrong with “use services”? Plain English please. “Access services” has an undercurrent of entitlement to it which I find offputting, as if to deny someone their right to “acccess services” would cause them to be grossly offended.
If any Al Beeb employee or their so called reporters view all the above, there will be a lot of nervous breakdowns at HQ.
They will see that their propaganda has been rumbled.
Dunno if I can blame the BBC for this, but whoever insisted on turning the Police Force into a Service and decided it was better to interview suspects rather than interrogate them needs to be….actually I can’t think of a punishment severe enough to fit that crime
Calling it a Service was to position the “Police Force” in the “Service Industry” in readiness to sell it off – or at least to privatise parts of it. It has also been politicised with having civilian commissioners – which has allowed Islamists to take over etc.
Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate,
Interesting, didn’t know that, thanks. Takes me back to the Undercover Mosque documentary by Channel 4 and the extraordinary opposition to it by the West Midlands Police and the CPS. I couldn’t work out what was going on until I realized that an unholy combination of the far left and radical Islam must have wormed its way into those organisations.
I knew that the ‘case’ against Channel 4 had been dropped but had no idea that they’d also been paid a six-figure settlement.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/dispatches-vindicated-over-undercover-mosque-film
My ignorance was most likely as a result of getting my info from the BBC.
That’s going back a decade or more. Has radical Islam tightened its grimy grip on Britain to the extent that such a scenario would now be impossible?
Hi TrueToo – it is something purporting to be “moderate Islam” that one has to keep ones eye on. It is those claiming to represent “moderate Islam” that have the ears of our careerist politicians and is the reason why our top politicians say “Islam is the religion of peace”. People representing “moderate Islam” have been put in charge of several important government advisory bodies and are finding their way into influential positions as part of the diversity and inclusion agenda.
I realized that an unholy combination of the far left and radical Islam must have wormed its way into those organisations.
It’s Common Purpose wot dun the worming, TT.
“There is growing concern that….”
Another template phrase for the BBC to express concern about something they disapprove of without being obliged to provide any evidence.
Remember this one? The same fellow. When linked to sex abuse, Beeby describes him as “Indian” When he is denied a visa Beeby uses “Muslim” to fabricate a “Muslim victim” scenario.
BTW why would it be wrong for the USA to deny entry to a sex abuser?
Could it be that the BBC like sex abusers and hate Americans?
The country would be better off without both The BBC and Muslim sex offenders!
Not the bbc, but the ‘criticised by’ is one of their pioneered headline uses.
Plus…. ROFL. Hope Amol gets an old colleague on to discuss this outrage.
“Thank you for your complaint…” means you are wrong and we, the BBC, are always correct.
Here’s a great example of the BBC using language to shape views:
“Europe and nationalism: A country-by-country guide”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006
“the wave of discontent also taps into long-standing fears about globalisation and a dilution of national identity.” i.e. racism.
Germany: “From its beginnings as an anti-euro party, it has pushed for strict anti-immigrant policies and tapped into anxieties over the influence of Islam. Leaders have been accused of downplaying Nazi atrocities.” The words Infer racism, xenophobia and a link with Naziism.
Austria: “Since the election there have been proposals to ban headscarves for girls aged under 10 in schools and plans to seize migrants’ phones”. Infers racism and violation of ‘human rights’.
France: “Since their loss in the presidential election, the FN suffered an underwhelming result in parliamentary elections, winning a small handful of seats while Mr Macron’s party dominated”. Just writing them off as ‘small, underwhelming’ imbeciles.
Hungary: “Mr Orban has long presented himself as the defender of Hungary and Europe against Muslim migrants, once warning of the threat of “a Europe with a mixed population and no sense of identity”, comments that led to him being called a racist”. Oh, you racist scum Mr Orban.
Slovakia: “During the campaign he formed an alliance with Mr Orban, borrowing his tactic of stirring fears about migrants.” See above.
Poland: “Law and Justice was also behind a controversial law making it illegal to accuse the Polish nation or state of complicity in the Nazi Holocaust, which some saw as an attempt to whitewash the role of some individuals in Nazi atrocities.” Accusing Poles of being Nazi sympathisers. Note the use of the word ‘controversial’
So, the language used by the BBC labels anybody who voted for one of these ‘right wing nazi sympathising’ parties as racist scum. Nothing written about why people voted for these parties except implying they are all racist, xenophobic scum.
There are no sources listed whatsoever, something a ten year old might have written. Even Wikipedia lists sources. So it is all unsubstantiated, but meant to be believed.
“ our thoughts are with…..”
Actually what I really mean is that false emotion and grief is actually good for my political career – as always my thoughts are with me” – both Corbyn and May are very good at that one .
I AM ASHAMED THAT THIS ORGANISATION USES ‘BRITISH’ IN ITS NAME.
Chalkywhite,
Actually, the label of “controversial” for Poland’s law against referring to Nazi death camps in Poland as “Polish” is one of those rare occasions where the BBC actually gets something right.
The law criminalizes false public statements that ascribe to the Polish nation collective responsibility in Holocaust-related crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, or war crimes or which “grossly reduce the responsibility of the actual perpetrators”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_controversy
(Note that Wiki also refers to “controversy.”)
Though it’s true that the camps were not Polish but German death camps on Polish soil, the law is an obvious attempt to obfuscate and deny Polish collaboration with the Nazis and the killing of Polish Jews by Poles even after the Holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom
Chalkywhite,
Regarding lack of sources, if you revisit the article you’ll find there are several links to back up and expand on the info first provided. As an example, a link under Germany – ‘Leaders have been accused of downplaying Nazi atrocities’ has a leader describing the Nazi era as, “Just bird poo.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44354559
Having said that, there are several things that irk me about the article – like the reference to Orban being concerned about the invasion of Europe as if there really is no invasion and everything is fine.
Well, I guess for the BBC everything really is going on just fine.
I always hate it when an al Beeboid, starts whining to one of Trump’s team or a UKIP/Tory politician they don’t like, about the “tone” of something that’s been said or written.
It’s a favourite of drones like Kuensberg; Evan Davies and Just-in Web.
What on earth is a “legacy issue”? I need a plain English translation I think.
Think tank
A bought and paid for mouthpiece for some group or other pretending to be objective neutral but actually spouting whatever it’s paid to say .
Regularly used by al beeb when they can’t get anyone better or if the think tank is beeboid in nature – or a mate of the beeboid editor .
The phrase that makes me turn the off switch is “Welcome To Question Time”.
The way they use terms like ‘Liberal’ when they mean authoritarian, or ‘Progressive’ when they describe someone who wants to turn the clock back to the bad old days of the sixties and seventies.
The way they say ‘Equality’ when they mean discrimination.
The way they use words like ‘populist’ and ‘conservative as if they are bad things.
Nobel ‘Peace’ prize which is awarded for no particular reason other than to fulfil left-wing fantasies. Certainly nowt to do with peace.
Small words that irritate the **** out of me, ‘Actor/actors’ when describing an Actress or actresses. It’s actually an insult to women; it’s as if they think a feminine descriptive word is worth less than a masculine one. Amazing how the word is welcomed come Oscar time. There are other words like this that I hear from time to time.
Renaming of some developing countries to their own language, such as Timor L’este, instead of East Timor, ‘Cabo Verde’ instead of the tried and trusted ‘Cape Verde’and my favourite rant ‘Cote d’Ivoir’ instead of the ‘Ivory Coast’ which has been used for at least many decades. But we don’t have to call Germany ‘Deutschland’ etc. It seems decidedly racist to me as this rule only applies to some non-European countries but not to European.
I could go on…
Another one – I used myself above is ‘developing countries’ when they refer to countries whose dictator receives so much in aid from the West that he, in no way, wants his country to develop because that is his way to keep getting personally richer.
Terror attack
Murder , or attempted murder carried out largely by Muslim terrorists aiming to kill non Muslim British people
The term Muslim and terror attack are never conjoined .
Terror attacks are often blamed on Norwegians , people with issues .lone wolves and quiet people who would never hurt anyone .,
Tante, je t’accuse…
Apologies if someone else has raised it but what about
“what we know so far”, a euphemism for what we want you to know, so far.
“what we know so far”
also a device for keeping the pot bubbling, and a story at the top of their news agenda….endless restating, recapping, stoking the fire…………..
Good one.
Close cousin to the more proactive ‘What you need to know (and not a word about what you must not)’.
Common market
A lie to trick free people into joining a fraudulent enterprise which changes its name every ten years to
EEC
EU
European United States
Continental United National territories
… by contrast they are nice to the people they support. For example, they refer to the extreme left (Momentum) as “grass roots”
It doesn’t help when google and Wikipedia, who people trust for reference, are also biased.
Try searching “Britain First”
Instead of bringing up Britain First, the political party, it brings up “openyoureyestohate.com” who imply to disrupt Britain First’s conference.
Wikipedia states the following;
Britain First is a British fascist political organisation formed in 2011 by former members of the British National Party (BNP). A part of the far-right, …
Political position: Far-right“
So this is what we’re up against. Institutional bias.
‘Motive unknown’: almost certainly Islamic terrorism.
‘Critics say’: we want you to think.
‘Sparked outage’: a few of our lunatic leftist mates are shrieking on Twitter but no normal person cares.
‘Multiculturalism’: Islamisation.
‘Diversity’: anti-white racism.
‘Vibrant’: hellish.
‘Deeply offensive’: nobody outside of our bubble cares.
‘Far Right’: anyone who does not subscribe to our alt-Left lunacy.
‘Equality’: sameness.
‘Enriched’: degraded.
‘Islamophobic’: sentient.
‘Leaked’: we chatted with a fellow trougher who told us to say this.
‘Tolerance’: cowardice/utter capitulation.
‘Hate crime’: thought crime.
Solid. This thread could form a pinned post.