I see that our resident contrarians spent the best part of a day trying to persuade readers that the BBC is entirely innocent of any anti-Israeli spin in its preferred choice of questions for a Gallup poll.

I think a more informed, impartial and rational look at the information tells the true story.

The excellent BBC Watch has come to the same conclusion that Biased BBC did when it looked at David Cowling’s, the BBC’s Head of Political Research, comments about which question was his favourite in the Gallup world poll….that he was , of course, referring to Israel….

DC: “Yes, I think it would be “Which country do you believe to be the greatest threat to world peace today?”. I suspect that – working with journalists – I know colleagues who would be quite excited by what might be coming out of…”

Humphrys interrupts:

“That’s certainly true, but isn’t it a bit narrow? Because there aren’t many…although you could say of course the United States because it’s the most powerful, or you could say China because it’s whatever, or you could say North Korea because it’s bonkers, or you know….

DC: “What I’d be interested in, John, is the variations. So for example there are going to be questions asked in Lebanon, in the West Bank and Gaza. I suspect different answers there if it was asked..”

So, with Cowling having already done his bit as far as trying to influence BBC audiences into selecting a specific question is concerned, all that remains is to place bets on the phrasing of upcoming BBC headlines to be written by those “quite excited” journalists – and it might not be outlandish to assume that there is a fairly strong possibility that the words “Israel” and “threat” will be in there somewhere.’

Nothing clearer than that…no doubt that Cowling was referring to Israel. 

The real question that the BBC might like to ask is why is it that people view Israel in such a negative light?

Could it possibly be that it is inherent in the thinking of the BBC staff such as Cowling who ably illustrated the problem in that interview…his first thought was of Israel as a ‘threat to world peace‘….could it be that years of BBC negative reporting, amongst other’s, on Israel has led to….

Brainwashing and the demonising of Israel

In 2003 the EU conducted a similar poll and guess what the result was….

Senior Israeli figures have voiced anger at a European survey labelling their country the greatest threat to world peace.

“We are not only said but outraged. Not at European citizens but at those who are responsible for forming public opinion,” Israel’s mission to the EU said in a statement.

The Israeli Minister for the Diaspora affairs, Natan Sharansky, said the results showed the EU engaged in “rampant brainwashing”.

European Commission President Romano Prodi expressed his concern about the findings, saying that they “point to the continued existence of a bias that must be condemned out of hand”.

“To the extent that this may indicate a deeper, more general prejudice against the Jewish world, our repugnance is even more radical,” Mr Prodi said in a statement.

“The European Union, which shows sensitivity on human rights issues, would do well to stop the… demonising of Israel before Europe deteriorates once again to dark sections of its past,” Mr Sharansky said.

.

Could such polls have an effect on how the EU conducts its policies?

‘Earlier, an EU spokesman played down the importance of the survey.

The spokesman, Gerassimos Thomas, said the poll results would not affect European policy-making in the short term……But the BBC’s Tim Franks in Brussels says the findings may reduce European diplomats’ effectiveness in dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict by heightening Israeli distrust of the EU.’

 Despite the EU’s half hearted denial it is obvious these polls are used to influence policy as Gallup tells us:

‘Giving you the power to act on what the world is thinking’

In 2007 the BBC conducted its own poll…..Thanks to George R for providing this link to the article about that BBC poll which managed to finger Israel as the world’s most dangerous nation.

It seems that the BBC has learnt nothing.

This is what the 2007 survey asked:

According to the BBC, the survey “gave respondents a list of 12 countries and asked whether they had a mostly positive or mostly negative influence in the world. “The country with the highest number of mostly negative responses overall is Israel (56% negative, 17% positive).

This is the reason for the negative outlook:

“It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the use or pursuit of military power,” said pollster Steven Kull, who directed the survey.

So Israel is a dangerous country because of the use of military power?

No questions as to why it might be forced to use that military power?

What do Hamas and Hezbollah use then? Of course, as the BBC’s Mishal Husain says they are only ‘home made contraptions‘.

The evil Israelis defending themselves against the peace loving Palestinians…..appalling warmongers those Joows.

The Today programme (07:45) updated us on the progress of the BBC’s latest wheeze:

The Today programme is asking listeners to come up with questions to put to tens of thousands of people in more than 60 countries around the world.

The programme will submit two questions suggested by listeners to feature in the Gallup International poll.

A panel including the BBC’s Head of Political Research David Cowling and the Today programme’s Sarah Montague will then decide which questions will be put forward.

There is a short list of three questions now:

1.  Which country do you believe to be the greatest threat to world peace today?

2.  Does religion generally play a positive role in your country?

3.  If politician’s were predominantly women would the world be a better place?

The BBC’s Head of Political Research David Cowling tells  us that the questions need to be topical and able to engage a wide range of countries…that is be relevant everywhere.

John Humphry’s asked Cowling which question was his favourite….any guesses?

No need to guess….it was of course which country is the greatest threat to world peace?…..and which country did he immediately reference, if obliquely?

Again no need to guess…..Israel.

Not  for example Pakistan which was created in exactly the same way that Israel was….by creating a separate state for one religion…in this case Muslims, a State which created the Taliban and provides a safe haven for its leaders, which wants to annex Afghanistan, which wants to occupy and Islamise all of Kashmir, which  has 300 terrorist training camps within its borders, which constantly sends terrorists into India to launch attacks, which sent a nuclear scientist to rogue states such as Libya, North Korea and Iran to help them develop nuclear weapons.

Pakistan, the islamic Zionist state.

Whereas Israel…what has Israel done?  It has been under attack for 65 years with constant attempts to wipe it off the map along with the Jews living there.  If no one attacked Israel there would be peace in the Middle East…at least for Israelis.

The reality is that it is Muslims who have been attacking…they are the aggressors. 

If Pakistan is a legitimate state then Israel must also be one….and what about what must now be 10’s of millions of Sikh and Hindu ‘refugees’ who are denied a place in their ancestral lands?  Do they have a right of return?

Shame that the BBC is still pushing the anti-semitic line that Israel is a ‘danger’ just by existing……bit like blaming the girl in the skimpy dress for being raped…it’s her fault of course.

The fact that they never consider Pakistan in the same light as Israel is very telling.

Of course the BBC could save the judges a choice by merging the first two questions and ask which group of people or which ideology poses the greatest threat to world peace rather than limit it to within certain borders.

Now that would be an interesting question.  Of course the BBC woud not like the answer I suspect.

‘The uncritical reproduction of scientific orthodoxy is a far more egregious error: it denies that error can be observed from without the consensus.’

There was a  huge fuss generated by the Hotheads of the pro AGW side of the climate debate over the Andrew Neil interview with Ed Davey, asking him if government climate and energy policy should be changed to take into account the new facts…such as a 16 year ‘pause’ in global warming.

The major bone of contention, or contrived argument against the interview, was that neither participant was a scientist.  The reality was that the critics didn’t like the line of questioning and therefore sought to claim Neil, as a mere journalist, cannot possibly be qualified to speak knowledgeably on the subject and Davey, as a politician is similarly challenged.

Hmmm…but isn’t that the job of both the journalist and the politician…to gather information or advice, analyse it and come to some conclusion…and in the case of the politician to make far reaching decisions based upon his understanding of that science.

The ‘Hotheads’ are not so critical of Davey when he makes decisions that go in their favour…then he is wise and knowledgeable.

The ‘Hotheads’ are not so critical of journalists like Harrabin or Black who seem to toe the ‘party line’.

 My criticism of the BBC in this case is to ask why is it that a political journalist is asking questions about climate policy that the BBC’s own environmental journalists should be asking…but don’t.

Could it be that Harrabin has spent years, in collusion with Dr Joe Smith, attempting, very successfully, to prevent any such questions and consequent debate being raised.

There is an excellent article on this conflict of interests here (via Bishop Hill)

The emphasis on expertise is either hopelessly naive or it is an attempt to delimit permissible areas of debate for strategic ends. Heaven forefend that politicians should be interrogated, lest it turn out that far-reaching and expensive policies turn out to have been, if not drafted by people who do not have a grasp of their subject, executed by them.

In spite of all the criticism levelled against him, then, Andrew Neil, in just one show, has done more to promote an active understanding of climate science and its controversies than has been done by the Carbon Brief blog, academics at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and elsewhere, Bad Science warriors, and a legion of Tweeters who claim to speak for science have done in their entire existences. Along the way, it is possible that Neil made some inconsequential technical mistakes. But by contrast, the uncritical reproduction of scientific orthodoxy is a far more egregious error: it denies that error can be observed from without the consensus. So much for ‘science’.

Perhaps the BBC might like to rethink its policy of not engaging ‘sceptics’.

In the comments for this article Mike Hulme, from the UEA, so no climate sceptic, said this about the ‘consensus’ (via Bishop Hill)….

The BBC’s ‘News Quiz’ is hardly worth posting on…it’s so evidently designed purely as a vehicle for leftie comedians, so called, to vent their spleens against the evil Tories that not much needs to be said about it.

Last Saturday’s effort toed the Party line and the first attack was on Lynton Crosby…then there was a completely joke free rant about the  welfare cap and a claim that IDS had invented some ‘bogus figures’…the rest of the programme seemed to be made up of reading out allegedly humorous newspaper clippings which  listeners had sent in.

All great fun.

It couldn’t be that they have a list of things they want to rant about and if they possibly can they will try and fit in a joke, but if they can’t, well, never mind? 

Toksvig and crew couldn’t resist mentioning the Daily Mail of course, and not forgetting Nigel Farage…subtly linking him to the Nazis as is the usual BBC practice.

Toksvig states, for the benefit of Daily Mail readers, small minded and insular beings that they are,  that immigrants actually pay more tax than native Brits….so there!!!

Really?  There’s a special immigrant tax rate is there?  or maybe they’re just more upstanding and moral than the rest of us…they pay what they think they ought to pay in a fair and just society….as set out by the sainted Margaret Hodge?!

So let’s get this straight…..

The Labour Party concoct a story that Tory advisor Lynton Crosby advised ‘profiteering’ private health companies on how to exploit failures in the NHS.

The Guardian splash the story on its front page.

The BBC picks up the Guardian story and runs with it claiming that Cameron faces questions after ‘it emerges’ his election strategist advised private health companies how to profit from NHS reforms.

Guido Fawkes then fact checks and finds that it was in fact a Labour leaning group that made the presentation, Crosby merely provided research to that group.

The Guardian back tracks and changes its story.

The BBC, having run a story that conveniently attacks and undermines a person that represents a danger to its fellow travellers in the Labour Party, is still running the same story at 18:00.

Suddenly the BBC too changes its reporting…but it doesn’t put up a fresh story it edits the old one…changing it entirely….keeping the same web link and an old time stamp…14:59…therefore preventing anyone from seeing the previous, and very erroneous version….unless you had seen it before and were able to link to it via any other website which had picked up the original version.

Sooooo…the BBC runs a smear story, one that it clearly didn’t factcheck, one that it took complete from the Guardian without asking is this true? The fact that the presentation was in 2010 when Crosby was not working for the Tories should immediately have cast doubt on this story…but the BBC ran it full on all day.

Why did they run it?  Because the story was too good to not be true….building on the narrative that Labour and the BBC have been creating for a week or so now to distract from Miliband’s Unite problems.

When the facts became publicly known, thanks to Guido, the BBC did a stealth edit and covered its tracks making it difficult to locate the original version of the report…even the ‘Way Back When Machine’ and ‘News Sniffer’ cannot link to it.

The BBC did a hatchet job on an important figure in the Tories’ election strategy…..the BBC made a deliberate attempt to undermine and discredit someone who is a key player in the Tories’ political battle against Labour….potentially derailing the Tories’ election plans and possibly even the outcome of the election…they hope.

The BBC has been caught red handed interfering in the political process with a clear attempt to rig the election in Labour’s favour.

Andrew Neil, that well known climate scientist, has stirred up a hornet’s nest by daring to question government policy on climate…based as it is on ever increasing temperatures….but there are obvious doubts about that now due to the long hiatus in rising temperatures:

The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy.

The main purpose of the interview was to establish if the government thought the recent and continuing pause in global temperatures meant it should re-think its policies in response to global warming.

This is a vital policy issue since the strategy of this government and the previous Labour government to decarbonise the economy involves multi-billion pound spending decisions, paid for by consumers and taxpayers, which might not have been taken (at least to the same degree or with the same haste) if global warming was not quite the imminent threat it has been depicted.

Our focus was on a global temperature plateau which could be a challenge to the forecasts of climate models which have determined government policy. The plateau could continue for the foreseeable future or melt away as temperatures resume their upward trajectory.

What was possibly even more interesting was this:

It might also be argued that challenging interviews on matters in which there is an overwhelming consensus in Westminster – but not necessarily among voters who pay for both the licence fee and the government’s energy policies – is a particularly legitimate purpose of public-service broadcasting.

So it is the job of public-service broadcasters to challenge the overwhelming consensus?

You could have fooled me and many others who thought the BBC had decided that the science was ‘settled’ and that no more questions needed to be asked…full ahead with green taxes and hair shirts.

I guess when you take money from organisations that promote man made global warming your journalism might be compromised.

And the fact that BBC journalists have few scientific qualifications between them and yet feel compelled to denounce ‘mere bloggers’ as unqualified to comment on climate change…many of whom are actually far  more scientifically qualified that the BBC journalists.

From Staite Communications:

 Having worked in political communications in the UK for nearly 9 years I know the process and it is very clear. The Labour Party are using two newspapers, supported by the BBC, to try and get a scalp which will weaken the Prime Minister.

A piece of information is dressed up as a ‘leak’ by the attack unit at Labour HQ. Interesting to note that editors love leaks. Leaks make the information more ‘sexy’ than if it had just come across the desk of the journalist via a press release.  As I’ve already said, this information is not a ‘leak’ but a presentation given openly to a group of cross-party MPs over three years ago.

This information is then farmed out to journalists at Labour’s two favourite newspapers, The Guardian and/or The Mirror. Once it becomes a front page story – a splash – then that is enough for a call to go in to the BBC newsroom to suggest that maybe they too should be covering this story. If it is a splash in The Guardian the BBC is far more likely to run it as the Corporation buys far more of this newspaper than any other. Voila – a ‘leak’ created in Labour HQ has become a political ‘row’ in three easy steps.

This is an update to the previous post on the BBC’s smear campaign against the Tories’ political advisor, Lynton Crosby.

The Guardian published an article claiming Crosby’s firm was somehow involved in trying to ‘exploit’ the NHS reforms and was giving advice to potential ‘profiteers’ on how to do that.  The BBC have happily leapt aboard that bandwagon without any fact checking…it seems they may regret that.

Perhaps one day they will do their own investigative journalism and not rely on ‘leaks’ from those with vested interests.

Guido has pointed out a very inconvenient fact about the story:

“Crosby Presentation” Organised By Labour Lobbyist
Labour MPs Attended Event Held in Commons

 The Guardian claims that the “leaked” presentation was made by CTF to private healthcare profiteers, it was actually organised by the lobbying firm Westminster Advisers for MPs – who were all given copies. Making it more of a handout than a leak. Westminster Advisers is headed by Dominic Church, a wealthy Labour supporter and a former Hammersmith and Fulham councillor for the party.

Guido notes that the Guardian has cut out slides from a slide show by Crosby’s firm …but renumbered the pages so that nobody would notice….why?

Perhaps this slide might show why:

Guido tells us that The Guardian have corrected their story after he pointed out these facts:

The Guardian has done a follow up which largely corrects the record after Guido pointed out the factual errors in their healthcare lobbying story from this morning. Namely that they had got the target audience completely wrong and that the firm organising the event wasn’t Tory leaning CTF, it was in fact Labour leaning lobbyists Westminster Advisers. A statement issued by Mark Detre from Westminster Advisers confirms the accuracy of Guido’s version of events:

“Crosby Textor Fullbrook provided research and advice into public attitudes on healthcare to H5. H5 is a predecessor to the Association of Independent Healthcare Organisations and they did that in 2010 and 2011. The arrangement between CTF and H5 ended in mid 2011. AIHO is a new organisation formed in March 2013 and has no relationship with CTF.”

 

 

But it seems that the BBC are still behind the times and running the old anti-Tory smear version on their front page with this qualification:

Crosby Textor said: “This so-called leaked document is a presentation of research given to scores of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs at the House of Commons by H5 almost three years ago, full copies of which were widely circulated at the time.

 

No mention that it was actually presented by a Labour friendly lobby group and not Crosby’s firm who merely did the research.

The BBC may have done a bit of a stealth edit:

This was from the original article this evening when I posted this latest piece at 18:47:

David Cameron faces fresh questions about his election strategist Lynton Crosby after it emerged his lobbying firm advised private health companies at the time of NHS reforms.

 [This is the original but taken from another site…..this was the report that was on the BBC website until late this evening when it was changed to the below]

And this is the new one…time stamped 14:59 (No link to old version…Wayback When Machine itself gets redirected to latest version):

David Cameron’s election strategist has denied Labour claims of a “shocking conflict of interest” over his lobbying firm’s work on behalf of private health companies at the time of NHS reforms.

The new version is quite different to the original but still makes no mention that it was a Labour leaning group that actually made the presentation….and is still stating this:

Lynton Crosby’s company told its client how to exploit perceived “failings” in the NHS in 2010, based on an opinion poll, the Guardian reported.

The economy may be picking up…not just a mere point here and there but some serious uplift maybe in the offing.

GDP figures will be released on Thursday….even the Guardian recognises this could be significant:

Something big happens this Thursday. As events go, the publication of a thin booklet of provisional numbers may sound about as dramatic as the shipping forecast. But the release of the GDP initial estimate for the second quarter of this year will have a huge impact.

The newspapers reported the stirring of strong growth of ‘green shoots’.

The Times did, the Telegraph did….twice:

UK economy showing “green shoots” as growth thought to double

British economy has turned a corner, senior Tories claim

Even the Guardian commented on it ….twice also..though only to throw cold water on the idea of course:

Economy: politics of the recovery

Ignore the hype: Britain’s ‘recovery’ is a fantasy that hides our weakness

Only the BBC has chosen to ignore this ‘good news story’….the Guardian’s ‘huge impact’ dismissed as unimportant.

Remember when the BBC thought GDP figures would show a ‘triple dip’….they were talking about it non stop days befoe the announcement…only to be disappointed…..though why the BBC continued to push the idea of a ‘triple dip’ recession is beyond me…as they already knew that there had been no ‘double dip’ recession….so how could you have a third?

It is all too obvious that the BBC has yet again decided to fix the narrative…hiding the good news whilst highlighting potential bad news……even if it might turn out to be good news in the end…a long run of negative stories even if eventually proven false can lay some useful groundwork in casting doubt and confusion into people’s minds.

Journalists working under the sway of thuggish dictators are usually thought of as the puppet voices of oppression and repression.….the news they produce mere propaganda…the legend being that there’s no news in the truth and no truth in the news….

…..but compared to BBC journalists they are in fact paragons of virtue…they at least are forced to compromise their journalistic ethics  and ideals such as they might be…the BBC journalists make that choice for themselves….they make a conscious decision to promote one political party with the sole aim of denying a platform for any opponents of their chosen ideology.

Many BBC journalists are morally and professionally corrupt distorting and exploiting the democratic process to rig elections…or so they hope usng the BBC and its privileged position, authority and credibility as their personal soapbox.

For a long time the BBC ignored the Unite scandal where the Union was identified as having attempted to fix who became many of Labour’s parliamentary candidates.  The  BBC pushed Labour’s own narrative that this was a few rogue officials in one location whereas we know from documents and Labour’s own websites that this was Union policy, that it was adopted widely and that the Labour Party knew and approved of it….Miliband himself is implicated in this…..he is now lying when he claimed to be ‘cleaning up’ the mess….one that he already knew of…but did nothing about….until challenged….the BBC have never questioned Miliband’s stance or credibility over this.

Whilst the BBC ignored the Unite story they instantly moved on the story about Lynton Crosby, the Tory’s election advisor….of course this was a story generated by Labour….so once again the BBC do news by ‘press release’. 

The story is clearly just counter fire run out to take the wind out of the sails of the Unite story….not that the BBC were ever interested in that anyway….note that the latest about Unite’s new political director, Jennie Formby, who was yet another of McCluskey’s in house girlfriends and who has a child by him, has been totally ignored by the BBC….despite her being on Labour’s NEC as well.

Whilst the Public has absolutely no interest in Crosby the BBC keep up the narrative and keep the story alive hoping it will catch fire and see the sacking of Crosby whom they see as far too successful and a threat to Labour.

The last story on the Today programme this morning  (0855) was a classic example of that, a manufactured point of interest….designed purely as an excuse to enable the BBC to keep the  Crosby/Cameron lobbying narrative simmering and in the public eye….

‘The prime minister has deflected questions about whether he has discussed the issue of tobacco packaging with the Tory strategist Lynton Crosby. The BBC’s Michael Cockerell, and Sheila Gunn, political press secretary to former prime minister John Major, examine whether politicians should answer questions more openly.’

They couldn’t get him to say ‘Yes it’s all true…Crosby runs Tory policy in the interests of his commercial clients.’ so they make up a spurious talking point to suggest that Cameron is hiding this ‘fact’….the BBC knows it is true…therefore when the PM denies it he must be lying!

The BBC stoop even lower with this latest concoction by the Guardian (Now re-edited by the BBC to reflect a new truth as found by Guido…see later post…BBC Smears and Lies)…reporting what Crosby did in his own business when not employed by any political party…..reporting it as if there was some connection to Tory health policy…..despite as said Crosby not being in their employ at the time….

David Cameron faces fresh questions about his election strategist Lynton Crosby after it emerged his lobbying firm advised private health companies at the time of NHS reforms.

As to those ‘fresh questions’…once again a Labour Party press release.

It must be great when a political party has its own multi billion pound media empire disseminating its propaganda for it.

I wonder just how the BBC’s support for the Labour Party will be taken into account when considerations of Party funding are raised….it must be worth a ‘pretty penny’.

All too real

via Guido and Cityunslicker:

Ed Miliband set on reform, but not on break with the BBC

As  one of the comments said:

formertory said…

Masterpiece! Spooky, how naturally it all “fits”