ANY QUESTIONS?

Another BBC reader observes;

“Friday 19 August (I think). Jonathan Dimbleby at his worst and most transparent. He gave Harriet Harman a free run with little or no interruption on the riots etc. He then acted as agent provocateur by inviting her to blame the cuts and she got another full go without interruption. Baroness Warsi was then interrupted as usual, something both the Dumbellboys feel free to do, presumably because she’s a relatively inexperienced young woman (and a Tory). Then it was Peter Hitchens turn. I’d be the first to concede that Peter Hitchens can sometimes appear bonkers, but this time he was lucid, articulate and challenging, but crucially, he wasn’t playing to JD’s agenda, so he was unceremoniously unterrupted. Hitchens protested that he’d like to make his point but JD became abusive and said Hitchens wouldn’t be interrupted if he didn’t go on at such length, and anyway he, JD, makes the rules. Dimbleby appeared to be oblivious to how much time Harriet Harman had gone on without challen! ge. This wasn’t the first time I’ve had the impression there is an organised effort by the BBC to blame the cuts for everything because they have a vested interest in not being cut themselves.

Later in the program there was a discussion about moral decay and absentee fathers and so on. Dimbleby bleated like a child caught with his hand in the sweetie jar that we mustn’t make people stay together because this is even worse for the child, a tired old cliche that he’s run past us before. My assumption is that he feels guilty at his behaviour at the end of his marriage to Moon Belly, but it just shows what we are up against in trying to get moral justice for our children versus the right of our betters to think of themselves first.”

AS IS SEE IT….

Biased BBC reader “As I see it” has provided us with the following thoughtful analysis – give it a read!  

It is my contention
that there is a left-wing bias in the output of the BBC.


I happen to have a group of friends with whom I meet at regular intervals for a
particular leisure activity. (And no, it doesn’t involve either caravanning or
dubious sexual practices in secluded locations – nor does it combine the two.
So don’t try to guess).


The point is the members of this group are all employed in charities, trades
unions and the public sector and they are all fairly staunch Labour supporters
– indeed in most cases longstanding party members.


Some may regard my keeping up with these people as masochism on my part but I
find it fascinating. (And no, as I already explained there is nothing in the
least exotic about this activity).


I recall meeting up with these people in the dying days of the last government
at the time when they knew they were staring down the barrel of defeat. After
thirteen years of power the political situation was causing some soul
searching, I can tell you. Needless to say they are not particularly strong on
the economics. They tend to focus on social, political and media issues.
 

What
had gone wrong they asked?


Not personally coming to this debate with the view that the fall of the Brown
premiership was entirely a bad thing, I nevertheless threw in my two-pennyworth
as a bit of a digression. I put forward the contention that the BBC had only
ever seemed to criticize the Blair/Brown government from the left. I was not
surprised with the general response that this was some form of heresy. You see
Labour supporters on the one hand tend to convince themselves that there are
actually too many conservative voices on the BBC – however they still see the
old Corporation as a pretty hallowed institution. In other words although they
say that they believe it is not left-wing enough for them they still don’t see
any pressing need for change. A suspicious position don’t you think? I think it
is odd, given that people on the left usually tend to be pretty iconoclastic
when it comes to British institutions. They certainly don’t hold back when it
comes to wanting change in the Police, the! Monarchy, the House of Lords,
Devolution, etc, etc. When it comes to the BBC they seem to want more of it!
 

Despite the reluctance of most to openly admit the truth that the BBC’s centre of
gravity is several steps to the left of where the British general public stand
there were still one or two guilty nods and winks of recognition to my
observation that the Labour government had only really been criticized by the
BBC from the left side of any debate.

In order to persuade anyone who may remain unconvinced I would cite two topical
examples that show up how the BBC is out of kilter with the outlook of the
British public: the AV referendum and the recent rioting.


The AV Referendum. This was not a simple left ‘v’ right debate. In fact it was
much more interesting than that. The Conservatives were against it but so was a
significant section of Labour MPs – a section of what you might call old
Labour. Ed Miliband and his new leadership were in favour, even though he might
have been supposed to be in the process of reconnecting with traditional
supporters and wishing to differentiate himself from the aloof and metropolitan
Bairites and New Labour, he still came down squarely on the side of something
that was dubbed “progressive”. Now there were political and tactical
complications but the debate was framed as one pitching “progressives” against
British tradition and the existing constitution. Now don’t forget the public
were still seething from the MPs’ expenses scandal and might have been thought
to have been keen for some new politics – yet the referendum revealed only a
tiny section of the British public would vote f! or this so-called
“progressive” measure. In the event the metropolitan “progressives” were left
high and dry. I don’t suppose we will be having any further referenda on other
cherished progressive propositions of the BBC liberals any time soon. I’m sure
the British publics’ views on EU membership, capital punishment, global warming,
immigration, etc will all now continue to go untested for the foreseeable
future.
 

It was a similar situation with the issues surrounding the August riots. There
was an obvious disconnect between the BBC opinion and the British public
reaction on all the relevant issues. This was apparent from the initial
‘careful now, stand off’ Police control methods, to the typical profile and
motivations of the rioters, right through to the handing down of sentences by
the Courts.


Now there are those in the BBC and their supporters on the left who will cling
to the concept that the BBC is there to challenge our views and to come with
ideas from ‘left field’.


I wholeheartedly disagree. These left-liberal views have had a fair old crack
of the whip and look where we are now.


It must be time that the licence paying public should tell the BBC enough is
enough. Please stop visualizing yourselves as being some elite cadre leading us
dumb prols ever leftward by the nose. Please get back to the basics of what we
pay you for: informing and entertaining us.”

EVAN A CLUE; BETRAYING THE BBC’S HIGH STANDARD OF BIAS

Biased BBC stalwart Graeme Thompson aka Hippiepooter writes;

“I was alerted to this
Evan Davis interview with the Prime Minister on the TODAY programme this Friday
via the Daily Mail.
 PM
ROWS WITH TODAY SHOW
 A swallow does not make a Summer, but it is a chink of light
that Cameron got short with the partisan line Davis was taking.
 Davis
was like a cocker spaniel trying to impersonate a rottweiler/fox cross,
ungamely trying to cling onto his Bullingdon Club bone of contention in
pursuance of Labour’s attack line on Cameron as ‘Flashman’.  It comes about 15 minutes in, but please
don’t think Davis
asked Cameron three times about the Bullingdon Club because he was trying to
equate Bullingdon Club antics with the riots. 
He assured us he wasn’t.
 Craig mentioned in the comments the other week that this
Labour attack line was also used by Paddy O’Connell on ‘Broadcasting House’
against London Mayor Johnson.  I wonder
if B-BBC readers have spotted any
other of Labour’s BBC houseboys
looking for bias brownie points with Miliband?
 What appals so much about Evan Davis is not just that he is
biased but he is patently inept as well. 
Whatever else one might say about the BBC’s
dogs of bias such as Humphrys, Paxman, Naughtie etc, they are not inept, they
are heavyweights.  If they were impartial
they would more than merit their places at the BBC.  One can only conclude that the only reason a
light-weight like Evan Davis is on the TODAY programme is because of his
bias.  Being homosexual can’t have done
him any harm either.  A double whammy for
career progression on BBC Planet
Gramsci.  Or maybe I’m being unfair?  Maybe Davis
retains enough sense of shame to make his bias so lame and forlorn?
 When one harks back to the not so long ago days of Alexander
MacLeod
and Gordon
Clough
, when gentlemen journalists sought to edify the British public, then
looks at the adversarial dross that the BBC
serves up today on programmes like TODAY and Newsnight, one cannot help but
grieve.  One grieves the lack of gravitas
and public duty, and the lack of action by Parliament.  The next time a Gramscian hack on the BBC asks the Prime Minister if misdoings in the
financial sector contribute to the climate of immorality that leads to riots,
one hopes the Prime Minister rejoins that 40 years of the BBC pushing Marxist narratives and undermining
patriotism and authority has led to the moral breakdown that saw England’s main
cities overrun with lawlessness in August.”

LYING OR JUST BAD?

A Biased BBC commentator asks;

“Is Mark Mardell lying or just a very bad, ill informed journalist? 

In 2006 Mardell asked the same question about torture as he asks now.

‘I find it interesting that I can’t recall any allegation that the allies used, or discussed using torture during World War II, although there must have been occasions when it might have saved lives or even the liberty of states. If you know differently please let me know.’

 Mark Mardell 2011

It has always intrigued me that when Britain really stood in peril of foreign conquest, when the blitz was killing more people than died on 9/11 night after night, it seems torture was not used.  Perhaps they simply never captured a Nazi senior enough to be worth putting to the question. What is the tipping point ?’

You might find it difficult to believe he had not heard of ‘The Cage’ especially as it was a story run by the BBC’s print version, The Guardian, in 2005….

Here describing conditions in a post war torture camp run by the British in Germany….

‘a place where prisoners were systematically beaten and exposed to extreme cold, where some were starved to death and, allegedly, tortured with instruments that his fellow countrymen had recovered from a Gestapo prison in Hamburg. Even today, the Foreign Office is refusing to release photographs taken of some of the “living skeletons” on their release.  Initially, most of the detainees were Nazi party members or former members of the SS, rounded up in an attempt to thwart any Nazi insurgency.’

Mardell could of course just be echoing his idol Obama:

‘Is Barack Obama reading blogs, particularly the site of one of his campaign’s most committed supporters, Andrew Sullivan? At his press conference on Wednesday evening, the president defended his decision to end the use of torture on detainees, by citing an article he had recently read, in which it was noted that during World War II, Winston Churchill refused to use such tactics on the spies captured by the British. “I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees,” said Obama. “And Churchill said, ‘We don’t torture,’ when the entire British — all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.” 

MARX WAS RIGHT!

Plastic bust sculpture of Karl Marx
A Biased BBC reader writes;

” I’ve just seen this ridiculously left-wing piece on the BBC News web site: 

“Karl Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about much of capitalism”
“…more and more people are starting to think Karl Marx was right.”
“Marx… was far more perceptive than most economists in his day and ours.”
“As capitalism has advanced it has returned most people to a new version of the precarious existence of Marx’s proles.”
“…just as he predicted, the bourgeois world has been destroyed”
Ah, they DO love old Karl, don’t they?

THE VENETIAN JOB…

A biased BBC reader notes;

“This morning I sat through 2 showings of a BBC Breakfast report at the Venice Film Festival giving us the low down on the films being released and showcased there. In both reports the BBC showed a clip of George Clooney at a press conference, supposedly there to talk about his film. Did the BBC show clips of him talking about the making of the movie? or the fact that he directed it? No. They showed a 30 second Clooney monologue on why Obama’s a great guy and has a very hard job. WHAT ON EARTH DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FILM FESTIVAL?”

What indeed?

OUR EVER LIVING POET

It is perfectly legitimate to question the Shakespearean authorship. I have been an advocate of Lord Oxford, Edward de Vere, for years now, so I pleased when I saw that the BBC were going to cover the issue here as a new movie is released on the topic. Instead of a balanced view owever, we got a prolonged sneer from both David Sillito and Evan Davies. I like to deal in facts and there are many which support the De Vere claim but these were all brushed away as the luvvies just agreed with each other.