I did an interview on the topic of BBC bias for the Sunday Guardian, a major newspaper in India which is not a left wing rag – unlike its UK daily namesake. Here is one line from it…
Vance says ”Politicians are scared of the sheer monopolistic power of the BBC, it is not just an anachronism, it is menace”.
I will link the entire article when published. No punches were pulled.
I saw this headline on the BBC today.
Islamic State conflict: 10,000 militants killed in nine months – US
Islamic State is a TERRORIST organisation. It seeks to impose its radical Islamist agenda by killing and maiming anyone that disagrees with it. It has burnt people alive. It decapitates. It machines guns. It terrorises to achieve its end. So WHY does the morally bankrupt BBC not call it for what it is? I am sick of these euphemisms being deployed by the BBC to avoid using the T word lest this imply a degree of judgement on these savages.
Let me start by saying that like so many other people I was saddened to read of the death of former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy at such an early age. The loss to his family and friends will be immense. However, does anyone else find the BBC coverage of this excessive? Time after time in the past TWO days, I have turned on the various BBC channels to hear glowing eulogy after another paid to Kennedy. It makes me wonder how it can be that someone who was such a political giant was comprehensively rejected at the polls just a few weeks back? Kennedy was well to the LEFT of Labour and he was also avowedly anti the Iraq war – as was the BBC. I wonder does this colour the scale of the coverage afforded? I am not seeking to be mean spirited or unsympathetic BUT the grief-fest the BBC has been engaging in seems way too much. Thoughts?
Middle of the week and time for a new one of these. Here is where you detail the bias.
The BBC is very selective in how it treats Christians. If they are arguing for “gay marriage’ – the BBC sees them as heroes. And now, if they are demanding that God be called “she” as much as “he’ then the BBC rallies around the cause. The fact that Christ starts the prayer he taught his disciples as “Our Father who art in heaven…” seems a slight detail. I like the bit a the end of the article which casually states…
‘There has been no comparable movement in Islam, which is less open to this kind of reinterpretation. Christianity and Judaism, however, seem to be in the process of a major continuing realignment.”
Of course the BBC will sometimes run with the Conservative narrative if it happens to synch with the BBC’s visceral contempt for private industry. Today they are merrily spinning this story…
The government has announced measures to clamp down on “rip-off” staffing agencies used by the NHS to plug gaps in nursing and doctor rotas. It will set a maximum hourly rate for temps and cap the amount trusts that are struggling financially can spend. The agencies’ body says they are being scapegoated “for the NHS’s own mismanagement of workforce planning”.
The agencies are dead right. No one FORCES the NHS to use their services and as usual when the NHS is questioned it is ALWAYS someone else fault. The BBC like to run this as it paints private enterprise as vultures feeding off our brave and noble NHS. The same NHS which shows a lamentable control of budgets.
No sooner had Cameron announced his intention to double free provision for three and four-year-olds in England than the BBC ran this angle on it..
“Childcare changes threatened by underfunding, providers say”
I suppose with Labour in its death throes the BBC feels an obligation to use its multi-billion pound media soapbox (extorted from the License payer) to attack the Conservatives but I don’t see why I should fund this outrageous bias.
Sorry about the delay but here is a fresh Open Thread for you to complete.
Middle of the week and time for a new one of these! Enjoy it and detail the bias here!
Time for a new one of these. Sorry about my absence in recent times but two close family bereavements in succession have somewhat taken my eye off BBC bias. Anyway, I am back. So detail the bias here.
