Category Archives: BBC bias

It’s, we’re told, a brave man who predicts the political future…but the BBC give it a go anyway.

On Saturday Jim Naughtie signed off his report on the French election with the thought that it was ‘rather scary’…meaning of course the possibility that Le Pen may surprise everyone.  Today we had Hugh Schofield telling us that we ‘shouldn’t be fearful of a Le Pen victory…because she won’t win.’  Any bias there?  To be fair Chiles did call Schofield out on that and Schofield tried to wriggle out by saying he meant Le Pen would in essence wreck the economy and destroy Europe…no bias there then.  And of course the BBC continues to call Le Pen ‘Far-Right’ but as yet I can find no definition from the BBC of what ‘Far-Right’ actually means…and the same Hugh Scholfield in a moment of honesty produced an indepth look at Le Pen’s life and concluded she wasn’t Far-Right but actually of the Left politically….other than on immigration.

But there’s the rub….the BBC’s working definition, unwritten, is that if you want to control immigration you are Far-Right’…code for ‘Nazi’ and way beyond the pale.   It cannot be ‘nationalism’ as the BBC would then have to describe Sturgeon as Far-Right as well as the IRA….but consider that May has just reiterated her aim to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and yet the BBC do not call her Far-Right…why?  Because they know they would not get away with it and would be called out on it.

What does this show?  It shows the BBC’s blatant manipulation of the news by using language and labels to define people and groups in order to signal either approval or disapproval of people, groups and ideologies.  Different people with very similar policies get treated and labelled differently according to whom the BBC wants you to vote for.

It’s the same with the term ‘populist’…ironically Chiles had an expert on today who pretty much spanked the BBC approach by saying people use the word ‘populist’ to denigrate those they dislike, to bash your opponents, and that it was simplistic to lump so many groups and people, such as Trump, Le Pen, Farage, Wilders [and of course Putin, Erdogan] in together…something the BBC does all the time.

Later on tonight [20:00 R4] we have another attack on Le Pen…apparently, according to all the trails for the programme, the French working class are too cultured and intelligent to vote for her…so again, no bias there.

On ‘PM’ we were treated to an ‘imaging’ of what a Le Pen Presidency would look like after 100 days…naturally she was in deep with Trump, even building a Trump Tower next to the Eiffel Tower [not saying this BBC fantasy was complete cock but it was] and of course she would destroy the economy, murder all immigrants and put all EU bureaucrats in concentration camps…but she would build motorways….so that her tanks could move rapidly on Moscow after she falls out with her new husband…Putin.

Maybe I misheard the BBC but it went something along those lines.

We later had Macron’s 100 days [17:44:50]…a similarly dystopian view…all anarchist riots backed by Mélenchon and a Le Pen wanting a piece of the action.

What’s the point of such negative rubbish?  Not as if the BBC is any good at predictions having failed to predict Trump, Brexit and a Tory majority…indeed the BBC told us that the era of one party winning a majority was over and it was coalition government all the way now.

[Also note the BBC was trying to rewrite ‘history’ for future reference at around 17:16…if Iraq and Syria implode after ISIS is finally destroyed and removed then the BBC is claiming that it will be the fault of foreign interference ..er not actually the lack of interference then from Obama?…not the fault of the Islamic terrorists then?  And does the Iraq government and Assad not play any part at all in this?  Seems not.   No, ISIS is in fact a stabilising influence…maybe they should be left in place….how very Jeremy…fascinating how the reporter backs up his claims with quotes from an ISIS fighter in an FSA prison who tells us it is all the fault of foreigners and peace is the only answer, war only brings hatred and division…amazing but true…Hitler said he only wanted peace and that was what he worked for, the BBC believed him…if only we hadn’t fought against him Europe would be one big united family that maybe included Russia as well..and all those people needn’t have died….no more wars!  Nothing a man like Hitler could do would be worse than a war]

In a prevous post we noted that Corbyn was spouting a new line on nuclear weapons, that he wouldn’t use a ‘first strike’.  This gives the impression, no doubt intended, that he may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack…when everything he has said in the past has suggested he would not, under any circumstances, use nuclear weapons.  This new position by him was completely accepted by Marr and Humphrys without questions, no journalistic scoop about Corbyn’s apparent bombshell u-turn that he would now use nukes.  That is odd because Jo Coburn on today’s Daily Politics was pretty sure that Corbyn had said he would never, ever use nuclear weapons in any circumstances…..

Note Nia Griffith also comes up with the idea that he wouldn’t use a first strike…thus perpetuating the myth that Corbyn would use it….because ultimately it would be his decision whatever ‘we’, the Labour Party, thought as a group.   The interview cuts off there in the clip and so I haven’t seen if Coburn responds to that first strike comment….it is surely a crucial phrase that utterly changes Corbyn’s position on nukes…either he is lying or he has u-turned hugely.  I wait for the BBC to clear this up….and their own reporting…can’t have one lot reporting Corbyn will use nukes and one lot saying he never, ever will under any circumstances can we?

Just watched the whole thing and after Griffith mentions ‘first strike’ Coburn ignores that and says Corbyn is mouthing his usual line…ie never, ever press the button…but that’s not true is it if he is now disengenuously suggesting he might…but not as a first strike.

The BBC’s fake news agenda is in full flow during the French Presidential election. Last night, the BBC chose to run with poll forecasts showing Macron in the lead even as the actual results showed Le Pen in the actual lead. Then, when Paris – that most enriched of French cities – came in for Macron, the BBC switched to actual results! Lamentable pro Macron bias. This morning it has become even more ludicrous as the BBC chooses to cast Macron as “the outsider”? WHAT? This former Rothschilds banker provided economic guidance to uber Socialist President Hollande! He is supported by Merkel and Obama. I see Osborne has rallied to his side. Blair supports him. He is the quintessential INSIDER, but the BBC are on one of their predictable fake narratives. What a fake broadcaster.

Here you go, a brand new Open Thread to start the week. Detail the bias here….

Should he get to Number 10, he said simply, he would not press the nuclear button.

Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain’s potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.

BBC 2015

Apparently Corbyn has made a massive ‘bombshell’ u-turn on his nuclear weapons policy…once an ardent, fanatical nuclear disarmer and someone who would never, ever press the button he would in fact now use them, he would press the button if Britain were attacked.  The BBC hasn’t noticed.  Apparently this has always been his policy and there’s nothing new here.  Or he’s lying to win votes…and again the BBC makes no comment on his exploitation of ‘fake news’ and post-truth politics’….free ride to No 10 from the BBC?

Corbyn is even anti-nuclear power stations having said so in 2011..

“I say no nuclear power, decommission the stations we’ve got”.

The Conservatives have said Corbyn’s position on nuclear weapons is a threat to national security and thus he is unfit to be in office as PM.  Nick Robinson says the Tories are ‘smearing’ Corbyn with such a claim.  Robinson said Corbyn had a legitimate argument and that the Tory claim was thus a smear….Corbyn is perfectly entitled to his position but then his opponents are also entitled to comment on that…aren’t they?  Apparently not according to Nick Robinson who is obviously suggesting that the Tory argument is thus not legitimate.

Trouble is it’s a claim that Corbyn’s own party must agree with as they back Trident.

And what of that slippery phrase now being used by Corbyn, that he wouldn’t use a ‘first strike’?  He used it on Marr and Marr did not blink, and Humphrys on the Today show, despite noting that Corbyn had previously said he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, quoted the ‘first strike’ phrase without comment on the importance of that phrase and Corbyn’s slippery u-turn….the significance of which can be ascertained by the way the Labour man immediately jumped in saying ‘You’ve hit the nail on the head…he wouldn’t use it as a first strike’...leaving open the suggestion that he would use it as retaliation….when he would not, ever.  Post-truth politics?

Here’s Marr not reacting at all to the ‘bombshell’ u-turn in Corbyn’s position that he now would use nuclear weapons…just not as a first strike…

Why did neither Marr nor Humphrys challenge that positioning by Corbyn?  Corbyn would never, never, use nuclear weapons and to imply he might is utterly dishonest.

The BBC hides the  story about Corbyn’s nuclear stance on the politics page….why is such an important story not on the frontpage, or maybe even just on the UK page?  But no, you have to dig into the politics page to find it…

Speaking to Andrew Marr on BBC One, Mr Corbyn – a long-standing opponent of nuclear weapons – said he would never launch a “first strike” attack as prime minister and wanted to de-escalate global tensions, working with other countries including the US, Russia and Iran.

But hang on, is that a massive u-turn or a convenient lie?…he has made his views quite plain in the past…here’s his own Stop the War Coalition praising his position…

The new leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has sparked a political firestorm by challenging the myths around nuclear weapons and Cold War deterrence. Corbyn announced that he would never use a nuclear weapon.

Here’s the Guardian reporting his stance…

Jeremy Corbyn: I would never use nuclear weapons if I were PM

And here is the BBC itself reporting his ‘never, ever’ position…

Jeremy Corbyn row after ‘I’d not fire nuclear weapons’ comment

It did not take a debate, within Labour or the House of Commons. A few words on the Today programme did the trick.

Should he get to Number 10, he said simply, he would not press the nuclear button.

Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain’s potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.

“I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.

“I do not think we should be renewing Trident.”

Pretty clear isn’t it?  Under no circumstances would Corbyn, the terrorist sympathiser, ever press the nuclear button.

Why is the BBC now pushing all that down the memory hole and peddling Corbyn’s new ‘not a first strike’ pose as if this was his policy all along with nothing unusual going on, nothing to see here?

It’s a lie.  A lie intended to con the British public into thinking Corbyn can be trusted to defend British interests and maintain our security when in fact he has no intention of doing so and would happily surrender to the first threat in order to avoid any bloodshed at all.  And the BBC is backing that position by not challenging his lie and the subterfuge that he might use nuclear weapons if attacked….he would never use them, he has said so many times.

Shame the BBC has forgotten….a massive apparent policy u-turn by Corbyn in order to fool the voters and win an election…where is the BBC’s famed ‘Reality Check’ where are the cries of ‘Fake News’?  There came none….just as there came none when Corbyn completely fabricated a story about there being no seats on a train in order to bolster his Marxist drive to nationalise the railways.

Earlier this month we noted that the BBC was giving the views of ex-British ambassador, and pro-Assad mouth-piece, Peter Ford, complete credibility…The BBC…doing Russia’s dirty work for it.

The BBC interviewed him and then proceeded to use quotes from him throughout the day to promote the idea that the chemical attack in Syria may well have been a false flag operation by the rebels…in every news bulletin that I listened to the BBC did not inform us that Ford was in any way a supporter of the Assad regime, introducing him solely as ‘former British ambassador’.

The Telegraph reports Ford has indeed got very close links to Assad…

Revealed: How Britain’s former Syria ambassador appeared on BBC to defend Assad… after quietly taking a job with dictator’s father-in-law

A former British ambassador to Syria who appeared on the BBC to defend the Assad regime had already become a director of a lobby group run by the dictator’s father in law.

Peter Ford, 59, courted controversy this month by claiming that President Bashar al-Assad would not have carried out the chemical gas attack on his own people.

Now the Telegraph can reveal that just weeks before the April 4 attack  Mr Ford had become a director of the controversial British Syrian Society.

This was founded by Fawaz Akhras, a London-based cardiologist whose daughter Asma is married to President Assad, and is closely linked to the regime, frequently accused of acting as its mouthpiece in the west.

The BBC’s response was to claim…

The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.

A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: “When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a ‘long term critic of Western Policy’, or part of ‘a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria’.”

Now that’s just untrue, certainly on the day in question.  The BBC was spreading doubt and pro-Assad messages purely to try and undermine Trump and his missile attack on Assad.

The BBC so hates Trump they are prepared to do anything to do him down….including supporting a man who has bombed, tortured and attacked his own people with chemical weapons.

Did the BBC splice together video from one event and add comment about another to make it sound as if Trump supporters were attacking loveable Liberals?…Seems as if the BBC did indeed do that…

The election is on and the manifesto’s are being forged as we wait breathlessly……Nick Robinson has been dissecting the media response, the Tory supporting media response that is and found that the Daily Mail is abandoning its principles and supporting May regardless….but is that true?…here’s what reliable old Nick says…..

‘Striking the leeway a Tory paper like the Daily Mail is willing to give to her…they hate that pledge on aid and yet nowhere is it on the front page and you have to turn to page 6 to find a fond headline…Theresa bites the bullet….as if she is doing precisely what the paper asked instead of exactly the opposite.’

Trouble is that is a load of old twaddle…the Daily Mail in no-way gives May complete unquestioning support over ‘aid’…and the headline was not just on aid but on two other possible manifesto issues…

Theresa bites the bullet: Mrs May risks upsetting Tory supporters saying she will KEEP the 0.7% foreign aid law, DUMP the ‘no tax rise’ pledge and may DROP their commitment to the pension triple lock

And note none of those other issues were ‘on the front page’ either….so Robinson’s focus on aid alone is misleading in itself.

And does the Mail not mention that it thinks the aid budget is bonkers?…[note that the print edition which Robinson is talking about also states that the Mail itself opposed her aid plans]…..

Meanwhile, Theresa May confirmed the Government will stick to its controversial commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on foreign aid, quashing growing speculation it would be scraped.

Speaking in her home town of Maidenhead, Mrs May said the party will stick to its controversial foreign aid commitment which last year equated to more than £13billion of taxpayers’ money.

And this in the same report…

Theresa May insists she will KEEP controversial target on foreign aid spending

Theresa May has said she will she will keep the controversial target for minimum spending of billions on foreign aid at her latest campaign stop today.

The Prime Minister said it was important to ensure the money – equivalent to 0.7 per cent of national income and more than £13billion last year – is spent properly.

But as she returned home to Maidenhead for the first time since calling a snap general election, Mrs May ended speculation she would dump the controversial policy.

 

The Mail makes it quite plain that the aid budget is controversial and that the Mail opposed it [in the print edition].

Robinson just seems to make it up to suit his own agenda…that the Mail is supinely cheerleading for May regardless of what she says.

  Pat Marie The BBC is the propaganda arm of the Tory Party. Watch Newsnight 19th April. Constant bashing and negative comments about Jeremy Corbyn. Not one single voice from the other side. The BBC is a bloody joke.

Oh…and have to laugh at this after Robinson warned his colleagues about badmouthing Corbyn…

BBC journalist Nick Robinson sparked an impartiality row as he appeared to criticise Jeremy Corbyn after his first major campaign speech. 

The Radio 4 Today programme presenter faced a barrage of criticism after posting a tweet in which he accused Labour’s leader of being “long on passion and short on details”.

“No-one should be surprised that @jeremycorbyn is running v the “Establishment” & is long on passion & short on details. Story of his life,” Mr Robinson’s tweet said.

I hadn’t realised he was talking about Corbyn….thought he was actually referring to the BBC…long  on compassion, short on details…and truth.

Oh dear. Merely meant that people should expect Jeremy to do now what done his whole life – ie give passionate anti establishment speech.

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) April 20, 2017

Gina Miller always insisted that she wasn’t trying to stop Brexit, merely interested in the proper democratic process…hence she is now trying to buy up that democratic process and rig the election in order to get anti-Brexit placemen shoehorned into Parliament so that they can vote for her pet project…stopping Brexit.  At least one BBC journo, Andrew Neil of course, called her out on it…

A question Neil didn’t ask was where is all her money came from originally…a type of question that the BBC is often very keen to ask….such as when Leave put that famous wording on the side of their bus….

A stupid mistake to make…how could they not foresee being hung out to dry for such a claim?  However having been taken to task by the BBC in a relentless witch-hunt over this claim in a way that the BBC does not do for Remain’s highly alarmist and exaggerated claims, the BBC then does exactly the same….and claims money coming back to the UK is ‘from the EU’.

Even this morning the BBC were at it as they discussed farming subsidies…Sarah Montague told us, several times, that farming only exists now in the way it does because of the money that the EU sends us, the £3 billion that comes from the EU.

So now the BBC tells us that we do send money to the EU and it becomes the EU’s money, even though we get it back…whereas when the BBC wants to undermine the Leave campaign Leave are lying when they say we give the EU the money…because we get it back…so the BBC tells us it cannot be counted as money we have given to the EU….unless it suits the BBC agenda…in this case farming will collapse without the benevolent EU handouts.

If Leave were misleading people before the BBC is just as guilty of doing exactly the same here.

It’s perfectly obvious that the Conservatives led by Theresa May are going to record a historic victory in June. The only question is just how big will the majority be? This is bad news for the BBC and in typical form it will now spend the next six weeks trying to undermine May and prop up the useless Corbyn and Farron. I note that Laura Kuenssberg has already been sneering about May’s “broken promises” and assuring us that the polls “will narrow” before Election Day. The one thing that is certain is that if you look to the BBC for fair and balanced media coverage of the Election you won’t get it. I REALLY wish that Theresa May would include an election pledge to remove the BBC License Tax. That would surely be a vote winner!