Category Archives: BBC bias

All Trump would have to do is express a preference for Vodka for the BBC to accuse him of being in the Russian’s pocket. Meanwhile, other news outlets report this but the BBC doesn’t seem much interested. Does not fit into the narrative you see…

Hillary Clinton’s team members met with the Russian ambassador during the election as well as Donald Trump’s, the Kremlin spokesman has alleged, as he set out to dismiss the “hysteria” surrounding Mr Trump’s links to Russia.

Can’t wait for the BBCA to blast this into their headlines……

Brexit beckons, expect sustained BBC driven hysteria. Detail all the bias here folks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpXsY00_5do

‘Steerpike’ at the Spectator says Louise Mensch has a car crash interview with Andrew Neil.  I would suggest it is Neil who has the car crash as he keeps getting his facts wrong and continually misunderstands what Mensch says about Putin and Breitbart…she says she believes Putin had Breitbart murdered but she does not have any evidence…she is not saying that she has evidence of that, she is not saying it is true, she is merely saying it is purely her own personal unconfirmed belief…which it is perfectly reasonable to have.

Neil attacks her for linking Trump to Russia…and yet the BBC has consistently done so, suggesting openly that Trump won because of Russian hacking…despite no concrete evidence on the table so far…and even if the Russians did hack the Demcrats emails…so what?….if they showed that the Democrats were ‘dirty’ is that not legitimate whatever the source?  After all the BBC were more than happy to take evidence from the dodgy dossier about Trump whose source was claimed to be…Russian intelligence…so why is that acceptable evidence, meant to alter the course of the election, when the emails are not?….And why would Russia both try to get Trump elected and then try to stop him being elected?   The BBC was also eager to use Snowden’s revelations to attack the US….and yet Snowden was in all likelihood a Russian spy…what better cover than to claim it was whistle-blowing, thus giving useful idiots like the BBC and the Guardian the excuse to give the stolen information massive publicity and coverage…hugely damaging to US and European interests.  [The BBC is the enemy within all too often]

Note the BBC is reporting hard on the recent Wikileaks revelations about the CIA…but not about earlier revelations released a couple of weeks before, that the US hacked the German elections in 2012…

CIA espionage orders for the 2012 French presidential election

All major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA’s human (“HUMINT”) and electronic (“SIGINT”) spies in the seven months leading up to France’s 2012 presidential election. The revelations are contained within three CIA tasking orders published today by WikiLeaks as context for its forth coming CIA Vault 7 series. Named specifically as targets are the French Socialist Party (PS), the National Front (FN) and Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) together with current President Francois Hollande, then President Nicolas Sarkozy, current round one presidential front runner Marine Le Pen, and former presidential candidates Martine Aubry and Dominique Strauss-Khan.

How is it that the BBC is so keen to delegitimise Trump’s election but fails to tell us what the American intelligence agencies got up to in foreign, friendly, countries…and of course we know that they also hacked Merkel’s own phone in Germany [and many have the belief that Merkel is one of the Soviets greatest successes as an agent….she was brought up in East Germany [35 years] and was a committed Young Socialist party member, a mid-level propaganda commissar for the Free German Youth, that is, the young Communists, and all at a time when Putin was also in East Germany working for the KGB]….the BBC, eager to rewrite history to suit its anti-Trump, anti-Brexit agenda also forgets, as it tells us that we are now living in a new era of ‘post truth’ where Russia is trying to influence elections, that Russia, in the shape of the Soviet Union, always tried to influence elections and national politics….with many fellow travellers in those countries happy to help…many of them working for the BBC.

We came close to losing our democracy in 1979

Douglas Eden reveals the extraordinary penetration of the 1970s Labour movement by pro-Soviet trade unionists and the extent of Callaghan’s toleration of the hard Left.

How the Kremlin hijacked Labour: Diary of a Kremlin insider reveals the hold Soviets had over Labour politicians

Just how deep the tentacles of communism reached into the heart of British government has now been revealed with the emergence of an extraordinary diary by Anatoly Chernyaev, the Soviet Union’s contact man with the West at the icy height of the Cold War.

Meticulously detailed and written by hand on lined notepaper, the diary has come to light in the U.S. National Security Archive.

They were soon exercising considerable influence in universities, the state education system, publishing houses, the legal hierarchy and the civil service.

But it was in politics that these high-flying members of the Left established their greatest power-base, both in the Labour Party and the trades’ union movement.

We do not expect you to trust us

It is in the nature of an open collaboration and work-in-progress like Wikipedia that quality may vary over time, and from article to article. While some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. Also, since Wikipedia can be edited by almost anyone anytime, articles may be prone to errors, including vandalism. So please do not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.

Jimmy wales, co-founder of fake news site, Wikipedia, states today in the Sunday Times that ‘Fake news has almost zero impact on Wikipedia’.

The site that banned the Mail for being an unreliable news site is itself one of the least reliable information sites out there…no one trusts it enough to use it as a source on its own…even Wikipedia says, as quoted above, that it would be foolish to do so.  The site that is controlled by people with determined agendas, a ‘stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.’

The Mail itself criticised Wikipedia back in 2012…

Iffy-pedia: Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors

Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain inaccuracies, according to new research.

The number of factual errors shows just how unreliable it can be to use the online resource as a sole means of digging up information.

Yet millions base everything from school homework to corporate presentations using facts and figures they have gleaned from the site

No doubt this contributed to the Mail being banned as a source by Wikipedia…something the BBC hasn’t bothered to investigate despite constantly referring to the ban when talking of ‘fake news’ issues.  The Mail responded with its own investigation into who banned them and why…

The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that’s a byword for inaccuracy 

You may say ‘they would say that’ but what they say is true…Wikipedia is essentially run by a small clique of activists who guard it and shape its ‘facts’ to suit their own agenda…..

Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are.

In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia’s group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.

Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve.

Due to the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, users can falsify entries.

There is little diversity among editors.
According to a 2009 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, 87 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, with an average age of 26.8 years. According to executive director Sue Gardner, they hail mostly from Europe and North America, and many of them are in graduate school.

It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.
According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever….A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.

Accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable.

Reading how people convince others to believe their fake news I came across this explanation that chimed exactly with how the BBC operates...relying on its inherited reputation for trust and accuracy in order to peddle lies convincingly to people whom they know will by default trust the BBC and not question its reliability…

Ultimately, though, they aimed to succeed less by assembling convincing stories than by exploiting the trust of their marks, inducing them to lower their guard….hoaxes tend to thrive in communities which exhibit high levels of trust.

Yep, don’t trust the BBC and you might just start to see the world as it is and not as the BBC wants you to see it.

Between 2010 and 2015, the Department [of education] and local authorities created 599,000 new school places at a cost of £7.5 billion

The government estimates that it will need to create 420,000 additional places between 2016 and 2021 – 231,000 in primary schools and 189,000 in secondary schools.

The Department has responded positively to start to meet the challenges it faces in relation to the quality and capacity of the school estate. Significant challenges remain, however, as the population continues to grow and the condition of the ageing estate deteriorates.  NAO

 

On Friday you may have learnt from the BBC that schools are in a funding crisis as budgets are cut and Heads have to decide which courses to cut back on.  The BBC told us this was purely a result of budget cuts…..the fact that the real reason, mentioned by one the Heads in an interview, is an ever growing school population, was totally ignored by the BBC in its reports….more than a million new school places needed between 2010 and 2021.

Mass, uncontrolled immigration is the reason schools have a problem with the ring-fenced education budget…which of course is not being cut.  How did the BBC manage to avoid any serious discussion of this point during a whole day talking about this story?  The Department for Education is now one of the biggest buyers of land in the UK, billions being spent just on the land, never mind building the schools and continued upkeep and maintenance, training and employing new teachers and all the rest of the associated costs.  Mass immigration good for the UK?

Then again we can see more evidence of the damaging effect the media’s pro-immigrant stance has on politics and society as it is now admitted  [ in the sunday Times today] that Merkel’s decision to keep the borders open was not a humanitarian and ethical move but was done because she feared what the images of German police holding back waves of immigrants, especially women and children, always the BBC’s favourite goto image, would be made to look like by the media.  So once again the media, as in Britain where it deliberately failed to hold Labour to account when it opened the doors despite knowing the full damage it would do to Britain, has, instead of being a mere spectator, become a political actor, an agitator, an activist, a blackmailer in effect.

 

While millions of tourists make their way safely across Australia, some shocking exceptions highlight the need for caution in the wilderness

So a judge warns women that getting drunk makes you vulnerable to rape attacks and the judge is denounced by the usual suspects [Labour]….no such denouncements for people warning backpackers to be careful in Australia [in the Guardian] in case they get raped.  Are the warnings not suggesting backpackers will be to blame if they do get attacked as the Judge’s remarks are said to be blaming the drunk girls?  Sarah Montague at first challenged this narrative about the judge’s remarks but wrapped up supporting it.  The BBC frontloads the attacks on the judge in its web report and only gives lipservice to the defence.  Similarly it frontloads the usual suspects’ over-the-top attacks on the Tesco chairman for making the point that board places are being taken by women and ethnic minorites, doing so in a joking manner…a tone entirely missed, probably wilfully, by the shriekers….the more reasoned and sensible defence for his remarks is left until the end.

Interesting that EU bureaucrat, Guy Verhofstadt, should suggest Brits be given EU citizenship and the right to travel….and yet he can’t say anything about Brits actually already in ‘Europe’ and their right to stay….maybe the EU wants to keep up the pressure on May as they see her being attacked for not unilaterally promising to allow EU immigrants to stay here.

How odd the BBC hasn’t reported that Owen Jones has been forced off ‘social media’ by left-wing hate mongers…from Guido…

Owen Jones Driven Off Twitter by Left-Wing Haters

How is it that the BBC isn’t headlining with this story…if it had been right-wing haters they have been reporting it at length and in great detail with every tweet and facebook comment carefully cut and pasted to show how appalling the Right is and how traumatised poor Owen must be by it all.  Jones is one of the BBC’s favourite lefty commentators and for some reason they just don’t seem to care about him being abused by the Left just as the BBC doesn’t bother about the death threats, threats of violence and the tidal wave of abuse at Leave voters and politicians, the BBC preferring to build a narrative that says we are heading back to the 1930’s and a fascist era of right-wing hate…Britain is now a more racist and nasty place after Brexit…because of the Right.

Oh hang on, the BBC has reported it, tucked away on the kid’s newsbeat site [H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased?]…if it appeared on the main site it seems to have vanished already.  But what’s the story BBC?  It’s one of Far-Right extremists and Conservatives, as well as some labour supporters abusing Jones….but it appears that the BBC actually invented the bit about ‘Conservatives’, Jones not mentioning them at all…and why did the BBC headline with the Far-Right when most of the abuse comes from Corbyn supporters and has done so for weeks now as Jones U-Turns on his unquestioning support for comrade Corbyn?

And will the BBC be reporting this ?[thanks to Wild Bill in the comments]

A Muslim girl captured on camera twerking in Britain has apologized for “disrespecting” Islam and hijab following the backlash from the Muslim community.

The girl, whose name remains unknown, was criticized after video filmed in the UK city of Birmingham, showed her twerking while wearing a hijab.

“F*****g s**t someone give me her address I will kill her”. Another man seconded: “Stupid b****h needs to be killed”

Remember when the Tea Party ‘resistance’ movement was the evil, fascist right-wing demon stalking civilised America…but now Left-wing ‘resistance’ to Trump is glorified and applauded…

Bernie Sanders on the resistance movement in Trump’s America

Sanders discusses historical movements from the past century and lessons that young progressives can take from them

Just a few examples of the Left’s hypocritical narrative and approach to news and the rewriting of history.

Here you go, a new Open Thread on which to detail their sordid daily bias.

First…When Dick Nobinson called Hammond ‘Spreadshit Phil’ was he drunk, did he do it for a bet or was it purely a cynical joke to amuse his BBC buddies and those in Labour who wanted Robinson to be their PR guru?  I’m guessing the last one.

Now to the main issue, the BBC’s so-called reporting of the Budget.  The BBC’s top economic editor, Nihal, speculated that Hammond was vilifying the self-employed, calling them cheats who were dodging paying their full whack.  Great journalism…based on what exactly? The BBC’s reporting has been a very low budget affair that seems very light on facts…one crucial fact that went missing was the reason Hammond increased NIC’s for the self-employed…and indeed have been using a clip from Labour’s John McDonnell claiming that the self-employed have got absolutely nothing back…the BBC provided no counter-voice to that clip.  Kind of surprising really as Hammond stated the reason quite plainly in his budget speech….the self-employed now get the full state pension and will get further benefit entitlements later on…not only that but their NICs will still not be at the same level as employed people’s and they are in fact having some contributions reduced…didn’t hear that at all on the BBC all day…..until Tory Bernard Jenkins mentioned it and was immediately shut down and the subject changed by the presenter….which is a bit odd…the absolutely crucial point about the NIC increase and the BBC doesn’t want to talk about it…..from the speech……

An employee earning £32,000 will incur between him and his employer £6,170 of National Insurance Contributions. A self-employed person earning the equivalent amount will pay just £2,300 – significantly less than half as much.

Historically, the differences in NICs between those in employment and the self-employed reflected differences in state pensions and contributory welfare benefits.

But with the introduction of the new state pension, these differences have been very substantially reduced.

Since 2016 self-employed workers now build up the same entitlement to the state pension as employees, a big pension boost to the self-employed.

The most significant remaining area of difference is in relation to parental benefits, and I can announce today that we will consult in the summer on options to address the disparities in this area as the FSB and others have proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, The difference in National Insurance Contributions is no longer justified by the difference in benefits entitlement.

The abolition of Class 2 NICs for self-employed people, announced by my predecessor in 2016 and due to take effect in 2018, would further increase the gap between employment and self-employment…. from April 2018, when the Class 2 NIC is abolished, the main rate of Class 4 NICs for the self-employed will increase by 1% to 10%, with a further 1% increase in April 2019.

The combination of the abolition of Class 2 and the Class 4 increases I have announced today, raises a net £145m a year for our public services by 2021-22, an average of around 60p a week per self-employed person in this country.

The BBC was more interested targeting the Tories for breaking their election manifesto promise and Emma Barnett wanted to know if this makes you lose your trust in politicians.  Curiously not at all interested in the fact that the budget is not the Remain camp’s ‘Project Fear’ budget that promised to grind us into the ground with an emergency austerity budget to save us from the perils of Brexit…how is it the BBC is not interested in that broken political pledge?

Barnett had a couple on from the FT and the Huffington Post to discuss the budget…both lefty remain supporting rags…naturally they demanded an election as the manifesto promise was broken…..this would suit the Remain camp, as John Major’s like-minded demands illustrate, as most MPs are Remain and would, when re-elected then claim they were elected as Remainers…and thus had a mandate to crush Brexit.  So will the BBC be asking if such dishonest, corrupt, anti-Democratic shyster politicians have our trust?  No, don’t be silly.

It wasn’t so long ago, when we were having the referendum and it was noted that Leave voters [and of course Trump voters] had no faith in the political class, that the BBC decided we now had to respect and trust politicians…or we’d have more Jo Cox’s…..odd how, now the referendum is over and Trump elected, the BBC goes back to its normal mantra of Politicians are all liars and cheats….well, Tory ones.  No such questions of betrayal of democracy when the SNP says it wants another independence referendum, in fact today the BBC is peddling the SNP’s propaganda that another referendum is just common sense…no, it’s not…it’s corrupt and anti-democratic….Brexit has nothing to do with ‘Scotland’…it’s a ‘British’ issue and ‘Scotland’ voted to stay in ‘Britain’.

Only now, after a day of fact-free disparagement of the Budget do we start to get an inkling that things may not be a bad as they are being painted.   Have to say, to be fair to the BBC, the likes of the Mail, and indeed some of the usual dumb, bovine, self-harming Tory MP’s, are doing a splendid job of creating a tremendous fuss about nothing and seem to be intent on doing a better job of opposition than the lack-lustre Corbyn.

Looking forward to the BBC giving this as much publicity as the OTHER petitions that so excite it!

MPs are set to debate whether to abolish the TV licence fee, used to subsidise the BBC, after a petition calling for it to be axed passed the 100,000 signatures mark. The petition calls for the mandatory fee of £145.50 per household per year to be ditched, arguing that it is too expensive. By law, every household capable of viewing live content must pay the TV licence, used to subsidise the state broadcaster, whether they access BBC content or not. Failure to pay is a criminal offence.

But even if the idea gains support among MPs during the debate, scheduled to take place on 8 May, fee payers are unlikely to be let off the hook for at least another decade as the state broadcaster’s charter, which sets the terms for the fee for a ten-yearly basis, has only just been renewed.

The BBC’s “unique funding” is a 21st century anachronism. Let is go on a subscription basis and let this wicked License Tax end.

The BBC reports…