The BBC has long smeared UKIP with the ‘Far Right’ tag and even made allusions to Nazism and of course is blatantly involved in the campaign to undermine Brexit with claims it is unleashing a tidal wave of racism, hate and fear across the UK…so much so that BBC journalists fear for the future of their children in Britain.

Now they have the template established for how to deal with unwanted election results why let it go to waste?  Why not link Trump to Nazi anti-Semitism and to the worst excesses of the Communist regime?…

Trump’s rude awakening for Germany

A few hours after US President-elect Donald Trump took to the stage to make his acceptance speech, as evening fell in Berlin, small candles were quietly lit and carefully placed in front of aged, stone doorsteps and along the darkening pavements.

Berliners were marking the anniversary of Kristallnacht (when Jewish people and their businesses were violently attacked in 1938).

It was barely noted amid the febrile howl of international reaction to the US election. Neither was the 27th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which shares the same date.

But both events – and all that they represent of this country’s past – explain, partially at least, why Germans were so repulsed by Donald Trump’s election rhetoric and why so few (4% by one poll’s reckoning) wanted him in the White House.

So Trump’s election will bring a return of Kristallnacht-like pogroms and the tyranny and subjugation of a Communist regime [the BBC wishes] where the people are viciously oppressed and dissenters with differing opinions are shot or sent to the Gulag [again…so like the BBC].

The BBC still peddling the lie about Trump and his policies on immigration….exactly why would Germans be repulsed by his views in light of Kristallnacht and the Soviet tyranny?  Please explain BBC…where’s the link other than your attempt to smear Trump as a Nazi or bizarrely at the same time, as a Communist?  Just what did Trump say that was so abhorrent?  The BBC doesn’t want to look to hard at the truth and instead prefers to shout racist or Islamophobe…and indeed is going down exactly the same road it did with Brexit as it tries to portray Trump’s election as unleashing demons…

US Election 2016: Are hate crimes spiking after Trump’s victory?

Never  mind that ‘protestors’ are urging people to kill Trump and indeed white people…even the Guardian gets in on the act...via Guido…[not sure how she hasn’t had her collar felt]…

Three days of anti-Trump rioting and protest, attacks on whites, calls to kill Trump and whites and the BBC thinks Trump voters are the problem?  Just as it ignored threats to kill Farage, massive hate campaigns against Leave voters and the fact that a multitude of the most serious hate crimes are being executed, often literally, by Muslims…often against their own co-religionists who don’t meet their exacting standards of what a Muslim should be.  Muslism are being killed and attacked in the UK because they don’t fit the mainstream criteria that defines what a Muslim should be…and the BBC refuses to point out the fact that it is mainstream Muslim dogma that is driving these attacks….the MCB itself defining Ahmadi Muslims as non-Muslim…thus ‘unleashing demons’….no?

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

There’s a very good reason why the BBC is terrified of changing its funding model to a subscription system.  What is happening at the New York Times [CEO the BBC’s Mark Thompson] right now demonstrates what that is….accountability via the wallet.

The NYT ran a deliberately biased, anti-Trump campaign rather than provide its readers with honest and accurate reporting of the election…this of course being precisely the same route that the BBC took, though the NYT openly admitted it was going to be biased because Trump was such an appalling figure in their estimation…

Bad or sloppy journalism doesn’t fully capture the Times sins. Not after it announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.

As media columnist Jim Rutenberg put it in August, most Times reporters saw Trump “as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate” and thus couldn’t be even-handed.

That wasn’t one reporter talking — it was policy. The standards, developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to build public trust, were effectively eliminated as too restrictive for the Trump phenomenon.

The man responsible for that rash decision, top editor Dean Baquet, later said the Rutenberg piece “nailed” his thinking, and went on to insist that Trump “challenged our language” and that, “He will have changed journalism.”

Trump indeed was challenging, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be broken without consequence.

After that, the floodgates opened, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper — all the tools were used to pick a president, the facts be damned.

That bias, that slanted, one-sided journalism, propaganda, is hitting them where it hurts…in the wallet….

Now the bill is coming due. Shocked by Trump’s victory and mocked even by liberals for its bias, the paper is also apparently bleeding readers — and money.

Citing reader anger over election coverage, Rutenberg wrote that, “Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions.”

Even its own journalists are asking questions…

Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking

On Tuesday afternoon, The New York Times told readers in its Upshot polling feature that Hillary Clinton had an 84 percent chance of winning. And for many weeks leading up to Election Day, The Times delivered a steady stream of stories. One described Clinton’s powerful and well-organized ground operation — and Trump’s frazzled counterattack. Another claimed a surge in the Latino vote that could decide the election. Others speculated on the composition and tenor of a Clinton cabinet. The picture was of a juggernaut of blue state invincibility that mostly dismissed the likelihood of a Trump White House.

But sometime Tuesday night, that 84-percent Clinton win Upshot figure flipped. Suddenly it was 95 percent — for Donald Trump.

Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”

The Times would serve readers well with fewer brief interviews, fewer snatched slogans that inevitably render a narrow caricature of those who spoke them.

That last comment in particular could also be directed at the BBC…its highly selective use of vox pop street interviews which put up inarticulate, often rough looking people against articulate, well groomed, often immigrant, opposing voices….the BBC deliberately trying to create those ‘narrow caricatures’ of who will vote for any particular side, one uneducated and probably bigoted and racist up against a lovely, educated, cosmopolitan immigrant. Saw it today as the BBC went in search of Trump voters….those they found were fat, working class, rough types with greasy hair, unshaven and clearly not encumbered with a sense of fashion.  And how often have you heard the people say one thing and the BBC to sum up with a conclusion that flies in the face of what has just been said?  Naturally the conclusion is one that suits the liberal, lefty BBC mindset.

The NYT has had to issue a letter pleading for understanding…but just like the BBC it refuses to admit it was wrong…despite previously admitting it was offering up a very one-sided view of the election…..

As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

 Clearly the NYT is still intent on attacking Trump and is trying to make out that this is it just doing its job….’ to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.‘   What Trump voter would still subscribe to the NYT now?

And indeed what Tory, UKIP voter or anyone with an interest in fair, accurate and impartial news would subscribe to the BBC?

The BBC is terrified to put its money where its mouth is.  It knows it does not represent the views, opinions and values of most of the country and that its journalism  lacks depth, intelligence, investigative vigour and that ‘unflinching impartiality’ that holds power, all power, to account.  The very opposite in fact as it actually adopts narratives and moulds its news to push those messages be they on climate change, immigration, Labour, the EU or independence for various regions of the UK as it seeks to break Britain up.

As with the NYT...’This is about survival. If it doesn’t change now, the Gray Lady’s days surely are numbered’…..the BBC might well suffer the same fate if it had to genuinely account to its audience for its failings.

Here’s a video [h/t Is the BBC biased?] that talks truth to Power [the power that is the massive domination of the Left in the Media, academia, commentary and those who use ‘shaming’ tactics to try and silence opposition]

One quibble…he says that debate will win the Left the argument…..he presupposes that the Left’s argument is the correct one and it only needs to be articulated for the ignorant masses to see the light…which brings us back to where we started.

Here’s another video on the same subject….

Here is the foaming mouthed, swivel-eyed no-policys Trump in action….he has repeatedly performed such moderate and indepth presentations and yet to hear the BBC you’d think all he did was spout racist, sexist mad comments…

Is he a misogynist?  No, he doesn’t hate women…the opposite would seem to be the problem.

Were his comments about Mexicans and Muslims racist?  No.  His comments about Mexican immigrants were badly phrased in that they seemed to say all Mexicans immigrants were rapists, clearly not his view, but was he actually talking about ‘Mexicans’ or about illegal immigrants…who just happened to be mostly Mexican?  If they were Canadian he would have said exactly the same.

As for Muslims, well firstly Muslims are not a race, second he was not suggesting banning Muslims from entering the US just on the basis they were Muslim…he does not hate Muslims…it was a reasoned response to Muslim terrorism within the US….he wanted a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US until the US developed an effective way of determining which Muslims might be a threat to the country once they were there.  If it had been people with red hair blowing up things in America he would have said the same about people with red hair.  Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists right now are Muslim…hence the profiling.

The BBC has consistently ignored the nuances and intentions behind his comments and instead loudly declared Trump to be a racist and Islamophobe…..studiously ignoring Clinton’s close links to Saudi Arabia despite the BBC relentlessy attacking Saudi Arabia over the war in Yemen whilst at the same time dodging comment on Saudia Arabia’s well documented funding of Islamic fundamentalists around the world [including its massive presence and malign influence in the UK] and funding of ISIS.

A distinct lack of informative debate from the BBC…just a day-in, day-out tirade of anti-Trump bile….though apparently the BBC denies it completely despite the evidence being glaringly obvious and abundant.

Over a year ago, reported by the Washington Post, Trump said he would keep the Obamacare provision for pre-existing conditions….somewhat late, the BBC has just reported this ‘news’ as a breathtaking u-turn by Trump having ‘spent the whole campaign promising to repeal Obamacare’…as BBC News is now reporting disingenuously without the qualification of the inconvenient truth.

The BBC is headlining with Trump loving Obamacare and u-turning on his pledge to repeal and replace it….John Humphrys began with the words that ‘opponents fear, and that is the right word, that 10 years of Democrat legislation will be repealed…..’…..Justin Webb ended the programme by suggesting Trump was a danger to the world….despite his desire for NATO countries to cough up the full 2% of funding and their failure to do so has long been a US complaint and that the BBC itself was highlighting attacks on the UK government for allegedly not doing so recently.  The Head of NATO itself said that Europe was shirking its responsibilities. 

On Trump’s ‘u-turn’?

The BBC is lying.

The BBC is engaged in massive distortion and misrepresentation of what Trump has said…the BBC’s intent?  To sow doubt amongst his supporters and generate a feeling that he is betraying those who voted for him……their latest frontpage headline….

Trump rethink on abolishing Obamacare

Donald Trump says he is open to keeping parts of the 2010 health bill that he had labelled a “disaster”.

Trump: Obamacare key provisions to remain

US President-elect Donald Trump has said he is open to leaving intact key parts of President Barack Obama’s healthcare bill.

Mr Trump, who has pledged to repeal the 2010 law, said he will keep the ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

There is no ‘re-think’.

This is not a u-turn…if the BBC was honest they would report that he said exactly the same thing in February this year in a televised debate……

Keep pre-existing condition coverage; not individual mandate

Q: Senator Rubio, you said that Mr. Trump thinks part of ObamaCare is pretty good. Which part?

RUBIO: The individual mandate. He said he likes the individual mandate portion of it; I don’t believe that should remain there. We need to repeal ObamaCare completely and replace it with a system that puts Americans in charge of their health care money again.

TRUMP: I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of ObamaCare. I want to keep pre- existing conditions. It’s a modern age, and I think we have to have it.

Q: The insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people with pre-existing conditions is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?

TRUMP: I think they’re wrong 100%. Look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians [and vice-versa]. The insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep preexisting conditions, and that would be a great thing.

It literally took 30 seconds to find that quote and yet the BBC’s premier news programme that sets its news agenda for the day didn’t bother to look…because it didn’t want to.  Instead it took from CBS what merely confirmed the BBC’s pre-existing opinions…its ‘reporting’ being merely rehashed news releases from other sources not its own actual journalism…as Paxman long ago complained of….

In this press of events there often isn’t the time to get out and find things out: you rely upon second-hand information – quotes from powerful vested interests, assessments from organisations which do the work we don’t have time for, even, god help us, press releases from public relations agencies. The consequence is that what follows isn’t analysis. It’s simply comment, because analysis takes time, and comment is free.

Of course it helps if the comment fits in with your own narrative.

It’s also in the Washington Post from August 2015….

Trump adds that he’ll cover catastrophic coverage and pre-existing conditions.

Note also that the BBC don’t headline with the very emphatic statement in the same interview seconds later that Trump would ‘repeal and replace’ Obamacare.

Why is the BBC, and others, pushing this narrative of alleged backsliding on his promises?  Simply because they want to make out he is betraying those who voted for him and thus stir up as much trouble as possible.

Strange the BBC don’t explore the issues in this article also from CBS:

The unbearable smugness of the press

The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process. 

I have been live tweeting BBC Question Time for some years now. However last night, I gave up in disgust after about half an hour. The BIAS against the election of Donald Trump was incredible. A panel was selected – four women and one man (no transgenders though) that was plainly there to put the boot into Trump. Yvette Cooper kept blurting out “misogynistic” as if she had Tourettes. A shouty Clinton supporter Sarah Churchill was almost crying as reality damned. The utterly execrable Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh was allowed to make outrageous allegations against the President Elect. Dominic Raab was subdued in his support for Trump and the token Republican on the panel, Jan Halper-Hayes, is on record opposing Trump. The audience were even worse.

This was the BBC having a hissy fit but using their broadcasting power to force us all to watch it. This programme had no balance – it was a hate fest. And for the first time ever, I turned it off.

The BBC is still reeling from Brexit and NOW…Trump. They are unhinged.

Here you go, a new Open Thread to see us all off into the weekend! Detail the bias here please.

Clinton was the wrong, and equally tainted, candidate, the Media gave her unquestioning support, and the Liberal elite takes it for granted that it is correct about everything and can rule on without a regard to the real world…..

Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there

‘Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.

Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers,

How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?

Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman.’

Funny old day…couldn’t tune in the radio at all…thought it was a lot of white noise or interference due to the stormy weather recently but actually was the sound of liberals squealing in horror as the Hillbilly rednecks shafted them mercilessly…..along with all those Hispanics, Blacks, women and oh yes…a majority of young college graduates who apparently voted Trump.  All those people whom the BBC said would never vote for him.

Nihal on 5Live was in great distress as he received a deluge of messages from BBC ‘fans’ pointing out the disappointment he must be feeling as the ‘Disappointed’ are now comparing the People’s Revolt to the Arab Spring, or the ‘Springtime for Hitler’, as they, and Nihal, might prefer to call it.

Nihal didn’t react with grace to those callers, sneering and jeering at them telling us he was a real journalist…no idea where he got that idea from.  When one pro-Trump caller, arguing against the notion that the US has suddenly become ‘racist’ ala the UK after Brexit, saying a country does not become racist and Fascist over night, Nihal jumped in and got the wrong end of the stick thinking the caller was saying the US was racist and Fascist.  Nihal started off agreeing but then realised what he was saying, and what it revealed about him and his own prejudices, and trailed off…no different to his reaction to Brexit when he labelled Britain racist after the vote and said he now feared for his children’s future…talk about over-reacting….that was Nihal himself being racist in effect. The caller, when allowed to finish, made clear it was not the case that the US was racist or Fascist….and certainly there has not been a sudden radical change overnight on a vote for Trump.

Odd how when things don’t go their way the so-called Liberals, apparent defenders of free speech, thought and diversity [though not of opinion], get so fascist.

Brendan O’Neil in the Spectator examines their mindset in detail…and it’s not pretty…

The sneering response to Trump’s victory reveals exactly why he won

If you want to know why Trump won, just look at the response to his winning. The lofty contempt for ‘low information’ Americans. The barely concealed disgust for the rednecks and cretins of ‘flyover’ America who are apparently racist and misogynistic and homophobic. The haughty sneering at the vulgar, moneyed American political system and how it has allowed a wealthy candidate to poison the little people’s mushy, malleable minds. The suggestion that American women, more than 40 per cent of whom are thought to have voted for Trump, suffer from internalised misogyny: that is, they don’t know their own minds, the poor dears. The hysterical, borderline apocalyptic claims that the world is now infernally screwed because ‘our candidate’, the good, pure person, didn’t get in.

The anti-Brexit anti-democrats claimed they were merely opposed to using rough, simplistic referendums to decide on huge matters. That kind of democracy is too direct, they said. Yet now they’re raging over the election of Trump via a far more complicated, tempered democratic system. That’s because — and I know this is strong, but I’m sure it’s correct — it is democracy itself that they hate. Not referendums, not Ukip’s blather, not only direct democracy, but democracy as an idea. Against democracy — so many of them are now. It is the engagement of the throng in political life that they fear. It is the people — ordinary, working, non-PhD-holding people — whom they dread and disdain.

This nasty, reactionary turn against democracy by so many of the well-educated both explains the victory of Trump, which neatly doubles up as a slap in the face of the establishment, and confirms why democracy is more important today than it has ever been. Because it really would be folly, madness in fact, to let an elite that so little understands ordinary people, and in fact loathes them, to run society unilaterally. Now that would be dangerous, more dangerous than Trump.

The ‘Intellectuals’ and upper classes have always had a penchant for Dictators.  Oxbridge was a well known recruiting ground for the Reds and with good reason. Hitler had a very supportive chorus line of useful idiots within the lofty social swirl in Britain.  The fall of Berlin and then the Berlin Wall has meant they were without a master to follow…until the Jihad started.  Glory be…a perfect solution for the Left…an anti-Western movement that had brown faces fronting it and which adopted the Left’s language of victimhood and grievance….an anti-colonial, anti-Christian, anti-free-speech, anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-white blitz that the Left latched onto and signed up to.

Even now the BBC is peddling the rhetoric of anti-West ‘intellectuals’ in a deliberate blast of propaganda against those voters who dared to vote for Brexit and against the West in general.  The latest Reith Lectures ticked every box in the BBC’s ‘right-on’ criteria for a wonderful world….a black, gay immigrant delivered them, one who hates the nation state, hates borders, loves immigration, thinks there is no such thing as ‘race’, no such thing as Western civilisation, no such thing as religion [a religion can be whatever you want it to be]…but of course Islam is much misunderstood.

More on the Reith lectures later naturally.

The New York Times [CEO the BBC’s Mark Thompson] is in meltdown as it reels in horror at a Trump Presidency declaring in its editorial….

Editorial

Donald Trump’s Revolt

A heedless desire for change puts America on a precipice

Note that ‘heedless desire for change’…..not so long ago change was good, romantic, heroic….

As for ‘heedless’….clearly the New York Times hasn’t been paying attention to what The People are concerned about.

And thanks to Mice Height for this video….lest we forget that the Democrats created the Klu Klux Klan…

Well then. The morning after. I have never enjoyed watching the BBC more as it chokes on the news that Donald Trump has won convincingly and is President Elect. Their coverage of the Election has been SO one-sided, SO pro-Clinton and SO anti-Trump that watching their smug faces coming to terms with the fact that they completely mis-read it has been fantastic to behold. Even Andrew Neil, the one BBC political presenter who I respect, has been snide as can be about Trump and so he too had to choke on his words and his insults and his smugness. What a night. Ok – NEW Open Thread so over to you! Thoughts?