Category Archives: BBC bias

If you have been listening to the BBC’s coverage of the latest football scandal you may have noticed a constant theme that gets slipped into the discussion…that of ‘TV money’, not actually naming Sky of course, corrupting the beautiful game.

Is it just my imagination or is there an underlying line that the BBC is pushing…such as an attack on Sky?

Perhaps we could check out what the BBC’s outhouse journal and partner in so many crimes, the Guardian, says….

The Guardian view on football’s crisis: TV money is the root of the problem

Over the next few days more tales of football’s dirty deals are promised. The beautiful game will be besmirched.

Since television money flowed into the sport in the early 1990s, the Premier League has become less a local English affair and more a global one. That has some benefits: better facilities and bigger names on the pitch. However, with top-flight clubs owned by foreign investors and English players making up a third of Premier League teams, there is a feeling that English football is becoming detached from its roots. Such is the concern that Andy Burnham, the Labour mayoral candidate for football-mad Manchester, thinks a quota on foreign players is needed.

The television cash is largely swallowed up by players’ wages, managers’ contracts and agents’ fees. England’s team of millionaires being beaten by Iceland, whose top division is a part-time league, shows how little money is related to talent.

So really it’s not ‘TV money’ that’s the problem but immigration and free market failure?  The Guardian….such a racist rag.  But er…the Premier League is not the England Team….the market brings to the English league top players and managers from around the world….so not a market failure…it’s the failure of the footballing authorities to distribute the money and train the youngsters that if anything puts a hold on the development of many more English players.  Having said that do players from African or the Balkans or South American  have the money and facilities available to English players?  No.  So more to it than money.

But what does the Guardian think is the answer? A little bit of anti-capitalist [Murdoch] socialism and matches given free to the BBC….who’d a thunk?..

To correct this market failure, politicians should restrict the number of games broadcast on pay-TV and set aside some top matches for free-to-air TV. More people will watch the games. The BBC would be able to showcase an expression of national cultural identity. Commercial free-to-air channels could benefit from advertising. Highlights on the BBC draw millions more than a single match on pay-TV. With competition from free matches, TV deals will shrink. Clubs will reduce player salaries. The wealth of club owners and media tycoons will drop.

Guess Milne must already be back at the Guardian doing a fine job pushing the Corbyn new/old politics and helping out the lefty BBC on the way as well as attacking the old enemy, Murdoch.  Three for one, certainly getting value for money these days at the Guardian.

The BBC is running stories sympathetic to transexuals on a virtually daily basis.

“When lifelong Republican Jennifer Williams arrived at the party’s National Convention in Cleveland this summer, she felt nervous. Although she was excited to be an honorary delegate for New Jersey, she was worried about how others would respond to her.

She had attended many political events before this, including both of President George W Bush’s inaugurations, but this was to be her first party convention – and one of the first political gatherings she would attend as Jennifer.

As the sole transgender delegate at the event, so far as she could tell, she knew there was a possibility some would not welcome her with open arms.

“I was wary of my surroundings” she says.  “But I did allow myself extra time to find a less crowded bathroom whenever I could and always made sure to confidently smile and chat.”

This elevation of these poor mentally conflicted people is now a daily part of the BBC agenda.

Time for a new one of these! Here is where you detail the bias.

Guido is listing the runners and riders he thinks could replace Shameless Milne as Labour’s Director of Communications.  Would have thought the obvious choice would be Nick Robinson, already offered such a role by Labour before and who is doing a fine job suppressing criticism of Corbyn on the BBC, or of course someone as equally shameless and off the wall as Milne, James O’Brien, now also doing a fine job cheerleading for Corbyn.  Could explain a lot about his last outburst.

Then again nothing like having two Corbyn stooges in top jobs at one of the world’s most influential broadcasters.

The BBC reports that Serena Williams ‘won’t stay silent’ about Blacks being shot by police…and we get a very exploitative video of a young girl talking about the killings…channelling only what misinformation her parents have fed her of course.

She is probably unaware that the police officer who shot Keith Scott was himself black or that Scott had an illegal gun or that he abused his wife….then again the BBC seems entirely unaware of such facts…the Telegraph reports:

Keith Scott owned a gun, court documents show, contradicting claims after killing by police sparked riots

The black man whose killing by a police officer sparked race riots in Charlotte had owned a gun, court records show, contradicting claims by his family that first prompted the unrest.

Authorities said Keith Scott was carrying a loaded weapon when he was fatally shot by a police officer last week, but Mr Scott’s relatives countered that he had been carrying a book.

In a press conference after the shooting Justin Bamberg, a lawyer said the testimony he had collected from Mr Scott’s family was that he “didn’t own a gun” and “didn’t carry a gun”.

But in October last year, Rakeyia Scott, the victim’s wife, filed a domestic violence protective order in which she said her husband carried a 9mm hand gun and that he didn’t own a permit for the weapon.

Mr Scott had beat her and her eight year old child and had threatened to “kill us last night with his gun,” she wrote in the order obtained by a local news channel.

This was dismissed later in the month when Mrs Scott said her husband no longer posed a threat. 

#BREAKING 2004 case of Rakeyia Scott filing for domestic violence protective order in @MeckCounty. Says she was stabbed by #KeithScott . pic.twitter.com/1PTdqKkC5y

— Jami Nielsen (@JamiFOX46) September 27, 2016

The revelation came as police said a suspect arrested for burglary had confessed to selling a stolen weapon to Mr Scott. Authorities said the same weapon was found at the scene where Brentley Vinson, a black officer with Charlotte-Mecklenburg police, shot him.

Why is it that all we get from the BBC is BlackLivesMatter propaganda and not the true facts?  Why more keen to publicise Williams’ alarmism than the truth about Scott?

The BBC’s emotive and deliberately dishonest reporting is continuing to, and seems designed to, stir up racial hate and anger….all of which are being transferred to the UK as Black agitators clamber on board the BlackLivesMatter bandwagon to use for their own purposes.

The BBC charged with maintaining social cohesion and a civil society?  LOL.

Emily Ashton Verified account ‏@elashton

Clearly Tom Watson didn’t get the BBC internal memo to be nice to Corbyn…the Telegraph reports:

Ignore the talk of Labour unity – Tom Watson just humiliated Jeremy Corbyn

On Monday Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn’s spin doctor, enraged a shadow minister by deliberately deleting part of his speech.

He must be wishing he’d deleted the whole of Tom Watson’s.

This afternoon, Labour members in Liverpool watched their deputy leader expertly undermine their leader – and then gave him a standing ovation. It was remarkable.  And because Mr Corbyn was sitting at a platform on stage, mere feet from Mr Watson, you could watch his reaction. It wasn’t hard to guess what he thought.

At the end, Mr Corbyn had no choice but to join the standing ovation, shake his deputy’s hand, and stand smiling and waving with him. Inside, however, he must have been fuming.

The leadership battle was supposed to end on Saturday. I’m not sure it did.

Funny though, if you read the BBC’S report of the same speech you’d think it was almost entirely harmless and not at all a blistering attack on Corbyn and his storm troopers:

Stop trashing Labour’s record, warns Tom Watson

Labour should stop trashing its record in government and start focusing on winning elections, deputy leader Tom Watson has warned.

In a speech to conference, Mr Watson said that attacking Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments “is not the way to enhance our brand”.

“We won’t win elections like that. And we need to win elections,” he said, as he appealed for party unity.

Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been critical of parts of New Labour’s record.

That last line is the only hint that this might be a speech directed at Corbyn but there is no acknowledgment of how damaging this is for Corbyn or what a devastating attack it is for him.

Just for interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHPrYUcoi0

Apparently Trump has trounced Clinton in the public polls but you’d be hard pushed to find that out from the BBC..here they ask Who won the first debate? and yet you don’t get the answer in  a very long piece, or only the BBC answer…which, they tell us, is that Clinton won.

Apparently the media have to stop being nasty to Corbyn.  Can’t say I’ve noticed the BBC being nasty, being very restrained and grovelling yes, nasty? no.

Is the BBC biased? draws our attention to an article by Newsnight’s James O’Brien, the man whose stock in trade is a hefty dose of deep unpleasantness combined with lies, outraged moral anger and smug self-righteousness but who thinks poor old Corbyn is having a hard time….the media must be nice to him and his wonderful policies…

James O’Brien said today that it was time for the media to change the way it talks about Corbyn.

He said: “The media, myself included, now have to stop talking about Jeremy Corbyn like he is some sort of pimple on the backside of British politics and start talking about him as the only alternative Prime Minister to Theresa May.

“That is what he is.

“I’m not going to lie to you. I’ve made a conscious personal and professional decision to leave the scepticism at the door and will now treat this party and this man as I treat all politicians – with a degree of cynicism but not as some sort of aberration.

And questioning the negative media reception to Corbyn’s polciies, he said: “Try this on for size. We spend far too much money on war and weapons and we should be spending that money on the poor.

“What’s not to like about that?

“Why is that even controversial?”

He added: “I used to call it undergraduate, quasi-Marxist. Parking all that language, it’s over, it’s finished, it’s meaningless.

“You begin to look for finer detail in the policy. You struggle at the moment to see it, but who comes up with a fully-fledged manifesto within a few weeks of being leader, or a year? He’s not got an election to fight.”

Praising Corbyn’s qualities, he said: “You see a strength in the man, a lot of other people would have buckeld under the sheer  weight of abuse he has recieved from his own party let along the media and establishment.

“You’ve got a leader who really does appear to represent a profound alternative to the notion of business as usual.

“Why has that been treated so negatively?”

Possibly because he’s a dyed in the wool Marxist with policies that would destroy the economy, our defences and our society…never mind presiding over a steep rise in anti-Semitism and violent abusive behaviour in his party and rather than do anything about it actually ignored the anti-semitism before greeting one attacker with praise and a slap on the back, and of course he is the man who gave a peerage to someone who was supposed to be holding an inquiry into that anti-Semitism…perhaps that explains why the inquiry was such a white-wash.

Speaking of which…good old Andrew Neil interviews a very Shifty Shami:

Raises a few questions about Corbyn as well doesn’t it?  Not allowed to ask them apparently.

Still, Corbyn is an honourable man…no?

O’Brien should never have been given a job on Newsnight to start with, he got it solely on the basis of his hatchet job attack on Farage so bigging up Corbyn won’t be seen as an obstacle in his new career.

I wonder what the BBC Trust would make of it…presumably they’d say, ala Packham, that he wasn’t a regular BBC employee…however he is of course involved in news and public policy related output…..surely he is breaking editorial guidelines on impartiality…speaking of which….

The new editor of a BBC wildlife magazine has said despite the BBC Trust ruling on Packham she would not have allowed him to use the language he did.

New editor of the magazine Sheena Harvey told the BBC Trust: “Coming to this magazine as the new editor and with a fresh eye, I will say
that I feel some of the language used by Chris Packham in that column was somewhat flippant and the use of a phrase such as ‘nasty brigade’ would not have been let through had I been overseeing the content.

The BBC’s response?

The BBC Trust complaints committee said: “The committee considered that the fact that BBC Wildlife Magazine’s new editor would not have allowed the term ‘nasty brigade’ to have been published, together with the fact that both complainants had been given a right to reply to it, meant that the issue had been resolved and no further action needed to be taken.”

Hmmmm….so even though it looks like Packham was wrong to use the language he did and should have been brought up by the Trust for saying it the Trust has decided there is nothing to see here because in future he wouldn’t be allowed to use that language.

How can a complaint be dismissed because someone agrees something is wrong but says in future it won’t be allowed?  That just opens up all sorts of possibilities and a world where no complaint is successful….unless you put one in now for future programmes in the expectation someone says something that is controversial and they do.

Bet the Nazis wished they’d thought of that defence at Nuremberg….sorry, won’t let it happen again.

The BBC coverage of last evening’s first US presidential debate was as pro-Clinton as I expected. It reminds me so much of the run up to the EU referendum, the BBC is smugly confident that their side will win. I will delight when Trump prevails and they are forced to go into another bout if sustained denial. Your thoughts?