Category Archives: BBC bias

Fascinating watching the BBC at work as 4 of its finest tried to get to grips with the budget, sifting desperately through it in a frantic search for the big ‘un, the scoop that would blow Osborne away.

The best that they could come up with was that he had failed to meet his target of reducing debt as a proportion of GDP….Huw Edwards said sagely that this was ‘significant’. [at 3 hrs 16] unfortunately Paul Johnson from the IFS was in the studio and pulled the rug from under Edwards by saying it was ‘economically not signifcant at all’…Edwards looked chastened and rolled his eyes but recovered with a ‘I meant politically significant of course’...and all his workmates chimed in with a similar line to help him out of his embarrasment, and funnily enough the BBC’s Kamal Ahmed made no mention of its ‘insignificance’ in this report.

Odd that the BBC should now think this figure significant because last year they were dismissing this way of measuring debt out of hand telling us it was an Osborne trick to cover up a failure to lower the deficit.

Huw Edwards wound back the clock as he interviewed Matt Hancock and stated that it was wrong to continue with austerity when the world economy was so weak when instead the government should be stimulating the economy.   Heard that before from the BBC…in fact we heard it everyday for 5 years…it was called Plan B…and it was Labour’s policy.

He also thought it ‘illuminating’ that much of the surplus would come from cutting government spending and not massive growth….hmmm…this from the BBC that was warning us of massive cuts to come in this second Parliament for Cameron, cuts so bad they would take us back to the Thirties and the road to Wigan Pier…..the cuts were going to be ‘utterly terrifying‘….never mind that they would actually take us back to the level of government spending in 1998 under Labour….not the terrifying Thirties then?

To achieve the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of a budget surplus of £23bn by 2019-20 would require “spending cuts on a colossal scale ..

If reductions in departmental spending were to continue at the same pace after the May 2015 election as they had over the past four years, welfare cuts or tax rises worth about £21bn a year would be needed by 2019-20, at a time when the Conservatives were committed to income tax cuts worth £7bn, according to the IFS.

We have always known that the surplus would come from cutting spending…it is not a surprise nor ‘illuminating’ to rediscover this today….the BBC wants us to think that Osborne’s plans are in chaos and that he is flailing around using ‘magic’ as Edwards suggested…..oddly the Guardian also uses that line….Budget 2016: magical thinking from charmed world of the chancellor.

As for the sugar tax….the jury is definitely out on that one, effectiveness wise, despite the BBC’s assertion that Mexico provided proof positive that a sugar tax works……however the studies done were funded by the people who lobbied the Mexican government to impose the sugar tax….and the New Zealand government has looked at this and concluded there is as yet no proof to suggest the tax works.

The Science Media Centre also casts doubt on the findings.

Even the Guardian admits….The evidence that a soda tax can reduce obesity and disease, however, comes largely from theoretical models.

The BBC though were delighted for Jamie Oliver…..as I am.

Guido is not so sure about the hypocritical little chap….

Jamie Oliver is all over the BBC celebrating his punitive sugar tax – but this is sweet hypocrisy. On his website, Jamie offers a series of recipes aimed at children. A bowl of granola for a child’s breakfast, advertised as “a healthy and delicious start to the day”, contains an unbelievable 20.9g of sugar. That’s 23% of an adult’s daily recommended intake, and this is supposed to be for a child.

Experts recommend 4-8 year olds should have 12g of sugar per day, teenagers should have 20-32 grams. A single serving of this Jamie recipe surpasses the maximum recommended teenager’s sugar allowance, and three times that of 8 year olds…

Oh and there’s this from Guido’s site…..gotta love it…..

Here you go, a new Open Thread. BBC seem to abandoned any pretence in the US election and have gone full on anti-Trump mode. It reminds me of the way they treated Reagan and Thatcher -the bile is visceral.

Is the BBC still a member of the CBI?  The BBC suspended its membership during the Scottish independence referendum when the CBI joined the No campaign…..did it renew its membership?

The CBI is now supporting staying in the EU though disingenuously not doing so ‘officially’….

CBI to make economic case to remain in EU after reaffirming strong member mandate

It tells us that….

80% of CBI members, when weighted to reflect its membership – including 71% of small and mid-sized business members – believe that the UK remaining a member of the EU would be best for their business. Overall, 5% say it is in their firms’ best interests for the UK to leave the EU, with 15% unsure.

I don’t have a list of all the members of the CBI but it would be interesting to see who these ‘businesses’ are exactly…if they are like the BBC then clearly their opinon is more political than economic….something Daniel Hannan suggested….

I once attended a regional CBI conference in my constituency. I’m pretty certain that the businesses – in the sense of organisations that had to make profits – were outnumbered by the charities, local government agencies and NGOs. There was even, I remember, a local Scout group. Yet this is the organisation which is represented by the BBC as the voice of British industry.

It does represent some industries, of course, especially the large multi-nationals that are most adept at reaching accommodations with governments. Mega-corporations generally love Brussels, intuiting that the system was made for them. They have invested a great deal of time and money in getting regulations that suit them at the expense of their smaller rivals. The last thing they want is to have to start all over again.

NGO’s, charities, the BBC maybe, and even a scout group…..I’m grateful to the CBI for doing the hard work canvassing their opinions on the EU but don’t present them to us as ‘businesses’ who are completely apolitical.

If the BBC is once again a member perhaps it should consider resuspending itself….for good.

Roger Harrabin’s grip on the BBC’s science output must have slipped as the below is something he would definitely not approve of…..no coincidence perhaps that it is an ITV journalist who made the programme…

Saving Science from the Scientists

Is science quite as scientific as it’s supposed to be? ITV Science Correspondent Alok Jha takes a look at how science research is really carried out, to find out if it is really as rigorous as scientists would like us to think.

In the second and concluding part of this series, Alok looks at the practices and cultures undermining the integrity of scientific research.

Are scientists being pushed into shortcuts and unethical behaviour by the competitiveness of their field?

That is part two, I didn’t hear part one, but no mention of climate change so perhaps Roger’s still influencing coverage for the worse.

We heard that scientific journals like Nature and Science want exciting, positive science stories that don’t upset the applecarts of the vested interests but ultimately end up distorting the real science because they don’t publish the negative papers that contradict the ‘good news’.

We are told that genetics is a robust field because it publishes its data and such data transparency is not practised in other fields…such as climate change perhaps?  Such openness promotes better science as the criticism and exchanges mean the science is constantly improved….science happens by disagreement and challenge……as every good english graduate should know.

Science has to be rescued from the business it has become….[and rescued from the politics].  Scientists have so much invested in their ‘science’ being accepted, careers, reputation and lucrative grants, that temptation to close down debate and protect your own ‘science’ can be overwhelming.

Shame at least one BBC environmental ‘journalist’ has made it his business to use the BBC to campaign about climate change for over 20 years and has been extraordinarilty successful at closing down debate and in creating a powerful, unstoppable narrative that promotes his own views on climate change regardless of the science and did everything he could to support climate scientists to hide their data and excuse their unethical behaviour.

The EU as we know has saved the world from another world war and, possibly less known to us all, has saved the environment from the depredations of the savage, heathen Brittunculi.

The Environment after Exit

From Roman Snails and Great Crested Newts in East Anglia to the lemon sole of the English Channel and the wind turbines of Fife, European legislation has a significant impact on the look and health of our wildlife and landscape.

Tom Heap examines the potential impact on the British environment of an exit from the European Union.

Is there no end to the BBC’s imaginative doom-mongering?  We didn’t get hit by a massive cosmic meteor this year….was that due to some EU regulation defying gravity?  We didn’t find ourselves enslaved by the Saudi Arabians [Yet], was that down to the powerful, brave and swift action by Jean-Claude Juncker rapidly deploying his finest, haughtiest, supercilliest [?] sneer of contempt? We haven’t all been forced to kill our first born…this can only be because of the enlightened and humane, progressive, liberal attitude instilled into us by many years of being educated as to how to be a better human being by the European Union.

None of this would have been possible without the fine auspices of the EU edifice overseeing our development as the finest race of humans on earth….er…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrB2yAPPlQ

Shame such explorations of the EU question are few and far between on the BBC….though I should say it is difficult to assess the BBC’s coverage as it is vast and spread widely….however it is rare to hear such negative thoughts about the EU and the government propaganda on the BBC…..it all too readily slips into ‘we’re doomed’ if we leave the EU mode by default as they talk to interviewees whose pro-Stay views don’t get challenged as they slip in comments that Brexit will ‘slow the economy’ or paint a gloomy picture of worst case scenarios when talking of other subjects.

Neil says that Turkey has no tariffs imposed upon it despite not being a member of the EU…and of course has no ‘freedom of movement’.

How times change…except for the weak and useless EU.

Curious how the BBC treated Obama’s attack on Cameron over Libya…..the BBC seemed to be reluctant to go along with the attack, underplayed it and justified Cameron’s position.

This might raise a few eyebrows as the BBC normally blames the Libyan ‘adventure’ as one of the reasons for helping to radicalise Muslims, the rise of ISIS and the immigration crisis, putting the boot well into Cameron.  But not this time.

Could it be that Cameron and his reputation must be protected, at least temporarily, until the EU referendum is over and the gloves can then come off again?

Ed Stourton gave Obama short shrift on The World at One, Cameron getting the benefit of the doubt…as he should really…Libya was a UN sanctioned operation to stop a massacre…and the civil war had already broken out before any outsiders intervened.  Cameron and Co could only help Libya back onto its feet if there was an organised and effective government in place, and this didn’t happen…and without boots on the ground Cameron and Co couldn’t make that  happen…and boots on the ground were not on the agenda and never were…Obama himself strongly opposing such measures when in fact it is the only way to bring peace and stability….and now ISIS have a foothold because of dithering by Obama who holds the real keys to the kingdom….massive military force that the UK and France just don’t have.

As for post-conflict planning…that was down to the UN.…which includes the US no?…..

The Secretary-General’s special adviser for post conflict planning in Libya, Ian Martin, arrived in the Libya capital, Tripoli, on Saturday and began discussions with representatives of the country’s interim authorities on the form of assistance the transitional body will require.

Mr. Martin’s mission to Tripoli for talks with the National Transitional Council (NTC) follows the International Conference in Support of the New Libya in Paris on Thursday when Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pledged the United Nations continued assistance to Libya tackle its humanitarian challenges and build a democratic and stable nation.

Who was responsible for the war?…

Mr. Ban told the gathering in Paris that the immediate challenge is on the humanitarian front, with some 860,000 people having left the country since February, when opposition forces rose up against the regime of Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi as part of a wider pro-democracy movement across North Africa and the Middle East.

Not Cameron or Hollande then?  So why are they responsible for reconstruction?

What exactly did Obama do to stabilise Libya?  Nothing…he says he left it to the Europeans….in other words he ducked the issue and refused to take any responsibility….however he does want to interfere in the EU referendum……curious that the Libyans think he is the one responsible for their plight…

Eman — 27-year-old activist, Libya

To Obama: First, I want to say that Libya will always be a friend to America. We will always thank President Obama for liberating us from Gadhafi’s murderous regime. It is also with great despair that our people watched the cruel murder of your martyr Ambassador [Christopher] Stevens.

We too hoped for a “new beginning” with America, just like in President Obama said in his speech. Now, we just pray that your people will not see Libya as a problem, a place of war or oil. We need you to see Libya, especially our young Libyans, as potential partners. We need America’s hope now more than ever, and we know that when we save Libya, we will repay America and be an equal, a partner for America in all of the Muslim world.

Here an Iraqi says America made mistakes in Iraq but that America must help too defend it, and its democracy, now…..the Iraq that Obama abandoned and withdrew the troops from that would have kept ISIS at bay….

Ali — 19-year-old soldier in Iraqi military, Iraq

To Obama: America made many mistakes in Iraq. It is difficult for us to forget these mistakes or to forgive them. But now we face a bigger threat that we share with IS. We hope that the U.S. will give more support to the Iraqi military to defend our country from terrorists.

My family and friends still believe in the Iraq that the U.S. claims it was trying to help create. We want a democracy, and we want to live without fear of car bombs and terrorists. We need America to keep its promises to make that dream happen for Iraq.

Only Obama had the muscle and money to tackle Libya, and Syria, but he lacked the essential will and now the world pays a heavy price….The Europe Obama seems to love so much he wants the UK to stay in its clutches he allows to be destabilised by massive immigration from Syria…caused, or rather allowed to be caused, by his refusal to act in the main.

Putin has in the main fled Syria after his ‘gunboat diplomacy’ showboating, and the Islamists are gleefully claiming they defeated him.  Obama is left looking a weak and vascillating President…but with Putin withdrawing he now has the chance to really effect change by putting boots on the ground, the only way to deal with Syria, ISIS and Libya and stem the flow of migrants which will have a far more damaging  effect on Europe than any possible damage Brexit could be claimed to do.  Assad has absolutely no reason to stop fighting and negotiate unless his airforce is neutralised and his armour penned in and no fly zones and safe zones for refugees set up….only Obama can do that.

The worst refugee crisis since the second world war…then perhaps it should be treated like a war and the army mobilised…and conscript all those vigorous and fighting fit ‘refugees’ to fight for their own country…..then let’s see how many want to come to Europe….might find they suddenly don’t want to come here.   Why should they benefit from the peace, stability and prosperity that millions of Europeans died for when they aren’t prepared to do the same for their own country and instead look for handouts from Europe?  Remember the Free French, the Poles, the Czechs the Hungrians and so on who fled to Britain and joined the army to fight Hitler?  Why are we not conscripting a ‘Free Arab’ army to liberate and stabilise North Africa and Syria?

And on a related note….funny how we get ‘refugees’ from Afghanistan and Iraq…and yet Northern Afghanistan is perfectly safe and many Iraqis head back to Iraq once they realise life isn’t wonderful in Europe….so just why are they classed as ‘refugees’…refugees from what if they can have a safe place in their own country?

I await the BBC asking such questions.

Why is the BBC using the term ‘right-wing’ to describe Breivik in their news bulletins and on the web?

Jailed Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has given a Nazi salute upon returning to court to argue that his isolation violates his rights.

The right-wing extremist says he is being held in inhuman conditions but the state rejects this.

Why is he not ‘Far-Right’?  The BBC spends a lot of time and effort to disassociate Muslims from Islamist extremism and frequently doesn’t mention the words ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ in many reports on Islamically inspired extremist and yet here they are casually associating Breivik with the general ‘Right-wing’ when no ‘right-wing’ person would condone his actions or incite them whereas the Koran specifically charges Muslims to kill and conquer to please Allah and make his religion supreme.

If the BBC is going to fence off Islam from criticism despite what it teaches and what so many of its followers do, as Islamic governments, as groups that represent Muslims, as individuals, and as violent extremists, then it should make even more of an effort to not smear those on the ‘Right’ by linking them by association to Breivik as they in no way condone, incite or encourage violence such as his.

The BBC is deliberately linking mass murder with ‘Right-wing’, encouraging people to make that association and thereby attempting to discredit and undermine anyone subsequently described as ‘Right-wing’ however innocuous their views actually are.

How different the BBC’s tone to the one they used with self-confessed Muslim extremists Moazzam Begg and Babar Ahmad who were feted as victims of an unjust war on terror having fought against the brutal oppression of the Muslim world by the West.

Can’t imagine Victoria Derbyshire will be giving Breivik a lovely little interview that hardly breaks the mask.

Just by coincidence I came across this by Daniel Hannan…

Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism

Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with “the Right”.

My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet “Right-wing” to mean “something undesirable” is a small but important example.

Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.

The BBC reports the CBI saying its members overwhelmingly support staying in the EU…..what the BBC makes no mention of is that the real reason they want to stay is the flow of cheap labour that is made available to them to import which saves them the cost of paying proper wages and of having to train British workers as they can poach those already trained by their home countries….odd how the pay and conditions and the ability to get work is suddenly of no concern to the BBC which spent the run-up to the election peddling Labour’s economic narrative of low wages and a work force on the scrap heap….and on another subject, funny how Osborne’s daft adoption of Miliband’s ‘predistribution’ is now not such a good idea raising costs for businesses and costing jobs when it was never so criticised when proposed by Miliband.

The BBC doesn’t report this survey of global businesses that suggests Brexit will have little effect on how they deal with the UK….

‘Brexit’ won’t hurt our trade with UK: Global CFOs

A British breakaway from the European Union this summer will do little damage to the country’s business ties with the rest of the world, according to a new survey conducted by CNBC.

Chief financial officers (CFOs) from some of the world’s biggest firms were largely sanguine on the outcome of a “Brexit” and how that could affect any current or future trading conditions with the island nation.

Over 70 percent of global CFOs – across a wide range of industries – said there would be “no change” on their perspective on how likely they would be to do business with the U.K. in the event of an exit.

However, 14.6 percent of respondents said they would be “slightly less likely” to do business with the country and 2.1 percent said they would be “significantly less likely.” Conversely, 2.1 percent said they would be “slightly more likely” to form ties with a breakaway nation.