Category Archives: BBC bias

Curious how the BBC so often only refers to Corbyn as ‘leftwing’ in its news reports [Despite knowing Corbyn was firmly on the side of the quasi-Marxist hard left.]  when those of similar strength of convictions on the Right are ‘Far Right’ and Farage is constantly alluded to as someone not unlike a Nazi…even today on Dead Ringers he was slandered as a racist xenophobe for his opinions on immigration…proof of his xenophobia?  He has a German wife.

Funny how the BBC often refers to the ‘dark days of the 80’s’ when looking at Corbyn’s politics because in reality they take the country back to the ‘dark days’ of the 70’s….have to assume this is just evidence of the BBC’s obsessive hatred of Thatcher……

Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader, at the age of 66, must count as one of the biggest upsets in British political history.

To his critics, he is almost a caricature of the archetypal “bearded leftie”, an unelectable throwback to the dark days of the 1980s, when Labour valued ideological purity more than winning power.

To his army of supporters he is the only honest man left in politics, someone who can inspire a new generation of activists, and make them believe that there is an alternative to the neo-liberal Thatcherite consensus that has let them down so badly.

Kuwait and the other Gulf Cooperation Council countries are too valuable to accept any refugees. In the end it is not right for us to accept a people that are different from us. We don’t want people that suffer from internal stress and trauma in our country.’

Fahad Alshalami, Kuwaiti official, explaining why the gulf countries aren’t taking Syrian refugees Via Douglas Murray

DB has spotted a BBC producer who has been marching to open the borders up to refugees as he calls them…though they are in effect economic migrants……interesting how the marchers all seem to  be right-on Middle Class people….and a lot of the protest is anti-war, pro-Corbyn and anti-Tory….not saying that it was hijacked by STWC…but good chance our BBC friend is just another useful idiot for the cause…..

Tony Brown ‏@tonyprod77 14 hrs14 hours ago  

“Say it loud and say it proud refugees are welcome here” #refugeeswelcome

And if you weren’t convinced of his views here’s another Tweet…

• Tony Brown ‏@tonyprod77 14 hrs14 hours ago

  The refugees fleeing war and dodgy governments must be encouraged if they see these #refugeeswelcome rallies #London

Brown also retweets this from a fellow media johnny…

Hmmmm…..as Corbyn is intent getting rid of Trident and the Army, intent on taxing and spending our way back to the 70’s if not to the Weimar Republic as he prints billions of pounds to help fund his lavish spending, siding with the terrorists and nationalising anything that moves…and oh yes…Protect the BBC from further cuts…I would imagine that the Tories are right on this one.  Interesting though that Brown’s Labour supporting friend has tweeted something that Brown thinks is spot on and relevant to any debate on Corbyn.

Brown responds to DB’s questions about whether it is appropriate for  BBC journalist to be taking part and Tweeting about such a highly political and controversial subject……

He obviously feels he is losing the argument and resorts to a patronising and childish attempt to gain the moral highground by suggesting DB is not being grown up…whereas a man who reacts purely on an emotional basis regardless of the consequences is a ‘grown up’.

So let’s be grown up and ask what are those consequences of having Europe flooded with migrants the vast majority of whom are young, male and Muslim…if they had AK47’s they would be called an army and this would be an ‘invasion’.  What are the social, political, cultural ramifications of having Europe invaded by young Muslim men?  Not a question Brown has ever considered, he’s just happy to get the feeling of warm glowing smugness of a man panhandling publicly for the credit for his humanity by his public display of compassion which he advertises on Twitter.

It is a question that is essential to ask and yet the BBC doesn’t dare…others do though.

The measured and rational Charles Moore in the Telegraph voices some of his concerns about this influx of Muslims to Western Europe:

Nothing has changed in 25 years to ease my concerns about Islam

Viktor Orbán is the prime minister of Hungary. It is through his country that very large numbers of migrants from the Middle East and the Balkans now pass. At the beginning of this month, Mr Orbán said: “I think we have a right to decide that we don’t want to have a large number of Muslim people in our country.”

Mr Orbán was fiercely attacked for the motives behind his remark. I do not know enough about Hungarian politics to say whether such attacks are justified. But, regardless of the precise facts about Mr Orbán, I would guess most people in western – let alone eastern – Europe would quietly agree with his general proposition. One of the biggest anxieties about the current immigration is its high Muslim element. Is it wrong to have such an anxiety, let alone to express it publicly, let alone to want to have a system of immigration based on it?

It seemed to me that most Muslim leaders saw their role not in integrating Muslims in Britain, but in asserting difference and increasing their muscle. Many favoured sharia law trumping British law. They would not support Muslim membership of the Armed Forces if those forces were deployed against Muslim countries. They wanted it to be illegal to attack Islam, let alone denigrate its prophet; and they waged constant “lawfare” to try to silence their critics. They tended, I thought, to see the advance of their cause as a zero-sum game in which the authorities had to cede more ground (sometimes it is literally a matter of territory) to Muslims.

It would also be wrong to deny that, in current conditions, a large Muslim community in a non-Muslim country produces more political disturbance, more communal tension, more intolerance of other faiths (and of non-faiths) and more terrorism. Few non-Muslims want to live near a mosque, see women veiling their faces or have Muslim practices introduced into state schools. Few non-Muslims want lots more Muslim immigrants.

An assimilated Muslim is not a contradiction in terms, but neither is he or she the norm in Britain today. With the Muslim world in ferment and on the move, the risks grow daily.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn and the foolish, naive motivations of those who supported his inclusion in the election must act as a warning to those who wish to brush aside concerns and bury their heads in the sand about the prospect of a ‘clash of civilizations’ and instead blunder on ramming their own ideological delusions and fallacies down everyone else’s throats in the interest of multiculturalism and diversity….the politics of ‘inclusion’….

When Corbyn thanked the Labour MPs who nominated him “in the spirit of inclusion” the room laughed, as well they might. This is the greatest joke of the campaign: the ‘morons’, as John McTernan’s put it, the MPs who nominated Corbyn because they thought he was too crazy too win and would make the rest seem centrist by comparison. But there is a new rule now: nothing is too crazy for the Labour Party. Not any more.

Being ‘inclusive’, pandering to Muslim activist’s demands, allowing an ever-increasing Islamisation of the public sphere in the hope that if Muslims are allowed to practise their religion more freely, and everyone else is forced to ‘respect’ that, then Muslims won’t beome radicalised….when the opposite is true…they will in fact become more and more ‘radicalised’, or devout, and intent on pressing their advantage, creating a situation where everything has to be done filtered through an Islamic perspective…out of ‘respect’ for Muslims.

Happy Christmas   Ramadan from the morons at the BBC.

H/T Alex in the comments:

Ok, I am sure you may well have seen the events unfold over the past hour. Labour embraces the hardline marxist Jeremy Corbyn. Thoughts on the BBC coverage?

Here you go, a new OPEN thread for your completion! Going into a weekend that may see Corbyn elected Labour leader, and has seen Khan win the gig to be Labour’s London Mayoral candidate, I expect the BBC will be fervently behind the comrades.

I have frequently heard guests on BBC programmes, and indeed BBC presenters, say that the UK is responsible for what happened in LIbya, that Britain initiated the war and is therefore responsible for the outcome and the resultant flow of migrants launching themselves from the coast of Libya.

However, just as the war in Syria has no link to the UK the war in Libya was not the responsibility of Britain.  The war began, as in Syria, after Libyans began demonstrations against the regime and were subsequently attacked by the regime.  The UN declared no’fly zones and authorised air-strikes to protect civilians in missions controlled by NATO.

This was a multi-nation operation conducted under UN jurisdiction to help protect civilians and to stop a massacre.

The BBC seems to think we should have stood back and let it happen….where’s that famous ‘moral obligation’ now then?  Guess it only gets run up the flagpole when it suits the BBC’s agenda……perhaps the BBC should remember its own previous analysis of events in Libya:

2011 February – Arrest of human rights campaigner sparks violent protests in eastern city of Benghazi that rapidly spread to other cities, leading to escalating clashes between security forces and rebels. Gaddafi insists that he will not quit, and remains in control of the capital, Tripoli.

2011 March – UN Security Council authorises a no-fly zone over Libya and air strikes to protect civilians, over which NATO assumes command.

The BBC’s Labour supporting old dinosaur, James Naughtie, is a man desperately in need of a common-man dictionary with the word ‘impartial’ explained for him rather than the BBC official issue that obviously has a different interpretation of that word to the everyday one as understood by the ‘common man’.

The Telegraph tells us that Naughtie is destined to be the voice of the BBC, the vessel through which our understanding of the EU referendum is filtered…

Mr Naughtie, 64, is leaving the Today programme in January after 21 years. He will instead becoming Radio 4’s Special Correspondent, and “will have a responsibility for charting the course of the constitutional changes at the heart of the UK political debate – devolution and independence, parliamentary reform and the changes in the UK’s relations with Europe”.

He will act as a roving reporter in the UK and around the world, covering the Scottish, US and French elections and the EU referendum, in addition to presenting radio documentaries.

The importance of that job makes it remarkable that a man such as  Naughtie, who can demonstrate an incredibly high degree of pig-ignorant arrogance, should get the job when you realise he is entirely unconcerned about the facts and has a sneeringly dismissive attitude to anyone who dares to raise the very serious problem of BBC bias…a bias ironically very ably demonstrated by Naughtie as he attempts to deny it and move the debate away from anything that might actually shed some light on matters…a sheer arrogance which the Spectator reports in full….

Jenkin: There is the other problem. Jim, you know the history of the BBC’s coverage of the European Union question. There was the report commissioned in 2005 under chairmanship of Lord Wilson of Dinton, the former cabinet secretary, that found that and I quote “we have found there is widespread perception that the BBC suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias”.

Naughtie: A widespread perception?

Jenkin: The BBC governance accepted that and we know that the Today programme basically got the presentation of the Euro wrong. We know that, that’s now been accepted.

Naughtie: Can we get back to the issue?

Jenkin: This is an important point Jim because every morning we have someone on the Today programme from business and they’re always asked the question “do you think we should stay in the EU?” but you tend to choose people from a certain sector of business who are going to say what they think the establishment wants to hear.

Naughtie: Sorry, we want to get back to the point but can I just tell you that is simply not true.

Jenkin: It’s an important issue and I hope you will address it in a future programme.

Naughtie: Finally, do you think that the fact the government was beaten last night on this indicates that particularly on European questions but on a whole host of things, the Prime Minister is skating on very thin ice?

Jenkin: Well, I think this question actually indicates part of the unintentional cultural bias of the BBC.

Naughtie: Oh for goodness sake.

Jenkin: No listen, let me just explain that.

Naughtie: This really is tedious.

Jenkin: This was a cross party dispassionate discussion about how to create a fair referendum. If there is to be a new politics, it’s this kind of politics where a select committee on cross-party basis makes recommendations and the opposition in a rather non-partisan way I have to say supports that case. That’s what happen last night and your question wants to see it through the lens of party politics, the party game at Westminster and who’s in and who’s out and whether the Prime Minister is weaker or stronger. That’s not what this was about, it was about a fairer referendum…

Naughtie: …a game you have never participated in…

Jenkin: …we’ve got a step closer to a fairer referendum, which is the kind of thing the British people want.

The BBC’s Chris Mason on 5Live today displayed a similarly arrogant and  dismissive tone when he told us that ‘inevitably‘ Nigel Farage raised doubts about the EU opening the doors to migrants.  ‘Inevitably’ suggests Mason thinks Farage’s views are also rather ‘tedious’ and without merit.

The BBC treated us to a ‘Migration Special’ today…not sure why it was ‘special’ as it seemed to be the same old unpleasant, emotive trickery rank with the odour of sanctimonious and completely unearned moral superiority that BBC journalists wrap themselves in.

The BBC mashed together as many of its old reports on the migrants that it could, the more emotive, the more sympathy inducing, the more guilt inducing the better.  This was pure propaganda designed to ‘change your mind’ should you have doubts about the wisdom of opening the borders in the way they have been to what can only be described as an invasion, one that seems to consist mostly of highly aggressive young men which can’t bode well for the future.

The BBC has three prongs to its attack…one, make you feel sympathy for the plight of the ‘refugees’, and we are constantly assured that they are refugees despite many coming from safe countries, second, to make you feel guilty that perhaps you are not being compassionate or humane enough, the BBC telling us we just don’t understand how these migrants/refugees must feel, third, failing all that they try to shame us by suggesting that anyone who doesn’t support the migration must be a Nazi…of course they don’t say this outright but they head off to Hungary or the Czech Republic, quote someone from there, make a sweeping conclusion from that one quote that the whole country is therefore packed full of racists and that you don’t really want to be seen to be like them…do you?  The BBC’s Rob Cameron claimed that East Europeans are a bit too white and a bit too culturally unenlightened…they haven’t learnt of the benefits of a multicultural society as we have in the UK…such as Rotherham, or the Trojan Horse scandal or bombs going off in London or a British soldier being almost beheaded in an English city.

As I say, nowt but propaganda.

And the BBC isn’t giving up….it’s not just the news being fabricated to fit the BBC agenda but they have started to use licence payers money to pump out dramas that are pure propaganda for the migrant cause.

Tonight we had a drama that must have been churned out as fast as possible in the hope that putting the plight of the migrants in a form that wasn’t ‘cold, hard news’, in a form that could be artistically embellished [to a greater extent than they have already achieved with the news] would increase the emotional manipulation and be more effective than ‘straight news’ that people might view less emotionally and more critically….and of course it allows the BBC to build ‘loveable’ characters and invent life stories and dramatic and perilous troubles that supposedly hook  the viewer and  link them to the characters and their situation, all intended to hopefully produce a feeling of personal connection and sympathy which will then translate into real life and how you feel about real refugees.

When the BBC churns out highly political messages dressed up as entertainment, as drama, then you have to think the BBC has stepped way over the line and has completely lost the plot as it moves from a supposedly impartial observer and reporter helping people understand the issues to an activist, an alarmist campaigner peddling its own views and attempting to label anyone who disagrees as inhumane nazis.

BBC news is shaped not to inform but to reform.  You are too uneducated or too prejudiced to be allowed to make your own decisions…the BBC will make them for you and if you don’t agree then it will publicly denounce you as a racist, a Nazi or as someone lacking compassion and humanity hoping to make it ‘socially unacceptable’ to express concerns about immigration.

The only light at the end of the tunnel is that despite all this mawkish and emotive propaganda from the BBC I have yet to meet anyone who thinks opening the borders is a good idea…or that helping British jihadis on their way to martyrdom is a bad thing….many would happily send the bill for the hellfire missile that ended their murderous lives to the families of the recently deceased seeing as how ready the jihadis and Co are to sue the British government.

A Biased BBC reader saw this and then posted me this…

“How benevolent of you to manage to draw Israel into the migrant crisis in Europe in your report. It appears that at every opportunity you have available you like to get the message across to viewers, listeners and readers that somewhere along the line the Jews have a responsibility. You could have gone to any of the other cities and towns to file your report but somehow following your instincts the Yarmouk “refugee” camp exactly suited you anti-Israel agenda and bias.

It is clear that to the average viewer/reader your filed report is accurate and to be relied upon but in essence it was distorted and far from honest. As BBC Mid East Editor since the Balen Report of 2004 your focus on Israel is beyond the realms of good honest journalism.

It is time you acknowledged you have a bias against Jews and Israel and desisted from taking every opportunity to bash us.”

Hear Hear….

For several days, the BBC ran the sob story that “Aylan Kurdi” ended up being drowned off the Turkish coast because his father, Abdullah, had to flee Islamic State in an act of desperation and nobility. On the basis of this story, the EU has opened up its borders to potentially millions of muslims. It is now clear that there are some serious holes in this story not LEAST the fact that his father was living in Turkey for 3 years before the drowning. Islamic State didn’t exist back then, so how could be be fleeing them? Isn’t this worth the BBC at least considering? Or was this all just a concerted effort to destroy even the fiction of EU borders to North Africa? The source is …The Guardian.

Here you go, a new OPEN THREAD to detail the bias!