Category Archives: BBC bias

You may have noticed on your travels that any wind turbines that you come across have a rather unusual operational approach.

On windy days they can be seen to be completely motionless, whilst on almost windless days they are ticking round quite nicely.

I often thought that some clever chap who works for one of the turbine producers has come up with a cunning plan…..when there’s no wind put the turbines in reverse, that is, draw power from the electricity grid to turn the turbine to encourage the public to think ‘Turbines are turning…great….it’s working…government must buy more!’…..a little promotional stunt for the wind turbine industry…keeps the blades turning and keep the money coming in (though you couldn’t come up with a better stunt than getting paid to actually turn off your turbine!).

All nonsense of course?….apart from being paid to turn off the turbines….that’s all too real.

However the Telegraph has looked into wind turbines and just how effective they are in a snapshot:

According to RWE’s own data, three wind farms on Thursday afternoon appeared to be taking electricity from the National Grid rather than supplying it.

The eight turbines at Knabs Ridge, which is close to Harrogate in Yorkshire, used up 86KW of electricity while Lambrigg wind farm’s five turbines in Cumbria took 10KW from the grid.

Llyn Alaw wind farm, which is in Anglesey, and consists of 34 turbines also produced a negative output, according to RWE’s own data, of minus 80KW.

Somewhat indirectly connected to BBC bias….but it helps inform the debate and provides some background with which to judge BBC coverage of climate change and measures taken to supposedly combat it.

Andrew Marr hasn’t changed…he’s still Red Andy and pushing the Left’s agenda…this time a few thoughts from the IPPR, left leaning think tank:

Who runs Britain? An Army of unregarded, unpaid carers. Now it’s time we cared for them says Andrew Marr and his wife who nursed him after stroke

 As a report today from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) points out, thousands of women in their 50s are being hit by a ‘triple whammy’ of work, childcare and caring for elderly parents.

Good that the BBC allows him to have other interests outside of work….hard to tell the difference to be honest between his work and play.

Guess the answer to ‘Who Runs Britain?’ is that the BBC runs Britain…or tries its best to.

BBC officer class enrages people, chief admits 

Executive salaries at the BBC have created an “officer class” which is causing “resentment and anger” among lower-paid workers, Lord Hall, the director-general of the corporation, has admitted.

Liz MacKean, a former BBC Newsnight journalist, said: “The whole issue about severance payments gets to the heart of something that has gone badly wrong with the BBC over the last decade and more, which is the creation of an officer class that seems to fly in the face of the principles of public service broadcasting.”

Alan Yentob, who earns £183,000 as the BBC’s creative director, joined Lord Hall on stage and rejected a call for more transparency over salaries. He said: “The BBC is not a local authority, OK? We need to invest, we need to get people to come in. Who wants to come to an organisation where their privacy is [affected]?”

Talking of privacy maybe Yentob should listen to this:

Mariella Frostrup asks:

Is Privacy Over Rated?

And talking of officer elites Evan Davis asks:

What’s the Point of an Elite?

Both programmes very BBC…both jam packed with worthy, highly educated middle class ‘elites’….you can hear Davis has the decency to be embarrassed about the makeup of his panel.

But…Evan Davis admits that he wouldn’t have wanted to go to a school like Eton…because he would have a been a small fish in a big pond, whereas at a state school, where he was headboy, he was a big fish in a small pond….a small pond intellectually and academically he means.

Charmed I’m sure to know how the BBC’s finest look down upon their fellow state school inmates…..intellectually wanting but that’s good as it makes Evan look better.

Listening to both programmes, and well, any such programme from the BBC, and you keep hearing ‘The Poor’ being mentioned, concern for the ‘lower orders’, but where are their voices?

How is it that concern for the ’Poor’ and ‘Disadvantaged’ is the sole preserve it seems of middle class intellectuals? Do ‘The Poor’ not have any thoughtful comments about ‘elites’ or ‘privacy’?

We’re told that ‘The Poor’ are shut out more than ever from the higher reaches of society and that privacy is the domain of the rich….so how come they have no voice on these BBC programmes, a seat at the table rather than picking up the crumbs thrown to them by their ‘betters’?

The BBC’s latest review of its lack of impartiality from earlier in the year has resurfaced as one of its authors, Mike Berry,  pushes the lie, lovingly created and honed by him and those ex BBC employees now ensconced at Cardiff University who manufactured this ‘report’,  that the BBC is actually biased towards the Right.

The BBC say it went to Cardiff University but you might conclude that it took a wrong turn and ended up in Cardiff on the day the Circus was in town.

Even the BBC has admitted it is biased towards the Left so either Berry is a fool or a liar.

DB has mentioned this in the Open Thread and Is the BBC biased has picked up on that and delved into Mike Berry’s left wing, anti-Israeli background.

The usual stuff.

We have already had a look at this report and its authors and I think it is obvious that you can dismiss it as yet another BBC smoke screen.

Just what is the point of the BBC commissioning such reports into its impartiality when the people it gets to conduct the reports either have very close ties to the BBC or have very obvious, strong, political leanings that indicate they will not be impartial?

This is Berry’s final conclusion:

So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.

A more dishonest and misleading statement about the BBC would be hard to find.

Pro-Conservative, anti-Europe, pro-Business?  Did he not have the room to add on pro-EDL, pro-Christian, pro-Israeli?

Amazing how Berry can get those big clown feet into his mouth ….but he has such an appreciative audience who clearly like their news spoon fed to them because thinking for themselves is so hard to do as the Twitter mob of the usual left wing trolls that come out from under their stones to celebrate his nonsense admirably demonstrate:

Seumas Milne ‏@SeumasMilne 19h  Contrary to media mythology, #BBC coverage is dominated by Conservative, corporate & City voices, research shows http://bit.ly/15klDyq 

 You have to laugh at this from Berry (If I was  a student at Cardiff I’d be asking for my money back if taught by Berry):

The fact that the City financiers who had caused the crisis were given almost monopoly status to frame debate again demonstrates the prominence of pro-business perspectives.

I’m sorry, I have to choke back the tears of laughter….I thought that tripping on LSD was so 60’s…does it still go on?….apart from the fact that the Banks have been massively reined in weren’t we told that it was ‘Occupy’ who had framed the debate…even by Mervyn King and Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England:

The BBC is pro-Occupy, it encouraged the ‘youth’ to riot and protest, it damns bankers and big business at every opportunity, it fanatically supported Labour’s Plan B, it has done everything in its power to knock the confidence of business, investors and consumers and to push the belief that Osborne’s policies are bringing us to the brink of ruin…even now as the ‘green shoots’ emerge they find ways to tell us we’re all doomed rather than look on the bright side.

You just have to listen to one of their recent efforts to see the BBC’s approach:

How You Pay For The City

The title alone gives away the drift of the programme.

Why not ‘How You Pay For Tescos’?  Because of course you do….…or ‘How You Pay For Your Own Wages’…by buying products from other businesses…whose workers go out and buy products from your company…which pays your wages …and so on….Capitalism is so awfully complicated.

or even  ‘How You Pay For The BBC’?.

The BBC isn’t free you know.

The programme was half an hour of anti-city, anti-business, anti-government policies, that condemned the banks for making profits and claimed Quantitive Easing was a terrible idea that stole money from the poor and put it in the pockets of the rich bankers…never mind that it was pension funds and insurance companies that held government bonds that received the money….designed deliberately not to put money into banker’s coffers.

 You heard nothing good about QE on this programme, that it stabilised and kept confidence in the economy, it was merely a highly politicised anti-banker rant with only one dissenting voice…on for a moment….no points for every time ‘casino banking’ was mentioned.

In one half hour programme it covered QE, oil speculation, Banks diversifying, commodities,  interest rates, inflation…..even if it was possible to, the BBC had no intention of looking at these subjects in any real depth, it merely cherry picked data and quotes to back up its narrative.

  It told us that banks were manipulating oil prices….a man came on briefly and said there was no evidence for that…the BBC ignored him and carried on anyway.

Never mind that oil prices are always manipulated…notoriously by the likes of OPEC and Saudi Arabia and of course now Russia with gas prices….funny, no mention of that though.

So yes, the BBC is pro-Business, pro-Conservative.

I see now, I was blinded by my own prejudices before.

They fill up quick these days.

Because these fill up with hundreds of comments every day! I tuned in to the BBC Radio 4 at 6.30am this morning. They DO seem so sympathetic to “the opposition” in Syria and Morsi’s supporters in Egypt, don’t they? Muslim Brotherhood propaganda is breathlessly repeated and how often are we informed that Morsi was “democratically elected”? The situation in Syria is certainly complex but the BBC seems to have aligned with “the rebels without probing too deeply as to who they are and what they want. Anyway, I’m off for the day so detail the bias YOU see here…

LOLOL

Leftwing BBC type in melt down.

Tessa Dunlop on Today programme this morning (08:50)

Talking about a book published by Civitas which puts the case for families having more than one child…as it can be beneficial for siblings, they claim.

Dunlop, who has only one child herself, has other ideas saying:

 ‘The world’s population is exploding….People are always coming up to me and saying when will you have another child..and there’s two things here…Civitas is a right wing think tank, I just wonder if they would be saying ‘when are you going to have another’ to a Somali woman  standing next  to me in the supermarket….it’s like the Middle Classes must keep breeding, keep up our genetic army…’

Well, I don’t think Civitas are responsible for her friends and others, including her doctor, for asking when she will have another… that’s pretty much a standard line in the baby talk world…I don’t think they are recruiting for the Fourth Reich.

A ‘Somali’ woman in the supermarket queue,  really, is she on holiday?…we all know that they are ‘British’ as soon as they step off the plane….Dunlop clearly hasn’t read the memo from BBC ‘Diversity and Cohesion’.

Presumably she doesn’t mean Somali women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was driven out of Europe to the safety of America by the same sort of Left wing prejudice, bigotry and stupidity on display here.

I wonder where she picked up her views…kind of reminiscent of this piece of BBC religious ‘racism’:

A Womb is a Weapon

For some, encouraging larger Christian families is part of a project to outbreed other religions, particularly Islam, winning back the world for Christ one baby at a time.

The BBC can still surprise me. I was driving home from work and had the PM programme on. It covered the rather bizarre story that Bradley Manning has issued a statement saying that “he” is now a she and wants to be called Chelsea henceforth. What amazed me was that Eddie Mairs instantly started calling this man a she … and called her Chelsea. Is this how it works then? If I send the BBC a statement saying I am extra-terrestrial does that mean that they will accept I am one without question? I know the BBC loves this kind of transgender nonsense but I really am amazed that they are calling this man a women when he is still plainly a man? It’s not exactly bias but it is odd.

Douglas Carswell in the Telegraph suggests that:

The BBC’s mid-twentieth century TV poll tax should be consigned to the history books

 Carswell thinks a subscription service might work…Mark Thompson thought not…or rather put the case for keeping the license fee/poll tax:

We want to build a digital world based on universal access, open standards and unencryption.

Encryption, subscription and other forms of digital exclusion lead to widespread welfare losses.

They may well have a role within the total broadcasting ecology, but the idea that they can successfully replace free-to-air public service broadcasting, we believe, flies in the face both of economic theory and our real-world experience.

 There might be a case for keeping news and sport free to air but when the BBC is prosecuting thousands of people for not paying their license fee, and presumably they will be mainly the poorest people, Thompson’s claim that there will be ‘widespread welfare losses’ looks to be disengenuous….if you don’t pay the BBC’s license you don’t get the service now….officially anyway.

Do they watch the BBC’s socially and morally uplifting programmes anyway?  Thompson knows full well most people aren’t interested, life’s too short and they won’t pay for them….and yet they still get charged for them now.

The trouble is that the BBC always feel free to rewrite those history books.

In  Dreaming the Impossible: Unbuilt Britain – 2. Making Connections the BBC indulges in its usual trick of loading a programme about engineering with political and social messages…in this case about immigration and the dreadful people that oppose it.

In the first 5 minutes there were a couple of veiled references to what was to come and a couple of blatantly obvious markers for how the programme was going to lay judgement upon the British.

Olivia Horsfall Turner, architectural historian, tells us that one of the men who wanted to build a Channel tunnel had a ‘belief in a better world’…unlike those who opposed the tunnel who were full of intrigue and beset by xenophobia….those thinking of building the tunnel brought out the worst kind of rabid xenophobia in its opponents.

Never mind that this was originally at the time of the Napoleonic Wars…remember them?  When the French were trying to take over the world…marching onto the gates of Moscow and the Pyramids in Egypt…never mind that the French had helped the Rebels in the Americas to defeat the British…or that Napoleon had plans to invade Britain.

It was just out and out xenophobia, racism by some very nasty people..

So the Channel tunnel was more than a spectacular feat of engineering it was a social and political experiment, a statement that broke down borders and prejudiced attitudes….as immigrants flooded in through it.

Douglas Carswell says that he had a Tweet from a Lefty saying that the BBC was needed because it ‘fulfils a social role’

 The BBC fulfils a social role?…maybe, but how do you define that ‘role’ and what are its limits?

Its role was to educate, inform and entertain…..it has gone far beyond that…taking upon itself to not only tell us what is going on in the world but how to live our lives and to berate and pillory us when we don’t profess the same values and correct social attitudes that they desire us to have.

Mark Thompson claimed that: ‘The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can’t be‘…unfortunately he also said:

The BBC was no longer just a broadcaster, the corporation was to be a social force in the land, he said. The corporation was an “important builder of social capital, seeking to increase social cohesion and tolerance”, which in future would try to “foster audience understanding of differences of ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality, age and ability or disability“…

Really?

The Telegraph asked: Caring and sharing – is this what the BBC is really for?

Strangely when I’m watching a programme about engineering or how to dance strictly I don’t want messages, subliminal or otherwise, inserted into my consciousness telling me that a gay man, or even a French man, can make a brilliant engineer, or that everytime I drive my socially inappropriate 4×4 to buy the Sunday Newpapers I’m killing at least 3 Ethiopians and blighting the lives of many more as the climate changes, famine, plague and swarms of locusts scourge the land.

Its broadcasting has become value laden….it doesn’t just reveal the world to us but passes judgement on what is good, what is bad, directing us on what to think, policing our thoughts.

Anyone who steps out of line can expect a visit from the BBC and exposure in the BBC’s very own court for a public show trial intended to shame the blasphemous heretic and to terrify anyone else who thinks the same into keeping quiet.

A final word from the BBC:

 “The BBC doesn’t make judgments – what it does is to provide a forum for debate.”

I am sure that you, like me, have been gripped by a sense of suspense as to the fate of the ‘Irish” family  “caught up in a stand-off at a Cairo mosque” as the BBC poetically puts out. Here these fine upstanding Irish citizens are;

Now then, the BBC tell us that they were caught up but they choose not to tell us WHY they were in Cairo and what EXACTLY they were doing there. Fortunately, Mark Humphyrs does ask the questions the BBC shies away from and the answer is clear; They were there to support the Islamofascists in the Muslim Brotherhood. You can see the video clips and it is obvious that the BBC, along with the Irish media, chose not to probe too deeply into this story lest we get the mpression that they were anything other than innocent bystanders.