Category Archives: BBC bias

HELLO!

By | |
7 Comments

Hi folks! Just to let you know I am back from holidays, suitably refreshed and ready for battle (Oops, is that the wrong sort of language to use, oh well…)

Managed to completely avoid the BBC during the past week or so and that was a small but merciful relief. That said, I did watch Sky 24hr News which was almost as bad as the BBC. It carries the same smug left of centre analysis of that typifies the BBC – and was cloying about Michele Obama’s recent electioneering pilgrimage to meet Saint Nelson in South Africa. Lord knows what the BBC coverage was like but I found Sky presenters lost all objectivity on the issue, hailing her as some sort of modern icon and role-model.

Of course the BIG difference is that I have a choice when it comes to Sky. I can choose not to pay for it. Alas the Biased BBC offers me no such freedom, demanding that I pay for the bias it churns out with such monotonous regularity.

The point of this blog is not just exposing the hypocritical unprofessional bias that pervades the State Broadcaster – though that is in itself a very useful service. We also exist to help raise awareness that it is WRONG to have a State Broadcaster extort cash from us in order that it can propagandise in ways that many of believe to be utterly wrong. Bias is not the only problem, making us fund it is even worse.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Ignorant US People Astonish Katty Kay

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
7 Comments

Check out Katty Kay – taking over for Matt Frei as alpha Beeboid at BBC World News America since he left for Channel 4 – telling Mayor Bloomberg of New York that she is “astonished” to learn that more and more people in the US are turning away from Warmism.

“What is it with the American public opinion that seems to fly in the face of all the scientific evidence?”

Calm down, dear. Substitute any other political issue and the Beeboids are usually equally astonished by American public opinion. But never mind.

First of all, it’s not that the people don’t believe the climate changes. That’s BS Number One from the Warmists. Of course the climate changes; we all know that and it’s not in dispute. The question is whether or not it’s caused mostly by human activity. The science on that is being debated all the time, yet the BBC acts as if it’s not, and only whackos don’t get it.

The reason I call this BS #1 is that the very euphemism the Warmists have forced into the discussion – “Climate Change” – is disingenuous. What they all really mean is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The “science” of AGW, invented by people whose careers and fortune depend on it becoming fact, is what Katty is talking about, and not about whether or not the earth’s climate changes or was in a warming trend for a while. But because the Warmists have already won the argument – if you’re using their terminology, they’ve already won the argument, even if you’re still talking – Katty and the BBC can get away with saying that people like me don’t believe in “Global Warming” when in fact it’s that we don’t believe that building one more clean coal plant will sink the Maldives. The recent record cold temperatures around the US probably don’t help. But that’s only weather, yeah.

The reason they switched terms is because “Global Warming” can mean all things to all people. There is no cause or effect implied. Yet we know the BBC and all Warmists believe the cause is human activity, as the topic of this discussion between Kay and Bloomberg proves. As the term itself is dishonest, this BBC segment is dishonest and Katty and Mayor Mikey are dishonest for using the term.

Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is a committed Warmist and an über-Nanny Statist. Don’t even get me started on the behavior he’s banned against the wishes of New Yorkers. Hell, even the fact that he’s mayor right now is undemocratic, because he went against the voters – and his own promise – and twisted enough arms to change the term limit rules so he could buy a third election run for mayor a third time (and I speak as someone who happily voted for him the first time, knowing full well that he was a RINO Nanny). So this guy is the perfect example of an elite ruling class forcing his own personal wishes on a helpless public. No wonder the BBC wanted to talk to him. As soon as Bloomberg says “reduce consumption”, you know where he and the BBC stand. All your personal freedoms are belong to us.

I’m not going to bother getting into more details of Katty’s interview with the mayor, because it’s beyond the point. The BBC – as admitted by Jeremy Paxman in the sidebar – long ago took sides in the debate, and actively works to pursue a specific political agenda. Carbon emission regulations, coal plant permits, government subsidy/investment in various technologies, and the regulations for the entire automotive industry are all political issues. Even if we’re talking about seat belts in cars or helmets for motorcycles, creating a law about any of it is a political issue. No matter which side one is on, it’s done in the legislature by – in theory – democratically elected representatives, and these laws can be changed or repealed entirely by the next batch of democratically elected representatives if that’s what the voters want.

It doesn’t matter which side of the Warmism debate one is on. Legislation is political, full stop. The BBC always takes sides in this specific political issue, and deliberately chooses disingenuous language to support it. And as seen here, they do political advocacy posing as news and information.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

By | | ,
3 Comments

Give this video by Rodney Atkinson some of your time. Whilst discussing the EU it also does mention the BBC’s censorship of Churchill between 37-39. It’s interesting to compare Rodney’s dissection of the EU with the BBC’s worship of the same wicked institution!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Israel In The Crosshairs Of The BBC

By | | , , , , , ,
41 Comments

There’s plenty of other stuff on this blog about the BBC’s unbalanced bias against Israel after the President’s speech yesterday, but here’s one glaring example of their entrenched anti-Israel attitude.

This article about Netanyahu’s visit to the US and audience with the President includes an analysis inset from Wyre Davies, in which he sneers at the Israeli PM and at what he perceives to be trained seals in Congress, as well as at the nasty old Jewish Lobby. Surely there is a less snarky – less editorializing and impartial – way to describe the situation? In the middle of the article itself, though, the News Online sub-editor slips in this other bit of Davies’ wisdom:

Israel’s claim to being the only democratic state in the region has also been undermined by the dramatic developments of the “Arab Spring” anti-government uprisings, our correspondent adds.

Let’s consider the twisted logic here. Davies – approved by the BBC – is saying that protests against Arab dictators have (Davies uses the past tense, and so will I) already undermined Israel’s claim to being the only democracy in the village. In other words, according to the BBC protesting against dictators diminishes the democratic position of the only non-dictatorship.

And this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this Narrative from a Beeboid. Kevin Connolly, having departed his former post as US correspondent where he insulted thousands of people on air with a sexual innuendo to become a newly-minted Middle East correspondent, said the exact same thing two weeks ago.

Now if, in a few months’ time or so, an Arab/Muslim country actually achieved a state of democracy as a result of all these Arab Spring protests (which would be great and fine with me, regardless of the resulting government’s attitude towards Israel or the US), then there would be some validity to the BBC’s position. At this time, though, there is no such thing. In fact, the protests highlight the very fact the BBC says is undermined by them. But since BBC groupthink is that Israel is the worst of the bunch and the root cause of all strife in the Middle East (even as the President tells them to cut the crap), they see it exactly backwards.

The anti-Israel sentiment entrenched at the BBC twists their vision into seeing black as white. Protests against dictators undermine the idea that Israel is the only non-dictatorship in the region? Only in the minds of Beeboids. Sadly, it’s a set Narrative, clearly prepared in advance, with the latest opportunity seized with gusto. They want Israel to be undermined, to be diminished, to be delegitimized, and see it happening even where it’s the exact opposite.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Bin Laden’s Death: Illegal Assassination or Legitimate Target? Depends On Who’s President…..

By | | , , , , ,
95 Comments

Have Your Say, 2001:

Can state assassinations be justified?

US President George Bush has told the CIA to find and destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network.

The president has given the agency the green light to do “whatever is necessary” – which could include an assassination attempt – and has given it £700 million in funding to carry out the mission.

The operation will include the CIA working with commandos and other military units to act immediately on intelligence uncovered by American spies about enemy targets.

Should the CIA have been given the go ahead to assassinate Bin Laden? Can such actions ever be justified?

Have Your Say, 2011:

Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden dead: Your reaction

BBC News website readers in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been sharing their views on the death of al-Qaeda’s founder and leader, Osama Bin Laden.

Osama Bin Laden evaded the forces of the US and its allies for almost a decade, despite a $25m bounty on his head.

Enough said.

UPDATE May 3: Der Spiegel asks the question the BBC has curiously stopped asking:

Was Bin Laden’s Killing Legal?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC Censorship: Spot The Missing President Edition

By | | , , , , ,
7 Comments

One today’s ‘B’ stories is about all the Gulf Coast fisherman complaining that BP isn’t dealing fairly with them, isn’t paying enough compensation, won’t let them into meetings for a negotiation. Nasty old BP, oil destroys communities, etc. There’s also a round of Spot The Missing Word.

The News Channel just let a Louisiana oysterman have a three-minute rant about how evil BP is. Beeboid Emma let him go on uninterrupted, and only after he was finished did she close with one sentence about how BP created a $20 billion fund for this.
Did you spot the missing word?

The Obamessiah made this deal with BP behind closed doors. There is no room for the fishermen to negotiate, or increase the money of the fund, or anything else. Unsurprisingly, He was the top recipient of campaign cash from BP.

The BBC doesn’t want you to know any of that, and has censored all mention of His involvement from all reports today about this issue.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Significant Strands of Opinion

By | |
30 Comments

In his new online magazine The Commentator, Robin Shepherd writes about the BBC in the light of the recent observations about the BBC by Michael Buerk and Peter Sissons. He concludes:

“Three possible strategies come to mind: work to reform it; work around it by pressing for a freeing up of the regulatory environment so that a robust competitor can be established in the private sector; or work to abolish it.”

The first has been tried. That is no reason not to try again. But the rot runs so deep that we may have to face the prospect that the BBC is simply unreformable.”

I’m not certain who has tried to reform the BBC. I understand it has been tinkered with from time to time; a new appointee here and there, a few MPs have grumbled. Then there’s this website as well as frequent references on other websites where the BBC’s bias is taken as read. (Or should that be red.) But this hardly constitute a *strategy*.

The second is a good idea regardless of what the BBC does. In an open society it is deplorable that the state should dictate who can say what in the public domain. The airwaves should be free.

Whatever regulatory restrictions there are that prevent robust competition, the BBC will always have the upper hand, as the residual effect of its reputation for excellence and impartiality still lingers in the public’s perception, despite its own suicidal efforts to squander the lot.
Look at the way everyone sneers at Fox Sky CNN etc. The only one they praise is Al-Jazeera.

“Looking to the long term, the third (Working to abolish it)
is a less remote possibility than it might currently appear. While today’s political establishment is largely supportive of the BBC, there are significant strands of opinion taking shape within it that have grave misgivings about the way things have been going.”

We are ‘a strand with grave misgivings’, but so what? Where’s the motivation for a parliamentary decision to scrap the licence fee, or whatever it would take? Politicians and the BBC need each other, so MPs are hardly likely to be so radical.

I must say I regret the disappearance of the BBC spokespersons who used to engage with us here on B-BBC. One of them implied that doing so was frowned upon by the powers that be, so a fatwa of some sort might have been decreed. On the other hand, they might have dismissed us as a bunch of right-wing mouth-frothers unworthy of whatever credibility any of their precious attention might bestow upon us.
People complain that we don’t want unbias, only our kind of bias. As has been noted, true impartiality is strictly for inanimate objects. There is one kind of bias that we should embrace, bias towards ’good’ and against ‘bad.’ We certainly differ over what constitutes good and bad, but meddling with omissions, emotive language, selectivity and disproportionate emphases in news reporting is irresponsible and dangerous.

Finally, I saw some comments on Guido’s blog, and I’ve seen similar here too, to the effect that some people don’t see why they should care about the Middle East. About The Commentator:

“Israel, arentcha sick of hearing about it? It’s alright in small doses to keep informed about what’s going on, but it’s tedious having it front and centre on a new centre right site. Boring.”

and:

“ The reast of the world would be happy if the whole bloody middle-east were just to fuck off and die, quietly please.”

People boast about their own ignorance when they haven’t got the brains to see that they should be ashamed of it. We can’t all be interested in everything, I know, and it takes all sorts etc., and no doubt such people have opinions about something or other, otherwise they wouldn’t bother to comment on a blog. But I wonder what has made them think that displaying perverse bravado is a good idea, rather than a gigantic embarrassment.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The BBC And The Thoroughly "Moderate" Muslim Brotherhood

By | | , , ,
15 Comments

I’m sure everyone here will remember the BBC’s official position during the Egyptian democracy protests, before Mubarak (to his eternal credit, in my view) stepped down, which was that the Muslim Brotherhood is, in fact, “moderate”. Frank Gardener was on air several times saying that the group was “moderate”, and Jeremy Bowen even wrote online that the group was both “conservative” and “moderate”, until he got caught and stealth-edited out the “moderate” bit. (I saw the original myself, and made a comment here at the time, but unfortunately did not take a screen shot.)

A reminder of the BBC’s Narrative on the Muslim Brotherhood:

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood promotes moderate path

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood launches ‘Islamic Facebook’

Egypt’s opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, has launched its own Facebook-style social networking site.

A senior member of the banned Islamist group says the aim is to spread awareness of moderate Islamic values.

Website takes on Muslim Brotherhood critics

Exposing hatred

Through the Ikhwanophobia website, the Brotherhood’s sympathisers aggressively attempt to refute criticisms of the group and to show the world what they consider to be “the true face of moderate Islamists”.

Competing Muslim Brotherhood visions for Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood is vying to become an official party in post-Mubarak Egypt. The conservative Islamist views of some of the group’s members scare many in Egypt and the West, but, as Tim Whewell has been finding out, many members, particularly young activists, are much more moderate.

With all this in mind, it’s no surprise that the BBC is not mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood or fundamentalist Islam or their influence on the military in things which detract from the Narrative. I didn’t notice the MB complaining about the following incident. I thought they were advocates of freedom and democracy. Or does the BBC consider this kind of thing to be “moderate”, too?

Egyptian women protesters forced to take ‘virginity tests’

A leading rights group says the Egyptian army arrested, tortured and forced women to take “virginity tests” during protests earlier this month.

Notice that, while the Egyptian Army has been known during the Mubarak regime to crack down on anti-Government agitators, this is entirely different. The BBC, naturally, is placing blame exclusively on the army, and pointing out problems in the past to spin it away, nothing to do with the new changes in attitude. Granted, the sub-editor is essentially copying and pasting from Amnesty’s own website, but that’s no excuse. It’s not Amnesty’s job to inform people about the larger context, but it is – in theory – the BBC’s.

This happened after Mubarak stepped down, not before. It’s a different type of crackdown entirely. Making sure that protesters are virgins is not the same thing as cracking down on protests. This didn’t happen during the anti-Mubarak protests, but only after Egypt’s top brass asked a member of the Muslim Brotherhood to rewrite the country’s laws on personal freedom. Or does the BBC think this is “moderate” behavior as well?

Hey, BBC:

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Compare and Contrast: BBC Obamessiah/Libya Edition

By | | , , ,
15 Comments

Compare this report from Fox News:

U.S. Launches Cruise Missiles Against Qaddafi’s Air Defenses

The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader’s Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses Saturday, a military source tells Fox News.

The U.S. military strikes clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Qaddafi’s air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, U.S. officials said.

Sounds like the US fired first right? But skip a paragraph about Hillary Clinton attending some meeting about this and we get this:

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions.

French fighter jets fired the first shots at Qaddafi’s troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat. The French military says warplanes have carried out four air strikes, destroying several armored vehicles of pro-Qaddafi forces, according to AFP.

So those damn Froggy warmongers (always spoiling for a fight, right?) drew first blood, and the US was close behind. What a difference from when Chirac wouldn’t even let us fly over French airspace to go after Sadaam.

In any case, contrast it with this report from the BBC:

French military jet opens fire in Libya

A French plane has fired the first shots in Libya as enforcement of the UN-mandated no-fly zone begins.

The UK prime minister later confirmed British planes were also in action, while US media reports said the US had fired its first Cruise missiles.

So who took the first shot? The stringent US media says – natch – the US fired first. Of course, they would say that, as Mark Mardell’s reporting would give us the idea that only all those foolish United Statesian warmongers obsessed with the notion of American decline would demand it. Unapologetically leading the charge and all that, yeah.

In any case, I can’t recall any criticism aired by the BBC from French anti-war voices. Is it not ill-advised when the French do it? Was there a segment with their equivalent of Caroline Lucas saying, “Pas de guerre pour l’oeil“?

After a few paragraphs about how the French are going over with no fewer than 20 aircraft, guns blazing, the BBC allows this:

Other air forces and navies are expected to join the French.

“Other air forces”. As if we couldn’t guess immediately which other ones are involved, and it’s not so important who they are. Except of course it’s vitally important for the BBC Narrative who they are.

The US would use its “unique capabilities” to reinforce the no-fly zone, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that further delays would put more civilians at risk. However, Mrs Clinton said again that the US would not deploy ground troops in Libya.

The BBC News Online editors are just playing games here.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday that nobody was going to occupy anybody, essentially no troops on the ground, full stop, occupation is “not going to happen”. It was aired at least twice on the News Channel yesterday. No mention of that at all here, even though it’s more relevant to the license fee payer who might be concerned about, you know, their own government. But the BBC’s focus is exclusively on protecting the US President here. He’s not George Bush, dammit.

Fox News, naturally, is focused on the US angle, and how the US is leading the way. On one level, this would seem to please those whom Mardell describes as being “obsessed” with the notion of American decline. The US is actually – laudably, to hear the BBC tell it – taking a back seat. Or, as Mardell would have it, “leading from behind”. This is obviously a definition of “leading” of which I wasn’t previously aware.

So, if the hated Fox News is clearly reporting from a pro-US, right-wing bias, a news organization which reports from the exact opposite perspective – not just different, but opposite, mind – must by definition be Left wing. I’m not talking about which report one agrees with: I’m talking about the angles and perspectives involved.

All of the BBC’s reporting from now on for this war for oil….no, sorry, UN-backed war for human rights, is slanted toward this angle. Just remember the Narrative that the US taking a back seat and following along is considered “leading from behind”. No problem, no bias, right, BBC?

UPDATE: While the Secretary of State is in Paris leading the US operations in Libya, the President Himself is sucking up to Brazil and waving at us from afar. Leading from behind, indeed. I assume Mark Mardell approves whole-heartedly, as he says that US decline is a doddle.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Hillary Clinton Proves Mark Mardell Wrong

By | | , , , , , ,
29 Comments

Hillary Clinton told CNN the other day that she won’t be working for the President if there is a second term in 2012. Not just that she doesn’t want to be Sec. of State again, but wants no position at all in His Administration.

She told Wolf Blitzer that she doesn’t want to be Sec. of State again because she has the best job in the world right now.

Because I have the best job I could ever have. This is a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath. There are both the tragedies and disasters that we have seen from Haiti to Japan and there are the extraordinary opportunities and challenges that we see right here in Egypt and in the rest of the region. So I want to be part of helping to represent the United States at this critical moment in time, to do everything I can in support of the president and our government and the people of our country to stand for our values and our ideals, to stand up for our security, which has to remain first and foremost in my mind and to advance America’s interests. And there isn’t anything that I can imagine doing after this that would be as demanding, as challenging or rewarding.

Er, and it wouldn’t be in a second term? That doesn’t add up. So why is she going to walk away after next year? No prizes for guessing what her staff is saying:

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Hang on, Mark Mardell has been telling us that The Obamessiah has been thoughtfully “deliberating”. So will he now claim that Hillary Clinton is wrong to think He’s been dithering because she’s “unfamiliar” with the concept? Or does she know better than the BBC North America editor because she’s, you know, on the inside actually dealing with reality and not making uninformed judgments from on high with a perfumed handkerchief held to the nose?

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

Waffling? I guess she just can’t grasp the nuance of His finely tuned brain. What will the BBC have to say about this? Or this:

Bill Clinton: We shouldn’t be letting the Libyan protesters “twist in the wind”

Will Mardell now dismiss the former two-term Democrat President of the United States and the current Democrat Secretary of State as people who are “obsessed with the notion of American decline” or gung-ho cowboys who want an “unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead”?

Clinton’s announcement was not only on CNN but also mentioned on the HuffingtonPost, so we know the Beeboids are aware of it, and can’t pretend it’s not an important enough story for them to mention. So far, though, they’ve censored this news.

In sum, Hillary Clinton just proved that the BBC North America editor’s interpretation of US news has been completely wrong. Why trust him ever again?

UPDATE: Mardell is at it again! This time he’s giving us the spin on the President’s speech about Libya. See the comments thread for more.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.