Category Archives: BBC bias

I was reading on the BBC “that former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall’s 15-month sentence for a series of indecent assaults has been doubled by the Court of Appeal.” Oh, how MODEST of the BBC. But please, they must have forgotten JUST how much they praised Hall..

Arriving a little late but still on time for the weekend! Off you go….

The Today programme (07:45) updated us on the progress of the BBC’s latest wheeze:

The Today programme is asking listeners to come up with questions to put to tens of thousands of people in more than 60 countries around the world.

The programme will submit two questions suggested by listeners to feature in the Gallup International poll.

A panel including the BBC’s Head of Political Research David Cowling and the Today programme’s Sarah Montague will then decide which questions will be put forward.

There is a short list of three questions now:

1.  Which country do you believe to be the greatest threat to world peace today?

2.  Does religion generally play a positive role in your country?

3.  If politician’s were predominantly women would the world be a better place?

The BBC’s Head of Political Research David Cowling tells  us that the questions need to be topical and able to engage a wide range of countries…that is be relevant everywhere.

John Humphry’s asked Cowling which question was his favourite….any guesses?

No need to guess….it was of course which country is the greatest threat to world peace?…..and which country did he immediately reference, if obliquely?

Again no need to guess…..Israel.

Not  for example Pakistan which was created in exactly the same way that Israel was….by creating a separate state for one religion…in this case Muslims, a State which created the Taliban and provides a safe haven for its leaders, which wants to annex Afghanistan, which wants to occupy and Islamise all of Kashmir, which  has 300 terrorist training camps within its borders, which constantly sends terrorists into India to launch attacks, which sent a nuclear scientist to rogue states such as Libya, North Korea and Iran to help them develop nuclear weapons.

Pakistan, the islamic Zionist state.

Whereas Israel…what has Israel done?  It has been under attack for 65 years with constant attempts to wipe it off the map along with the Jews living there.  If no one attacked Israel there would be peace in the Middle East…at least for Israelis.

The reality is that it is Muslims who have been attacking…they are the aggressors. 

If Pakistan is a legitimate state then Israel must also be one….and what about what must now be 10’s of millions of Sikh and Hindu ‘refugees’ who are denied a place in their ancestral lands?  Do they have a right of return?

Shame that the BBC is still pushing the anti-semitic line that Israel is a ‘danger’ just by existing……bit like blaming the girl in the skimpy dress for being raped…it’s her fault of course.

The fact that they never consider Pakistan in the same light as Israel is very telling.

Of course the BBC could save the judges a choice by merging the first two questions and ask which group of people or which ideology poses the greatest threat to world peace rather than limit it to within certain borders.

Now that would be an interesting question.  Of course the BBC woud not like the answer I suspect.

‘The uncritical reproduction of scientific orthodoxy is a far more egregious error: it denies that error can be observed from without the consensus.’

There was a  huge fuss generated by the Hotheads of the pro AGW side of the climate debate over the Andrew Neil interview with Ed Davey, asking him if government climate and energy policy should be changed to take into account the new facts…such as a 16 year ‘pause’ in global warming.

The major bone of contention, or contrived argument against the interview, was that neither participant was a scientist.  The reality was that the critics didn’t like the line of questioning and therefore sought to claim Neil, as a mere journalist, cannot possibly be qualified to speak knowledgeably on the subject and Davey, as a politician is similarly challenged.

Hmmm…but isn’t that the job of both the journalist and the politician…to gather information or advice, analyse it and come to some conclusion…and in the case of the politician to make far reaching decisions based upon his understanding of that science.

The ‘Hotheads’ are not so critical of Davey when he makes decisions that go in their favour…then he is wise and knowledgeable.

The ‘Hotheads’ are not so critical of journalists like Harrabin or Black who seem to toe the ‘party line’.

 My criticism of the BBC in this case is to ask why is it that a political journalist is asking questions about climate policy that the BBC’s own environmental journalists should be asking…but don’t.

Could it be that Harrabin has spent years, in collusion with Dr Joe Smith, attempting, very successfully, to prevent any such questions and consequent debate being raised.

There is an excellent article on this conflict of interests here (via Bishop Hill)

The emphasis on expertise is either hopelessly naive or it is an attempt to delimit permissible areas of debate for strategic ends. Heaven forefend that politicians should be interrogated, lest it turn out that far-reaching and expensive policies turn out to have been, if not drafted by people who do not have a grasp of their subject, executed by them.

In spite of all the criticism levelled against him, then, Andrew Neil, in just one show, has done more to promote an active understanding of climate science and its controversies than has been done by the Carbon Brief blog, academics at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and elsewhere, Bad Science warriors, and a legion of Tweeters who claim to speak for science have done in their entire existences. Along the way, it is possible that Neil made some inconsequential technical mistakes. But by contrast, the uncritical reproduction of scientific orthodoxy is a far more egregious error: it denies that error can be observed from without the consensus. So much for ‘science’.

Perhaps the BBC might like to rethink its policy of not engaging ‘sceptics’.

In the comments for this article Mike Hulme, from the UEA, so no climate sceptic, said this about the ‘consensus’ (via Bishop Hill)….

I know we’ve done a lot on Zimmerman already but I couldn’t let this pass without a blogpost.

Take a look at the considered opinion of BBC News Channel journalist Robert Rea on the day of the Zimmerman verdict. Rea claims Zimmerman only shot Martin because he was black, and it was shameful that he wasn’t found guilty by the jury. All twelve of them.

@Chelsea_Lass had he been blond and blue-eyed, Zimmerman wouldn't have shot him. He did so because Trayvon was black. Shameful verdict

— Robert Rea (@robertrea) July 14, 2013

@Chelsea_Lass and what's worse is it wasn't the Law that cleared Zimmerman. The Law put him on trial. It was a jury. 12 ordinary people

— Robert Rea (@robertrea) July 14, 2013

The jurors sat through all the evidence and concluded that Zimmerman was not guilty.

Rea’s grasp of the proceedings is such that he didn’t even know there were only six jurors.

His reaction is typical of many – an emotional response to a superficial narrative promoted by an agenda-driven media. That he can work in a BBC newsroom and be so ignorant of simple details of the trial is embarrassing, and doesn’t say much for the BBC’s own coverage of the court case. Of course, not knowing what went on in the courtroom didn’t prevent him from denouncing the jury for coming to the wrong verdict. It was just obvious the verdict was wrong, wasn’t it? It was the accepted wisdom in the newsroom.

This trial-be-damned Justice-4-Trayvon emoting has characterised the tweets of those BBC journalists I’ve seen commenting on the case. Just this morning I stumbled on a couple more from the day of the verdict.

BBC journalist Jo Deahl:

George Zimmerman. I know it's been said all day but… Really? REALLY?

— Jo Deahl (@elvisismyguru) July 14, 2013

BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast Show producer Laura Harmes:

So sad at Trayvon Martin verdict. Forget race, how can it be right that an unarmed boy gets pursued and shot dead and his killer walks free?

— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 14, 2013

@ageywage @NatashaSHenry it appears it is. My point was look at the basic facts of the case. A man killing an innocent boy.

— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 14, 2013

@Westofthelaw I'm not sure Zimmerman being Hispanic is relevant. It's about how white jury felt towards Trayvon.

— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 16, 2013

Further ignorance of, and disdain for, the jury there. And once again an emotional superficial understanding of the case.

A few days ago Richard Lawson, senior producer at Radio 5 Live, blocked me on Twitter for the following tweet:

@richardlawson79 No, "the world" is not aghast. It just seems that way if you work for the Guardian or the BBC. #groupthink

— DB (@4d2b) July 20, 2013

I’ve read lots of tweets by BBC hacks expressing sadness and anger over the verdict, and seen lots of links from them to articles in lefty publications reinforcing those emotions. I’ve yet to find a BBC journalist who tweeted that the Zimmerman verdict was right and proper.

Until evidence to the contrary emerges I’ll stick with my verdict: groupthink.

Blimey, the last Open Thread is already overflowing SO here is a new one for you! Off you go…detail the bias.

Had to laugh at the BBC this morning doing its very best to cast cold water on further signs of at least some modest economic recovery.  First the bad news for the comrades..

The UK economy grew by 0.6% in the three months to June, according to official figures.  The figure was in line with market expectations, and is up from 0.3% growth in the previous quarter.

Thankfully, renowned economist Nick Robinson is here to tell us that it is  “Growth but not as we know it”  As if that was not enough then we have this ” The view from the shop floor” On the Today programme, caution was thrown to the wind and a veritable barrel of cold water was thrown over the positive news. It’s going so WRONG for Labour’s meme that we are all doomed and so the BBC has to resort to dousing every green shoot of recovery with its own toxic pesticide.

The BBC’s ‘News Quiz’ is hardly worth posting on…it’s so evidently designed purely as a vehicle for leftie comedians, so called, to vent their spleens against the evil Tories that not much needs to be said about it.

Last Saturday’s effort toed the Party line and the first attack was on Lynton Crosby…then there was a completely joke free rant about the  welfare cap and a claim that IDS had invented some ‘bogus figures’…the rest of the programme seemed to be made up of reading out allegedly humorous newspaper clippings which  listeners had sent in.

All great fun.

It couldn’t be that they have a list of things they want to rant about and if they possibly can they will try and fit in a joke, but if they can’t, well, never mind? 

Toksvig and crew couldn’t resist mentioning the Daily Mail of course, and not forgetting Nigel Farage…subtly linking him to the Nazis as is the usual BBC practice.

Toksvig states, for the benefit of Daily Mail readers, small minded and insular beings that they are,  that immigrants actually pay more tax than native Brits….so there!!!

Really?  There’s a special immigrant tax rate is there?  or maybe they’re just more upstanding and moral than the rest of us…they pay what they think they ought to pay in a fair and just society….as set out by the sainted Margaret Hodge?!

So let’s get this straight…..

The Labour Party concoct a story that Tory advisor Lynton Crosby advised ‘profiteering’ private health companies on how to exploit failures in the NHS.

The Guardian splash the story on its front page.

The BBC picks up the Guardian story and runs with it claiming that Cameron faces questions after ‘it emerges’ his election strategist advised private health companies how to profit from NHS reforms.

Guido Fawkes then fact checks and finds that it was in fact a Labour leaning group that made the presentation, Crosby merely provided research to that group.

The Guardian back tracks and changes its story.

The BBC, having run a story that conveniently attacks and undermines a person that represents a danger to its fellow travellers in the Labour Party, is still running the same story at 18:00.

Suddenly the BBC too changes its reporting…but it doesn’t put up a fresh story it edits the old one…changing it entirely….keeping the same web link and an old time stamp…14:59…therefore preventing anyone from seeing the previous, and very erroneous version….unless you had seen it before and were able to link to it via any other website which had picked up the original version.

Sooooo…the BBC runs a smear story, one that it clearly didn’t factcheck, one that it took complete from the Guardian without asking is this true? The fact that the presentation was in 2010 when Crosby was not working for the Tories should immediately have cast doubt on this story…but the BBC ran it full on all day.

Why did they run it?  Because the story was too good to not be true….building on the narrative that Labour and the BBC have been creating for a week or so now to distract from Miliband’s Unite problems.

When the facts became publicly known, thanks to Guido, the BBC did a stealth edit and covered its tracks making it difficult to locate the original version of the report…even the ‘Way Back When Machine’ and ‘News Sniffer’ cannot link to it.

The BBC did a hatchet job on an important figure in the Tories’ election strategy…..the BBC made a deliberate attempt to undermine and discredit someone who is a key player in the Tories’ political battle against Labour….potentially derailing the Tories’ election plans and possibly even the outcome of the election…they hope.

The BBC has been caught red handed interfering in the political process with a clear attempt to rig the election in Labour’s favour.

Gotta love the BBC for their relentless pursuit of Lynton Crosby. Ed Miliband must so appreciate Beeb attempts to smear and blacken the reputation of this man, who whether one likes it or not, has helped turn around Conservative fortunes in recent times. I don’t expect Crosby is lily white, but I don’t expect any in his position in previous times were any less discoloured – say from 1997 to 2010?