Category Archives: BBC selectivity

TAKE THE WEATHER(MEN) WITH YOU.

By | | , , ,
61 Comments

When considering BBC bias, I am reminded of this old Sherlock Holmes story.

“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention? said Inspector Gregory”To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” said Holmes”The dog did nothing in the night-time.” said Gregory “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Now then, the BBC has been fawning over Barack Hussein Obama as the new messiah, I guess that figures since he is even further to the left than Hillary Clinton. So the question is WHY has the BBC kept mute over the startling revelations that Obama both met with and indeed raised funds at the home of two US terrorists – William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. These two individuals were part of the “Weathermen” – a terrorist group that bombed U.S. government buildings, and whose leader (a declared Obama supporter) went on record saying he wish he’d targeted more! Apparently this is not news in BBC land? How odd!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THE MARR LOVE-IN.

By | | , , ,
35 Comments

Well, I poured myself a hot cup of coffee and settled down to watch the Andrew Marr show on the BBC this morning. These are the sacrifices I am prepared to make for Biased BBC – though I recommend that you should not follow my example!

This was the political Left having a Sunday morning love-in. We had the odious anti-Semite Ken Livingstone, we had the wretched Margaret a Beckett, we had the ubiquitous Shami Bakrabarti, and to provide “balance” we had Carol Thatcher and David Davis. But having watched it, I conclude that Andrew Marr himself demonstrates relentless bias.

For example he listened to Shami Bakrabarti droning on in her ever- so-earnest way without interruption and I suggest the reason for this simpering deference is because the agenda that “Liberty” pursues is one that the BBC shares. When Carol Thatcher made comment on the many serious question surrounding the House of Commons Speak “Mad” Mick Martin, and she repeated a claim in one of today’s Sunday papers that he was “the worst speaker in the history of the House” Marr instantly jumped in to claim he knew of others who were much worse. How did he know this and on what basis does he compare this? Why did he not focus on the issues concerning THIS Speaker?

The Ken Livingstone interview was a sickening experience with the Mayor of London being permitted to make the most outrageous claims without any real comeback from Marr. For instance, Red Ken was able to suggest that Castro had achieved many great things during his years (of tyranny) and Marr decided to let it all pass. Livingstone got to propagandise with only the most gentle prodding coming back at the claims he made. In a way this was a perfect alliance – a grotesque Britain-hater like Livingstone showering praise on a monstrous thug like Castro on a platform generously provided by the BBC.

I then watched David Davis – the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary being interviewed on various points and the way I saw it Marr was essentially trying to get him to agree with the government position on 24 hour drinking. There were frequent challenges and interruptions throughout the interview and Davis struggled to make his point without being cut-off by Marr.
Finally, and with best comedic effect, we came to the Margaret Beckett interview. Unbelievably, Beckett is now the head of the “Intelligence and Security” Committee. Marr’s big interest was to get her to “admit” to the UK allowing the US to land its “special rendition” flights on UK soil. Marr, like the rest of his BBC pals, appears ready to believe the very worst about the USA administration – the Bush derangement syndrome runs deep here.

This was a vile programme, all carried out with a simper and a smile. Isn’t it time the BBC gave Shami Chakrabarti her own programme since it clearly can’t get enough of her whingeing? And shouldn’t the BBC now just drop ANY pretence it is interested in the Republican dimension to the US election – since all it does is drool over Obama and Hillary? Marrs programme is marred by a profound sense of left wing bias and he should take note of this. Come on Andrew, if you or your Beeboid acolytes read this, explain yourself.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BLOWING HOT AND COLD.

By | | , , ,
53 Comments

Proselytising for man-made global warming is a major theme running through many BBC alleged news items. If we get through a day without being asked to worry about the polar bears drowning or some other such invented headline grabbing nonsense, then some little greenie Beeboid has failed in his solemn duty to preach the gospel of the eco-wacko left to us sinners.

Any notion that our preening State broadcaster might approach the important topic of climate change in a serious and balanced manner is just so much, erm, hot air! You see for the Beeb the wisdom of Rev Al Gore prevails, “the debate is over” and now it’s time that we paid for our wicked excesses. (Literally, by accepting nefarious eco-taxation, for example)

I read this latest PR exercise on behalf of the anthropogenic global warming fanatics with some bemusement. The story here is that a study commissioned by the pro-AGW Government has found that AGW could lead to the possibility of the UK experiencing lethal heat waves in the summer but milder winters. Malaria outbreaks remain a possibility, oh and if that doesn’t get you, the floods will! Dog bites man. A real story would be covering one of the many reports which throw cold water on the scalded AGW topic – man bites dog!However even the tenured authors of this report acknowledge that “in conventional thinking” terms predicting these drastic temperature changes is “difficult.” I’ll say – if we can’t predict with any certainty the weather for the next seven days what is the likelihood of getting a four year forecast right? I also love the way this historically unprecedented putative heat wave is instantly linked to 6000 deaths, how scientific is that?

By way of balance, no one who disputes AGW claims gets to comment at all but good luck ensures that a spokesman for the NHS gets to declare that tackling climate change is a key priority for our Health Service. Sorry? An NHS which struggles to deal with lethal bugs in its own filthy wards is now out to tackle dangerous gases in our atmosphere? More taxes to pay for this brave NHS initiative?

It’s interesting to consider how this all works. The State Broadcaster propagates the ideology of its paymasters in Westminster, via a State funded report, and uses the State Health Service to underline just how awful things will be unless we change our lives and accept what the State declares to be best for us. Don’t know about you but Northern Ireland could sure do with some hot summers – I’ll buy air conditioning if necessary!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

RADIO RADIO!

By | | , , ,
191 Comments

Yes, if you want to get a good dose of BBC bias in full-on mode, just tune in to the morning Radio 4 flagship “Today” programme. I have to admit I rarely listen to it these days since it only spoils the start to the day for anyone who is not a foaming at the mouth lefty. But in the interests of this blog, I did bite my tongue and tune in this morning from the “Thought for the Day” section at 7.45am all the way through to main post 8am headlines political interview. My worst expectation were immediately exceeded when I realised that the “Thought for the Day” contribution was a sterling defence of the Imam of Canterbury by a Muslim contributor. Amazingly, he claimed that Rowan Williams had been “misunderstood” and that “most people” were now coming around to sharing this view. This was a pure PR piece engineered to offer support to the not so good Dr William. Following straight on from this was another item on Druid Williams, and the fact that he faces a meeting of the General Synod later this week. Again calls from within the Church for him to resign were downplayed and instead the claim was made by the BBC reporter that Williams was a much loved and respected figure who was holding the Anglican Church together and that it was inconceivable that he would resign. Do you think Lambeth Palace writes the scripts for the BBC?

After the News headlines at 8am, the lead story was “Is Afghanistan a failed State?”, a favoured BBC theme. One might more accurately ask “Is the BBC a failed broadcaster?” We had the usual “It’s a quagmire, get us out of there” defeatist mindset in full flow, with the BBC presenter seemingly oblivious of the fact that Al Qqueda have used Afghanistan as a base from which to bring terror to the West. The hapless David Milliband (Aged 13 and 3/4) tried to explain why we need to defend our interests by staying the course here and fighting and killing the “insurgents” in the southern part of Afghanistan but the BBC interviewer seemed much more sympathetic to the French and German view that whilst armed forces could go to Afghanistan, they mustn’t go to where the danger is! A pacifist army that travels the world is probably the BBC’s fantasy – a crack legion of aromatherapists is something they MIGHT just tolerate! And so it ended, and so did my interest in listening to this drivel. You know it’s when you actually reflect on how interviews are constructed, on how interviewees are chosen and allocated time, and on how running orders are established, that the anti-Britishness of the BBC comes through in all its glory. Do you ever listen to the “Today” programme and if so, can you share how you do this for more than 15 minutes without feeling nausea?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

FROM GALWAY TO GAZA

By | | , , , ,
31 Comments

. Delighted to read that Egypt is not prepared to take any nonsense from an Irishwoman who was found sneaking into Hamas controlled Gaza. Treasa Ni Cheannabhain, her daughter and an Egyptian niece were allowed back into Egypt on Thursday but she was immediately taken in for questioning. On Saturday, she said she was given a choice by the Egyptian authorities – to come before a military court, or to return to Gaza indefinitely. She has chosen to face the court (!) rather than spend more time with her dear Hamas buddies. She crossed over into Gaza illegally from Egypt last Saturday after being refused legal entry by Egyptian authorities. On Sunday, Egyptian forces resealed the Gaza border, nearly two weeks after its Israeli-built barriers had been blown apart by (sic) militants. Egyptian border officials refused them re-entry, even though Ms Ni Cheannabhain is married to an Egyptian citizen. They had been distributing money to Palestinians collected by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Just a few questions. For starters, this story is posted by the BBC in their Northern Ireland news section. Last time I checked MY Atlas, Galway is in the Republic of Ireland. Isn’t this one more instance of the BBC doing its level best to imply that Northern Ireland is somehow not part of the United Kingdom – which would mean it holds the same view as Irish republicans? Next, Hamas openly seek the destruction of Israel and engage in continual acts of terror. Yet the BBC avoids all mention of this merely indicating that Ms Cheannabhain wanted to dispense “charity aid” amongst the terror supporting population of Gaza. I also note that the BBC refers to Hamas “fighters” – cat got their tongue when it comes to saying the T-word?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

A LITTLE BIAS HERE, A LITTLE BIAS THERE.

By | | , ,
84 Comments

The BBC’s showcase political TV programme in Northern Ireland is called “Hearts and Minds” and it is broadcast on a Thursday night. As has been mentioned before here, I am on occasional contributor being the token right-winger and anti peace-processor. Last night it ran an item on the US election and both points of view were represented – Hillary and Obama’s!! Disgracefully, the programme could only find US students living in NI who were democrats, and so the entire discussion was about the Dem fortunes. The presenter, Noel Thompson, also approvingly quoted Dan Rather, in evident admiration. (Given Rather’s ignoble exit from his job, I would have thought it might be better to keep quiet about him) GOP candidate John McCain got one sentence. This is all part of the co-ordinated cheer-leading for the Democrats on behalf of the BBC and it without doubt unfair and unbalanced.

Meanwhile back in National BBC land, did you see the “Shami Chakrabarti show” aka Question Time? What a dismal spectacle this was – with a panel that was yet again loaded! We had the gormless Labour MP and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Andy Burhham. (Left) We had the ubiquitous Shami Chakrabarti (Left), we had Lib-Dem Julia Goldsworthy (Left), we had Glaswegian entrepreneur (Left) and to balance, Chris Grayling, a Conservative MP and former BBC producer. The audience came from Liverpool (hard left). As ever, it was well chaired by Dimbleby – but the left wing view prevails on every issue. This programme is institutionally dysfunctional I’m afraid. The selection of panelists is bias incarnate. Can you imagine a QT programme where four of the five panelists were from a conservative background? Of course not – it would not happen. But having four out of five from a Leftist background seems so very reasonable, right?

Then to finish, Five Live – and the morning programme hosted by Nicky Campbell. I caught it just after 8am and it covered the Sharia Law news story by getting… the view of some Muslims on it. Anyone who tuned in would have heard some classic Islamic dissembling and some very meek and mild questioning from Nicky Campbell who was obviously reluctant to pursue exactly what the Muslim spokemen were claiming. Listening to the gentlemen from Peterborough mosque speak, why one would conclude Sharia law is a wise and kindly form of judgement. And naturally, he added that NO-ONE is suggesting that the criminal aspect of Sharia be implemented in the UK. Heaven forbid.

Just three snap shots of the BBC in 24 hours pumping out unbalanced opinion. And we pay a mandatory tax to facilitate this?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Missing, presumed dead – the line between BBC “reporting” and Labour Party editorial

By | |
23 Comments

I won’t attempt to take issue here with the morality or practicality of Labour AM Christine Chapman’s campaign to abolish prostitution by criminalising the evil customers and ignoring the poor victim-of-society dealers – except to point out a marked contrast with a drugs policy which ignores the poor victim-of-society customers and focuses on the evil dealers. She’s perfectly entitled to her views.

The Guardian’s Nick Davies, a brilliant reporter (although IMHO a lousy analyst of what he reports) has recently published Flat Earth News, in which he suggests that news stories increasingly consist of regurgitated stuff provided by third parties. I think even he’d be gobsmacked by the platform Ms Chapman’s been given – a BBC “news” article which is a straight political piece by the Labour AM.

Only last week a Scottish assembly member, the SNP Justice Minister no less, was given a similar platform to explain how the public would be protected by a tough new policy of not sending criminals to prison. Somehow I missed the “balancing” pieces – which I’m sure the BBC published.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

SAVE A PRAYER

By | | , , ,
32 Comments

Whenever the Church of England gets a favourable headline on the BBC, you can be sure that it will relate to it embracing leftist causes. Global warming hysteria is one of the Left’s favourite causes – in fact I would suggest it has taken on quasi-religious importance to those who worship at the church of the Rev Al Gore. So maybe it’s no big surprise to see the prominence the BBC gives to the story that two senior bishops are urging people to cut back on carbon for Lent instead of the conventional chocolate or alcohol.

The Bishops of London and Liverpool, Dr Richard Chartres and James Jones, are launching the Carbon Fast at Trafalgar Square with aid agency Tearfund. They hope to encourage people to reduce their carbon footprint for 40 days. Bishop Jones, who is vice president of Tearfund, said: “It is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change. To carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.” One Tearfund employee will camp outside the charity’s offices in Teddington for a week in an attempt to reduce his emissions to that of an average Malawian farmer. God preserve us from liberal angst. Dr Chartres called for “individual and collective action”.

OK, so these two Bishops buy into the global warming alarmism so assiduously cultivated by the BBC. But why is that EVERY person who the BBC allows to comment on this story all share the one viewpoint? Whatever happened to plurality of opinion? Is there no-one that the BBC can find to oppose the AGW hysteria? There are MANY in the scientific community who do not buy into the carbon emission obsession, there are many within the religious community who also do not see it the same way as these two Bishops do. But time after time, when it comes to this topic, the BBC ONLY allows one view. That is neither fair nor balanced and it’s high time that the high priests of global warming hysteria in the BBC were held to account. We need less hot air from them.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

A RARE KILLING

By | | , ,
112 Comments

I was struck by this BBC headline “Rare suicide bombing hits Israel” prominently displayed on its Middle-Eastern news page. Consider the details and then ask yourself if “Rare” is the word you would choose to describe what has happened.

“A suicide bomber has killed a woman in the southern Israeli town of Dimona, the first such attack in over a year. Police said a second suicide attacker was shot dead before he was able to detonate his explosives belt. “We heard a large explosion and people started to run. I saw pieces of flesh flying in the air,” a witness told army radio.

Several point here. Despite what the BBC alleges, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terror group is an integral part of the Fatah organisation, led by Mahmoud Abbas. So why does the BBC try to distance it from their favourite “man of peace”, the holocaust denier Abbas, by claiming it is some sort of “violent off-shoot”? Next, this is a SAVAGE terrorist attack. The frequency of it is neither here nor there. By suggesting this is a rare event (which it isn’t since Palestinians have carried out many homicide bomber attacks over the years) it is in danger of being seen to try and somehow ameliorate the barbarism and naked hatred that lay behind this outrage. Finally, I note that both Hamas and Fatah get to comment on this, both of them predictably explaining that the bad Jews brought it upon themselves. Curiously, comment from the Israeli government is missing. Fair and balanced????

p.s I also note that the BBC initial report makes no mention of those other people who were injured and traumatised by this vicious act of terrorism. More amelioration?

Update by Natalie:The word “rare” has now been stealth-edited out.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

What more could they get wrong?

By | | ,
43 Comments


(this post in large part thanks to commenter “cheesed off”)

In a short article about a woman called Zoobia Hussein, the BBC get just about everything wrong that could be got wrong. What were they trying to do with this report?

For a start, Zoobia Hussein is described appearing in court in her niqab (or “full veil” as the BBC report it). In fact she finally submitted to showing her face to the judge she was facing, behind a screen to protect her from the rest of the court. The judge in this case was a woman. Point one of misrepresentation.

Point two, Zoobia Hussein and her five children were not “thrown out” of their accommodation, but subject to eviction according to due process. At least one of the local tabloids managed to represent this clearly, unlike the BBC.

Third, in her latest appearance in court Ms Hussein was found guilty as charged of causing £1,500 worth of criminal damage. The BBC say only that “Ms Hussain denies the charge and her case was adjourned until 24 July.”. In fact she will return to court for sentencing.

Fourth… well, enough- how much more can they get wrong? It’s difficult not to suspect that this misreporting was intended to foment wrong impressions and bias in the minds of readers. The focus of the BBC report is the “aggrieved” woman; the person under scrutiny the man who took charge of her original trial. It is not news but selective interpretative trendsetting.

Update: the BBC have corrected their erroneous report on the point of the conviction. Maybe John Reith alerted them.

Nb- John Reith. I do not accept your argument. The PA is a organisation not without its own bias and political persuasion- see here, for example, an analysis. Its report was rambling and in no way adequate to sustain an effective news update on the Z. Hussein case. The BBC reporter found it quite adequate, however, with its ignorance of the actual case in question and its focus on the man who originally handled the trial where the refusal to show her face became a cause of controversy. Still, the distillation would have taken some time. The BBC’s simplification enhanced rather than decreased the bias in the AP report. The local journalists did far better, and were a couple of clicks away at most- really, probably staring at the operative in question from a newsfeed. I never suggested that the BBC sat in some darkened room shaping a biased article, merely that the misreporting was not without reason. I stand by that.

I would add that I know that BBC journalists are not idiots who go out on a limb to lie to the public. Most of the time, anyway.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.