Category Archives: bias

PRITI WORDS DON’T MEAN MUCH TO THE BBC…

By | | , ,
64 Comments

I don’t know about you but I’m with Conservative MP Priti Patel who has claimed the BBC is showing bias in favour of hard left activists as concerns the current “Workfare” issue;

She claimed BBC 2 Newsnight had ‘spent all week putting solitary Government Ministers up against panels made up of the hard Left’. Sources say David Cameron is ‘determined’ to rescue the scheme and is ‘livid’ at the BBC’s role. On Tuesday’s Newsnight, Tory MP Harriett Baldwin was put up against three critics who had experience of workfare schemes. Jeremy Paxman asked Baldwin four times: ‘Do you understand why people find the schemes offensive?’ And on Thursday, presenter Kirsty Wark said: ‘It’s just essentially cheap labour.’ On Friday morning’s Today programme, Evan Davis said: ‘The amount you are going to learn stacking shelves is not going to be very great – it’s been over-sold. What do you learn when you go and do work experience in supermarkets?’ 

Throw in some of Stephen Nolan’s comments and you have a full on jihad against Government policy which coincidentally echoes the campaign from the hard Marxist left…

The BBC has willingly taken on this agitprop role and this is but the latest manifestation. I have no sympathy for Cameron, he has consistently failed to confront the monster so he cannot be surprised when it bites.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

CALLING MR OSWALD….

By | | ,
10 Comments

This was sent my way and thought it needed sharing;


“I dont know if anyoneheard this on the Nicky Campbell Show ? The subject was Max Mosley and his privacy caseat the EU court. The program is supposed to be a public phone-in but to myrecollection only 2 members of the public got on air for about 20 seconds only.The rest of the program was taken up by so called “expertcontributors”. Here they are:

Studio: Jo Glanville – Index on Censorship (against Max Mosley)
 Phone Contributors: Mark Stephens (?) – media lawyer (against Max Mosley)
Kelvin MacKenzie – Sun Newspaper (against Max Mosley)
John Hemmings – MP (against Max Mosley)
Some religous nut – (against Max Mosley and society in general)

Obviously no BBC bias there then at all !!”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BRITAIN CAN’T TAKE IT

By | |
34 Comments

This is a guest article by Hippiepooter, make sure you give it a read as it covers quite a few biased bases…
“How much longer can we tolerate the Thought Police tyrannythat is the BBC?  Britain as a nation is on aprecipice and it is BBC bias thathas led it there.
Nothing highlights BBCbias more than thispiece on the TODAY programme last Thursday on the Prime Minister’s immigrationspeech.
The ‘interview’ itself was mainly Justin Webb harrying andhectoring Immigration Minister Damian Green. It was preceded by a couple of clips from UKIP and the BNP (falsely tagged on the link as “a debate”).  Clearly, framing the Damian Green ‘interview’this way was a device to lump the Tories in with the BNP.  If anyone can recall a Labour politicianbeing on to express disquiet about immigration and being trailed by a BNP spokesman sharing his concerns, please let usknow.
Justin Webb had also claimed that besides the commentssolicited from UKIP and the BNPthey had asked the Labour Party to comment but they said they would wait tillafter Mr Cameron had made his speech.  Idon’t buy it.  If we are going to judgethe TODAY programme on past form as an adjunct to the Labour Party, as I thinkwe must,  a far more plausibleexplanation is that Labour colluded with TODAY to set up the Tories for theabove smear.
The Mail Online also reportstoday how another core Labour insider has said that the Labour Governmentlied about immigration.  Groundbreakingstuff.  But not part of the news agendathat the TODAY programme wishes to set.
Sir Andrew Green also has an article in today’s Daily Mail asking‘Whyis the BBC STILL so hideously biased on immigration?’.  He leads with the TODAY piece.  Its well worth a read, and well worth notingthe balance and perspective he draws in contrasting BBC Radio 4 with BBC5Live.  Its essential that we ourselvesdraw this balance if we’re ever going to stand any chance of dealingeffectively with a BBC that overall has been a cancer eating away at our societyfor a good few decades now.
In the last couple of weeks we have seen the BBC celebratethe recreational hooliganism of the Brixtonriots and the copycats that followed as a ‘people’suprising’, the HonLouise Bagshawe MP complaining to the BBCover its callous indifference to the Fogel family murders, MelaniePhillips’ open letter to the Culture Secretary to investigate the BBC’s anti-Israel bias, and pulling out all thestops, as we see above, to rig the immigration issue.
If Britainis to survive in any meaningful form as a democracy, urgent and drastic actionis needed to rid the BBC of itssundry and myriad subversives and restore the impartiality for which it wasonce rightly renowned.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Question Time 5th November

By | | ,
8 Comments

As usual we will be shadowing Question Time with our very own Biased-BBC live-chat session tonight. Christopher Kelly has stirred the MPs expenses pot once more, David Cameron’s “cast iron guarantee” will surely come up, and of course this may be one of the last ever editions of Question Time – McDoom is about half way through his Fifty Days To Save The World.

Tonight’s event will be from Reading and the panel will be the Welsh Secretary Peter Hain MP, the Shadow Environment Secretary Nick Herbert MP, the former Metropolitan Police commissioner “Sir” Ian Blair, the former MEP and perma-tanned Robert Kilroy-Silk. The final “eh? who?” slot is taken up by a Natalie Haynes. Please join us as usual at 10:30pm with David Vance back in the Big Chair here!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Graphic illustration

By | | , ,
53 Comments

of imbalance

Via a number of blogs, including the excellent Augean Stables, from figures discussed here, the casualty “footprints” of two ongoing conflicts. The BBC is obsessed with one of these conflicts. Can you guess which?

As one blogger says:

“My only hope is that, forty years from now, this scandal will be seen as a problem of the past. As a symptom of the problems of a society -our developed one- that, with time, changed for better. I hope to talk about it to my grandsons in the same way afroamerican grandparents talk nowadays about Rosa Parks. Like talking about an evident problem that finally, one day, one person dared to face. And changed for good.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Campaign or Sham Pain

By | | ,
22 Comments

We get plenty of campaigning on the BBC. As opposed to journalism, as Bryan has pointed out. Interviewers on BBC World service sometimes employ questioning techniques that stray far from ‘drawing out’ the interviewee, and seamlessly slide into clumsy hectoring.

On Wednesday’s Outlook, we heard from the notoriousLynndie England of Abu Ghraib fame. The interview was marred by Lucy Ash’s attitude which openly oozed with contempt.

We may have views on the Lynndie England affair, and are capable of listening to her answers for ourselves. We don’t need to hear Lucy Ash’s personal view, or to hear accusations that Lynndie England did not even feel sorry for the prisoners. This crude method of questioning is counterproductive anyway. When Ms. England refused to answer the question, all I thought was ‘Good for you!’ – not quite what Lucy Ash wanted me to think, I imagine.

Another similarly unprofessional display of open hostility was shown by the host of WHYS, Rebecca Kesby whose handling of the hour long phone-in with guest ex terrorist apostate Waleed Shoebat appeared to favour the callers defending Islam. She displayed her obvious disapproval of Mr. Shoebat, who I thought spoke throughout with the voice of reason.

A couple of callers with impenetrable accents phoned in, speaking unintelligibly at length. Far too PC to admit she couldn’t make head or tail of what they were saying, she pretended the line was bad. Funny, though.

Approaching Mark Regev with questions such as “Aren’t you sorry?”…… “ Do you ever stop to think, just for one moment?……” “Are you proud of yourself?” “Don’t you feel sorry?” as both Gavin Esler and Sarah Montague did recently, is unprofessional and a complete departure from good journalism.

(Hope font size is okay)


Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

TRIANGULATION

By | |
359 Comments

The BBC is hyping up it’s refusal to air the ad from the DEC appealing for cash for Hamastan, thus suggesting it is without bias. Mark Thompson was on to say that he believed showing this appeal could be taken as favouring one side over another. Quite right. Sky has also refused to show the DEC sppeal so BBC virtue in this regard is not unique! So what do we make of the BBC approach here? Superficially I welcome it but of course having endured three weeks of pro-Hamas propaganda dressed up as news reporting, I rather worry that what the BBC is actually doing here is a little bit of sophisticated triangulating, giving itself cover so that any future criticism of its coverage of matters in the Middle East is invalidated because of this move. Your view?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

By | |
49 Comments

Did anyone else have the misfortune to tune into the rancid”Today” on BBC Radio 4 Obama this morning? God it was hard to take.

Now that we are all black, the lead item was from race-hustler Trevor Philips suggesting that there is institutional racism throughout the British political system and that Obama could never have gotten himself elected here because of it. It’s my view that the BBC has been a key propagandist for the left wing drivel that every part of the British establishment is “institutionally racist” and so it never misses a chance to further advance this illusion. I guess it also helps keep useless but well paid quangos like the Equality Commission in gainful employment.

Later on Today ran an item on how “citizens of the world” were reacting to the election of The One and, as you might expect, the only reaction broadcast was one of sheer elation, of unrequited adoration. “He’s like the guy you want to watch on Youtube” exclaims one excited German, in an example of the inanity broadcast without any critical counter-comment. Now I would expect little else from the socialist-loving appeasement-minded internationalist class but the BBC has a duty to provide balance and I was wondering if all Israeli citizens are jumping up and down with joy, for instance? They trotted on sir David Manning, former British ambassador to Washington and historian Alastair Horne, who then engaged in a further masturbatory O-Love in. Horne’s voice was hoarse from cheering for Obama, he declared! The item finished with the amazing suggestion by Horne being made that the US needs to be “friendlier to Russia”(Where Putin is wildly popular, Horne adds) and one way to do this would be for the US to unilaterally announce the removal of US Missile defence stations. Hey, we’re going back to the 70’s and The One isn’t even President yet. Is Horne a communist?

Talking of the going back in time, on a superficially innocent sounding item looking back at the 1980’s “Dallas” TV show, the BBC managed to get the dig in that perhaps the success of this show had given Texas Oil-barons a better media image than they deserved and so this might have accidentally ..gasp …helped George Bush. Liberal Larry Hagman was quick to dismiss the very thought of it. WHEN the Biased BBC book does come together, it needs to unite all these threads into a coherent narrative that exposes the dangers that the continued existence of the BBC presents to British democracy. It’s a serious business folks, especially in a country where we have no Fox News and where “fair and balanced” have no meaning any longer. Here endeth the lesson, but good to be back with you all!

This and That

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on This and That

This and that

  • Blognor Regis, writing about the BBC’s “Time Shift 8: How to be a good president”, says he does not go in for hate, but

    …then I take a look at this motley crew, the same old same old rapid response talking head squad, ready to pontificate on anything at anytime, only five minutes from this television studio: Jonathan Freedland is helped by distinguished contributors including James Naughtie, Shirley Williams, Douglas Hurd, Simon Hoggart and Bonnie Greer. Celebrating the diversity of opinion there I don’t think.

 

  • David Friedman wrote about how the BBC reported a story concerning a worldwide improvement in the child mortality statistics:

    …the Lancet reports that, worldwide, the child death rate has fallen by 28% since 1990. Breaking it down by region, “deaths in western and central Africa have fallen by just 18%; in sub-Saharan Africa the figure was 21%, while in eastern and southern Africa it was 26%.”

 

How does BBC headline the story?

Huge split in child death rates

Beneath the headline, in boldface type:

“Progress in cutting the number of deaths among children under five is still ‘grossly insufficient’ in some parts of the world, Unicef has warned.” The picture that accompanies it is of two black children, one crying and one looking grim.

The actual news is that things are getting better. But that is not the impression that the headline, the introduction or the picture is designed to give.

I switched from CNN to BBC as a source of online news in response to CNN’s extraordinarily biased reporting of the FLDS case in Texas. BBC is not as bad—you only have to read to the bottom of the article to get the relevant information.

  • I see that after being cramped for so long by having to pay lip-service that tedious Charter obligation to be impartial, the BBC’s Justin Webb has finally drawn the “Get Out of Impartiality Free” card. Now that he has drawn this card, he, a BBC journalist paid by the BBC to write on the BBC website, can describe one of the American vice-presidential candidates in the terms detailed in David’s earlier post:

    And yet the Palin world-view – essentially ignorant, unable to name a single paper read – is not the view that a nation facing an economic catastrophe, complex and international and baffling to most minds, is likely to choose … to hear Palin screeching on about Reagan must be painful to many Republicans who knew him.

    Or he can described her in the terms detailed in Hugh’s post, namely as:

    the woman rational, educated Americans regard with ever-increasing horror.

    The other name for this card is the “Blog”card.


    Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

POSTSCRIPT.

By | |
66 Comments

Yes, I know I said I was finished with the US election for the week but the BBC were at their work again this morning and I will not let it pass. Just after 7.15am, Ed Stourton and Sarah Montague were doing a quick review of the papers. They mentioned the unfortunate fact (for them) that the Palin bounce had moved McCain equal to the Chosen One in the polls but Ed went on to trail the Independent’s pathetic hatchet-job on Palin today, with Montague sniggering at the suggestion that Palin’s environmental record was “even worse that that of Bush”. Then, to finish the week, Naughtie was wheeled on to share his summary of the events of the past two weeks. This distilled down to the fact in his view the candidates had more in common than you might think (rubbish!) and that on the downside, McCain did have the “age” issue and the reputation of being cranky whereas Obama has the “otherness” of his race. Come on Jim, just have the guts to come out and say that along with the rest of the loathsome BBC, you worship Obama and have been stung at what McCain/Palin have achieved this past week. 60 days to go, 60 more days to indulge in more sly and not so subtle character assassination. I’ll be here to make damn sure it is documented.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.