Biased Editorial Double Standards: US Ideological Violence Edition

Two people from Nevada appeared in court yesterday on charges of plotting to abduct and murder policemen. They are members of the fringe group Sovereign Citizens, a movement of people who have an extreme, quasi-anarchic (in the old school sense), anti-government view. Apparently they were busted after an undercover operation exposed their plans. Nothing new or unusual, really, except that it’s a case of two extremist white people getting arrested for plotting anti-government violence in a week where the public has been overwhelmed with the news of young black men murdering white people (stories which have been used to hype up racial animosity and as a counterweight to the media’s Trayvon Martin Narrative) topped off with two different criminal convictions of military men who espoused political views shared by the Left-wing media. So this minor story must have come as a great relief to the newsroom and editors who are responsible for deciding what gets published every day, a welcome break in what must seem to them as a stream of unfortunate news giving credence to Right-wing views about racial violence, terrorism, and the dangers of the anti-war movement and heroic whistleblowing.

Naturally, the BBC feels it’s worth reporting. It was just a plot thwarted, noting actually happened, nobody even close to being harmed. But it’s newsworthy because of what they represent.

No bias on that score, of course, since the Washington Post, the HuffingtonPost, and CBS all felt it was newsworthy. That’s the lemming-journalism defense we often get: it’s okay for the BBC to report/not report it, because other media outlets are/aren’t. The bias lies in the report itself, as well as the blatant double standard in how they cover incidents of “domestic terrorism”.

First, the quality of reporting. The BBC cites the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority on the Sovereign Citizens movement. They describe the SPLC as “a non-profit civil rights group”, full stop. Many people here will have seen some of us refer to a “Rule #1” being in effect, and this is a classic example.

In this case, Rule #1 isn’t from the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolamaloo (although I think a BBC version could easily be made with one or two substitutions), but concerns how and when the BBC labels vox pops, guests, and think tanks or organizations they use in appeals to authority. The idea is that the BBC so rarely labels Left-wing, on-message groups or guests that, if they don’t label them, or call them “independent”, one knows which side they’re on. In contrast, those with opposing viewpoints are introduced with the health warning that they’re conservative, or take one side of an issue.

This isn’t just a Biased-BBC fever dream, either. The Center for Policy Studies recently published a report proving it, at least where think tanks and policy organizations are concerned. And here again is another example. The SPLC is independent only in that it isn’t officially owned or run by a political party. It’s hardly non-ideological, though, and the BBC’s use of “independent” is dishonestly meant to lead you to that conclusion. In fact, the SPLC has a long history as a Left-wing activist organization. It’s always been a civil rights and human rights advocacy organization (the “Southern Poverty” part should be a tip-off), more recently going on the attack against numerous non-Left organizations. For example, they labeled the Family Research Council a “hate group”, and featured it on a “hate map” (although they’re clever enough not to use Palin-esque crosshairs), which may have inspired an attempted murder. It’s a joke to present the SPLC as anything other than what it is. In other words, Rule #1 is in effect here, as usual. It doesn’t matter if they do the work of angels, or if you or I agree or disagree with their ideology. It’s a highly ideological organization with very clear political views and activities, and it’s simply wrong to hide that and mislead the reader.

In fact, this isn’t even the first time the BBC has used the SPLC as an authority to support an agenda. Jonny Dymond cited them in his dishonest story about how white supremacist groups have been on the rise since we elected a black President. Dymond presented the SPLC as an organization which tracks “hate groups and other groups on the far right”. In other words, not an impartial organization at all, but one dedicated to an agenda of attacking the Right. Much like some BBC journalists.

It would have been easy enough for the BBC to simply refer to the FBI, or even the Department of Homeland Security (surely not too partisan for the BBC), who have the same concerns about the Sovereign Citizens. Although maybe that would be a case of “they would say that, wouldn’t they?” about an anti-government group. Instead, the BBC went for an ideological fellow traveler, presenting it as an impartial judge.

This leads me to the biased double standard. A little over a year ago, the BBC published a news brief about the arrests of five young men in Ohio who were caught plotting to blow up a bridge. They, too, had known ties to a well-known organization, but for some reason, instead of reporting the connection and going into detail about it, the BBC decided to censor that key detail. I suspected at the time that the reason was that the organization in question was the Occupy movement. Laughably, the BBC managed to think of one possible motivation for the crime, which the FBI dismissed out of hand: the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death. The FBI dismissed that as a motivation because they knew what the BBC refused to tell you: they were Occupiers, and their motivation was to engage in some anti-government (or anti-establishment) ultra-violence. I say the BBC refused to tell you this because it’s impossible to claim that the BBC didn’t know, seeing as how the wire services from which the BBC gleaned this in the first place mentioned the Occupy connection. Outrageously, the BBC even quoted the FBI about ideology being motivation:

“The individuals charged in this plot were intent on using violence to express their ideological views,” said Special Agent Stephen Anthony, of the FBI’s Cleveland division, in a statement.

Which ideological views? Occupy views. It was deliberate censorship, because the BBC was (and still would be if it came back) highly and rather openly supportive of the Occupy movement, and was loathe to draw such an unsavory connection. When it’s a Right-wing group like the Sovereign Citizens movement, though, the BBC has no problem mentioning the defendants’ connection to it and citing its ideology as the motivation behind their plot to commit violence.

A clear double standard, and one unquestionably caused by personal, ideological bias. I wonder if either Daniel Nasaw, the man in charge of deciding what stories get published in the US section of the BBC website, or any lurking professional journalists, will be able to give us any other explanation besides, “Please shut up, you don’t know how things work in a newsroom.” (I paraphrase slightly.)

Journalistic Double Standards at the BBC Due to Ideology

As everyone here knows by now – but people who rely on the BBC for their information will not – the US Justice Department has collaborated with the Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan Police to seize computers and a router from UK citizen Roger Tattersall, who runs the truth-seeking blog Tallbloke’s Talkshop, under the moniker, “Tallbloke”. Tattersall is one of a handful of climate truth-seekers* who had a link to the ClimateGate2 emails posted by a third party on their blogs.

The BBC defined the first release of ClimateGate emails in 2009 as “stolen” and “hacked”. Even though they didn’t actually know what happened. As part of the investigation into what the BBC has described as the stolen emails, the UK authorities asked the US Justice Dept. to instruct WordPress, where Climate Audit is hosted, to hand over all blog records during the days leading up to “FOIA” posting a link to the emails. Tallbloke has posted the legal notice on his blog.

So far, there has been utter silence from the BBC. This is not exactly like WikiHacks abetting Pvt. Bradley Manning’s illegal acquisition – honest people would call it theft – of all that Dept. of Defense data, which was subsequently published by St. Julian Assange and his crew.  In Manning’s case, he was arrested for actually stealing the data, and Assange has been indicted for knowingly receiving stolen goods and publishing it. Even today, the BBC defines that data instead as “leaked:”. The double standard is clear. It’s an editorial choice, driven by the biases of the BBC staff involved. Anyone doing a search of “Manning” and “leaked” on the BBC website will see loads of evidence. The opposite is true for ClimateGate.

Tattersall has not stolen anything, has not published anything, and was not responsible for “FOIA” posting a link to it on his blog. All he did was report that it had happened, and report on the emails after he saw them. Just like the BBC did with the documents Manning stole and Assange published. Today, as it happens, St. Julian has gotten a break in his appeal against being extradited to Sweden, and the BBC is all over it, making sure everyone still has hope for this heroic figure. At the same time, Manning is back in the news because his pre-trial hearing is starting.  As I write this, the BBC News Channel just referred to his act as “leaking”. It now seems to be enshrined in the BBC style guide.

Now Mark Mardell is asking if Manning is a hero or a villain.We know that certain Beeboids think Assange is one.

Pte Manning is the intelligence analyst who US authorities suspect of being behind the hugely embarrassing Wikileaks releases. He was arrested in Iraq last May for illegally downloading material from America’s secret internet network.

Mardell admits it was illegal, which is refreshing. Notice, though, the pathetic editorializing of referring to Defense Dept. classified documents as “America’s secret internet”.

To some he is a hero, to others a villain.

Many in America will feel, if he is guilty, it is quite clear that he is a traitor who has broken his vows to his country and deserves harsh punishment. Some have even said what he and Wikileaks have done amounts to terrorism.

The defence may choose to paint a picture of a disturbed young man, sensitive and gay adrift in a macho culture. They are likely to bring up allegations that he has been subjected to deliberately punitive detention in a military brig.

Get out the tiny violins, folks. None of this justifies breaking the law in any situation. It’s especially ridiculous to use “punitive detention” as an excuse for something he’s already done. But never mind that. The fact that Mardell and the BBC are happy to give voice to those who declare Manning – and by extension, Assange – a hero.  Can someone show me a single example of the BBC giving the same time for praise of a single climate truth-seeker or someone who says we have a right to see the UEA and other climate scientists’ data, as well as their work?

No, of course there isn’t any. The BBC Trust even declared that they don’t have to give time to those voices. And they got a Warmist to do a report saying they need to be even more biased. To the BBC, releasing the ClimateGate emails was wrong, and harmful, and we have no right to see any of it.

Again as I write this, the BBC is giving air time to someone declaring Manning as a hero, a champion for justice and the US Constitution. Another Beeboid in the US got the quote, and has made a separate report saying the exact same thing Mardell did.

Here’s Mardell again on Manning:

But it will be interesting if they put the main point of his many supporters – that what Manning did transcends legal rules and national interests, that information wants to be free, and that truth is more important than government’s desire to keep something secret.

Behind this is a specific allegation – that orders to Manning were illegal.

And there you have the BBC’s Narrative as well. Mardell is at the trial today, and has reported from there for the BBC News Channel as it gets underway. He repeated what he said in his blog, that the defense is that no damage was done by publishing the documents. Funny how that’s exactly the line ex-Beeboid and now Democrat strategist, Katie Connolly, tried to push a year ago. Manning wouldn’t have done this without knowing that Assange would publish it. What the BBC never told you is that Assange’s stated goal is to harm US interests. So it doesn’t matter whether or not any harm was done. An attempted crime is still an illegal act. Mardell knows this – he reads the Washington Post – but curiously leaves that out of his anaylsis. Only one side is given: Manning’s.

Manning and Assange are in the news, and the BBC sees no parallel between their cases and what has happened to Tattersall, someone who has neither stolen, nor published, nor abetted anyone doing either, emails which are not classified.

So where is the BBC reporting on the legal action taken against a UK citizen for being tangentially involved in the publishing of emails from the climate scientists? This is the top level of US government helping to seize personal property from a UK citizen for something someone else did, and over which he had no control. Nobody could have prevented “FOIA” from posting a link on their blog. It’s intimidation at best, oppression at worst. Where’s Rory Cellan-Jones on this? He’s all about freedom of publishing whatever one likes when it’s a paedophile handbook. One would have thought that the Beeboids who were so angry about the emails being published would be eager to jump on someone connected to it. Yet they haven’t made a sound.  Don’t want to give any more air time to “opponents of the consensus”, I guess, as reporting on it would open up discussion about what happened, and the fact that there is evidence of fraud contained within.

A clear double-standard of reporting on the publishing of non-public emails. It’s all driven by the personal ideology of BBC employees. They support St. Julian, so sanitize his publication of classified documents. They support Warmism, so demonize the publication of their emails. This latest round of releases sure hasn’t gotten much play by the BBC. They made a big deal about the arrest of Pvt. Manning for actually stealing classified documents, but are completely silent when international authorities collude to seize private property, as well as server records, of someone who did absolutely nothing, and was only a spectator of an act which may not even be illegal. I understand that there’s so much big news to report today that there isn’t time to do a main report on it.  But why isn’t this worth even the tiniest of news briefs on the website?

When will the BBC start honestly reporting about what’s been going on? If anything, Tallbloke and whoever “FOIA” is are the real heroes. They’re seeking the truth, and informing us all about real law breaking, real collusion to produce agenda-driven data with which to influence governments. They’re seeking truth about the data the UN and all of our respective sovereign governments are using to oppress us, to reduce us, and to control our behavior. The BBC abets this, and tries instead to demonize or suppress information to the contrary.  If it ultimately turns out that these truth-seekers are wrong, that still doesn’t make them criminals for seeking the truth. Yet that’s not how they’re treated by the BBC, in stark contrast to how they treat an actual criminal, and a man who has openly stated his desire to harm US interests.

UPDATE: Now I know why the US Government is involved. One key revelation in the ClimageGate2 emails is that the US Dept. of Energy was colluding with Phil Jones to hide data that harmed the cause, and would give fodder to truth-seekers. The same Dept. of Energy which has thrown $4.7 billion down the Green Energy toilet to Obamessiah moneymen was funding some of Jones’ research. It just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?

* I refuse to use the term “climate skeptic”, as once one starts using one’s opponents terms, the argument has already been lost. From now on, I’m going to use the term “climate truth-seeker” or similar.

False dawn

I switch on the radio. “They’re firing from mosques and hospitals” a voice is saying indignantly, “Fighting in a most underhand way. They’re taking off their uniforms and wearing civilian clothing and using women and children as shields”
“At Last!” I’m thinking. “The BBC has finally recognised exactly how Hamas operates, and understands what Israel faces whenever it tries to defend itself. “
But of course I was mistaken. It was not Hamas he was getting so worked up about. It was Gaddafi’s troops in Libya. But you knew that.


Coming up on Monday, the next film to be screened as part of BBC 4’s Storyville documentary slot is “Age of Stupid“, climate catastrophe porn for the green cultists. Even the Observer’s Philip French called the film “a hectoring lecture”, which makes it perfectly in keeping with the rest of the BBC’s Copenhagen-related coverage.

And don’t forget, still to come on Storyville – “By the People”, described by the Washington Post’s Hank Steuver as “a stultifyingly naive, please-drink-a-little-more-Kool-Aid paean to the historical highlights of President Obama’s campaign and election…a very long commercial for Obama.”

Update 3pm. Today’s Afternoon Play on Radio 4 (h/t to John Anderson in the comments):

Getting to Four Degrees
What if we can’t limit global warming to two degrees? What if it reaches four degrees – or more? Three real-life climate change experts spin one average family into the future, to look at life on a warmer planet.
With Professor Kevin Anderson, Mark Lynas and Dr Emma Tompkins.


The BBC Trust’s From See-saw to Wagon Wheel, p 40:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.

Evan Davis on the Today programme this morning: “climate change deniers”

BBC Scotland political editor Brian Taylor on his blog today: “climate change deniers”

BBC presenter Ros Atkins on the World Have Your Say blog: “climate change deniers” (and on more than one occasion during this programme, even after Christopher Booker had pulled him up on it)

The advice of the mysterious “experts” they take. The rest of it, not so much.

(Reminder re. that seminar of scientific experts – there is at least one FoI requestoutstanding.)

Organic Bias

Here’s a publication we don’t hear much from on this blog – Farmers Guardian:

COUNTRYFILE, the BBC’s flagship rural programme, has been accused of a bias towards organic farming…
During the show Mr Craven interviewed a representative of the Organic Trade Board, a spokesman for leading organic brand Duchy Originals and the branding expert Marcel Knobil, who was given the task of coming up with a new marketing campaign to promote organic food scales.
However, the programme did not include any interviews with representatives from the non-organic food industry.

The chief exec of the Crop Protection Association has written to Sir Michael Lyons reminding the BBC “of its obligations to licence payers to remain impartial on all controversial issues.”

Obama Season on BBC 2

Last Sunday I blogged about the BBC’s decision not to show a documentary because it apparently failed to meet the “strict rules on objectivity”.

On Wednesday the BBC issued the following press release:

It’s one year since the inauguration of Barack Obama and BBC Two has the British premiere of a remarkable Storyville film, By The People: The Election of Barack Obama. Filmed by two young filmmakers who were given remarkable access to Obama’s election campaign, it has captured moments of extraordinary candour and intimacy. This film will be complemented by Simon Schama’s two-part film, Obama’s America, which considers the daunting challenges facing the president; and God Don’t Live Here Anymore?, in which theologian and writer Dr Robert Beckford journeys into heartland America to investigate the impact of Obama, both as a politician and a believer.

How objective can we expect that little lot to be?

From Hank Stuever’s review of “By The People” in the Washington Post:

HBO’s uplifting but stultifyingly naive, please-drink-a-little-more-Kool-Aid paean to the historical highlights of President Obama’s campaign and election…

At a recent VIP screening in Washington, the campaign’s advertising director joked that [filmmakers] Rice and Sams wound up in the way of all best shots of America’s Obama moments. The audience — made up mainly of political reporters who lived through the campaign, and some White House staff — laughed at that, mainly because, as almost everyone acknowledged, “By the People” is really just a very long commercial for Obama.

And here’s the Associated Press:

The documentary has a laudatory tone; after following Obama for two years both Rice and Sams said they voted for him. The film could leave Obama fans pining about potential yet unfulfilled and give opponents another example of the media fawning over the president.

On the day after Obama’s victory, the BBC’s Storyville editor Nick Fraser wrote the following on his blog at the Independent:

I have never seen anyone like Obama. Politicians do not have the wisdom or brass to address us in this way. So, in common with the rest of America and indeed the world I watched the events at Grant park, succumbing to the hope.

Little wonder a “stultifyingly naïve, please-drink-a-little-more-Kool-Aid paean to the historical highlights of President Obama’s campaign and election” appealed to him so much.

As for Schama and Beckford – the BBC covered the previous administration by commissioning aggressively anti-Bush films from the likes of Republican-hating activist Greg Palast. For analysis of the current administration it turns to a historian who is one of Obama’s biggest cheerleaders, and a theologian who has a poster of Malcolm X on his office wall at Birmingham University.

Trouble in Arcadia

A documentary maker whose previous work for the BBC has included a film about a radical socialist Scottish republican has had his latest piece rejected by the Corporation because it takes a negative view of wind farms:

A BAFTA-nominated documentary maker has accused the BBC of banning his latest film about life in a remote Highland glen because it shows a lack of impartiality about wind farms.
BBC bosses part-funded the short film Arcadia by controversial Scots film producer David Graham Scott.
But the BBC has refused to broadcast the finished film, warning Scott that the documentary does not meet its strict rules on objectivity…

Scott said: “This was not meant to be a political film. It is more about the impact of modernity on an ancient landscape where people are having to cope with the modern world.
“I don’t have a problem with the BBC’s impartiality guidelines, but I think my film has been misinterpreted. I wouldn’t want to alter the film to get it broadcast as that might ruin it.”…

Protesters fighting the impact of wind farms in Scotland insist the film should be aired to highlight one of the biggest issues in rural Scotland amid the plight of communities where the farms are planned.
Bob Graham, who has fought a long-running campaign against wind farms across Scotland because of their visual impact, said: “The BBC has a duty to show realistic depictions of what wind farms can do to fragile environments and communities. They say the film is biased. I would say the BBC is biased in favour of wind farms, and that is why it will not show this documentary.”

Here’s Scott’s film about an ardent Scottish republican campaigner made as part of a series called The New Ten Commandments which was broadcast last year. This passed the BBC’s impartiality guidelines, but a film highlighting opposition to wind farms did not. Thou shalt not take the name of climate change in vain!

Scott’s wind farm film was “one of seven films shot through the Bridging The Gap programme, which seeks to promote work by young Scots directors.” It will be interesting to see the subject matter and “impartiality” of the films the BBC does broadcast.

(By the by – the Scottish republican seen in the above film has left this comment, among others, at YouTube:

If the Queen or any royalist successor is banned from Scotland’s roads and rivers, and shot on sight for defying a ban then Scotland SHALL be free of monarchy from its veins.

Pleasant chap.)

The Lapel Badges of Phil Jupitus Aged 47 1/4

Following on from BBC darling Jo Brand’s recent declaration that only white people can be racist, here’s another of the BBC’s favourite comedians, Phil Jupitus, expressing his ideological beliefs. This morning the ubiquitous BBC panel show guest shared with his twitter followers a photo of the lapel badges he’s wearing today:

Chairman Mao and a red star. Aww, how sweet.

A BBC regular proudly displaying a Hitler badge and a swastika would soon see the programme invitations dry up, and rightly so. Lefties are held to different standards and are allowed to celebrate their communist mass-murdering heroes by claiming “retro irony” or some similar bullshit.

(The other badge relates to a show by the comedy trio the Penny Dreadfuls)

Update October 22. Jupitus responds. Hello to all you leftie tossers.