The fantasy of objectivity that the BBC cherishes is exposed again and again as a farce. The Rottweiler Puppy gives notes and comments on an example of where the BBC reports an issue so obviously part of a liberal agenda that it barely needs saying (about on a par, on the opposite coast so to speak, with the wilder shores of Nick Griffin’s mind), yet gives an illusion of objectivity … Continue reading →

The BBC comes clean: We lied. Okay, it’s only about Dr. Who, but we’ve all got to start somewhere. Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

also provided this post. Pete_London writes: We all know how the BBC likes to highlight those Tory misdemeanours yes? And the BBC is impartial and even handed, yes? “JUDGE UPHOLDS VOTE-RIGGING CLAIMS” (no clue there to the culprits then) It has been a repeated theme of this blog that headlines unfavourable to the political parties, British or foreign, that the BBC dislikes nearly always specify the party whereas headlines unfavourable … Continue reading →

Everyone’s piling in on him. A reader writes: BBC correspondents in America have a huge canvas to draw on. So Justin Webb obviously decided he had found a story that had a moral for British voters when he filed for the Radio 4 6pm News on April 1 that those in Arizona who were worried about a flood of illegal immigration for Mexico – and concerned that the federal government … Continue reading →

Actually I thought that Marc Landers was a little harsh on the BBC’s David Reid in dealing with his treatment of Iranian bloggers. Blogging has improved freedom of speech there, despite the recent appalling state persecution of bloggers. The tone of the BBC article when writing about Chinese and Iranian bloggers was not objectionable to me. However Marc Landers hit the Beeb fair and square when it got to Rather … Continue reading →

It’s been awhile since former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s embarrassing shenanigans splashed across the newscape. He has been given a mercifully light sentence after perjuring himself in a Washington court. For some strange reason the Beeb repeats Berger’s ‘inadvertent’ defense in this story as if it is still Berger’s claim. Did Berger just accidentally walk off with those documents? Here’s how the Beeb puts it. Former national security … Continue reading →

Another reader writes: There was an extraordinary example of presenter bias on WATO yesterday about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s warning on the politics of fear ( i.e. don’t mention right-wing issues!). Nick Clarke: Now, have you seen evidence in the campaign so far of the exploitation of fear? Rowan Williams: Well, of course the campaign hasn’t formally started yet, has it? NC: I accept that – in the pre-campaign then, … Continue reading →

Reader Alex writes in with some observations from March 31 2005 – Whilst Sky News for the most part treated the Prince Charles story as a bit of fun, The BBC took a very serious tone indeed and on News 24 invited the Royal Correspondent of The Mirror to comment, he took an even more serious line (well, he would wouldn’t`t he). Amongst his remarks was “…they cost us a … Continue reading →

– the BBC. Missing headline alert launched by Countercolumn (“All Your Bias are Belong to Us.”) (Via Instapundit.) Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

I just heard a BBC reporter say this, without much qualification, and giving the impression that this was a very credible claim. This claim was apparently based on a report by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment team (who were funded by – who else? the UN), although the BBC simply reported this as “a team of hundreds of scientists”, without even saying who they were (had to go to the BBC … Continue reading →