Remember back in 2001 when the then Director-General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, described the corporation as being “hideously white”? Well, it still seems to suffer from that characteristic with Radio 4 now seeking to address criticisms that it it “too white”. Evidently the race hustlers get listened to by the BBC – an organisation which already seems massively unrepresentative of the UK population in terms of the ethnicity of presenters and material.
Managers at the station are preparing to introduce a range of measures to address the lack of black and Asian listeners. These include commissioning more material with a distinctly ethnic angle, such as a documentary on patois that will be broadcast next month.
All too believable of the beeb which fails abysmally to represent a huge swathe of the indigenous population. If only I could believe that Cameron’s tories would wind up the bbc I might vote for them. It would be very interesting indeed to see if the beeboids would continue their social engineeering experiments if they had to risk their own money.
It will be curious how they will engineer this. Will they simply declare that 7.9% of the output will be non-white or will they divide it into ethnic groups e.g. 1.8% Indian, 1.0% Black Carribean, 0.4% Chinese etc.? How will Muslim/Hindu/Jain/Jewish/Christian etc. be factored in (religion cuts across ethnic groups)?
The big question has of course not been asked. What will they do if ratings from non-whites don’t increase or increase unevenly?
Has anyone seen any BBC reporting of Stephen Fry being summoned to the Polish Embassy to explain his “Nazi slurs?”
You can bet if a Tory had said something similar and they worked at the BBC their contract would be long cancelled.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/6679007/Stephen-Fry-summoned-to-Polish-embassy-to-explain-his-Nazi-slur.html
Strangely enough, country dwellers find the bbc ‘hideously urban’. viz ‘ I didn’t know anything about the countryside when I started presenting Countryfile’. (You still don’t, you hopeless mong !).
Look forward to a rash of activity from the beeboids to adress this issue, now its been brough to their attention !
My radio is colour bind.
Forgetting the stupidity of this suggestion for a second, how do the BBC know that they will increase ethnic listeners by increasing ethnic content? What is ethnic content anyway? What is white content? Are there concerns that the Asian Network doesn’t have enough white listeners? Asian ethnic minorities haven their own network.
Perhaps ethnic minorities just don’t like listening to the radio?
I don’t like categorising people or programming by race anyway. Obviously it is either relevant and interesting to the audience or not.
This is so ridiculous. Are they going to start categorising content on the basis of race?
This ‘anti-white’ social engineering of the BBC is a manifestation of its belief (along with that of its chums in the Labour government, and at the ‘Guardian’) in anti-white ‘multiculturalism’.
Such social engineering involves:
-mass immigration, especially from Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia:
– the relegation of British nationalism, and the favouring of the EU superstate;
– an explicit favouring of Islam, as illustrated in Labour’s political support for this fraction, and the BBC’s perpetual dhimmitude.
-discrimination against males and whites, as to be legislated by Labour’s Equality Bill.
“Multiculturalism – Merits and debits”
(by Paul Weston)
http://paulweston101.blogspot.com/2007/04/multiculturalism-merits-debits.html
Meanwhile back at the multicultural ranch…
The Swiss have approved a ban on the building of mosque minarets, the real story however is how offended the BBC are at the very idea that people are anything other than happy to see their nation islamised.
The BBC took great pains to assure us that the vote would be very close until the results came in with a landslide 60/40 win for sanity.
The BBC always does this when the BBC has an ideological stake in a poll or election.
The shoked and unhappy BBC reporter asked the rhetorical question “only 15% of muslims attend regular prayers so why would the Swiss approve the ban?” She could have asked why those 15% actually need minarets to pray to their god, why should the vast majority have to look at those monstrous carbunkles?
The people have spoken in a real democracy where the people decide by referenda and the government has to obey the will of the people and the BBC hate the very idea it seems, it seems the BBC hate the idea that people can control their governments effectively.
The Swiss have a great democratic system in place and one that the UK could benefit from greatly, obviously the BBC would be mortified if such true democracy ever reached our shores. Can you imagine the shock’N’outrage if the lowly prole scum electorate had such power in the UK? Come to think of it, the political classes would be just as outraged wouldnt they?
Am I right in thinking that there is only ONE party promising to enact a Swiss style voting system? Hmmmmm I wonder which party that would be?
The BBC is enthusiastic, in the abstract, about the expansion of undemocratic Islam, and its mosques and minarets, and the imposition of Sharia law.
Would non-Muslim BBC staff like to live next to a mosque with its minarets and inevitably its MUEZZIN? Of course not. And they can afford to move away. But poorer non-Muslims in such areas cannot. Islamisation advocated by BBC for non-BBC poor!
“Minarets pave the way for the muezzin!
“A minaret is the platform for the muezzin, for the Muslim calls to prayer. The pretense that the call of a muezzin will never sound from a Swiss minaret, is contradicted by the practice abroad. Wherever a minaret has been built, it was later followed with an application for a license for the call of the muezzin. It is naïve to believe that Muslims are fighting for a minaret as such, without having the intention to use it for this purpose later on.”
-from “Bayonets of Islam”
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/10/bayonets-of-islam.html
A counterview to the Islamic BBC:
“Switzerland, minarets, Islam and human rights”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/switzerland-minarets-islam-and-human.html
A “Have your say” contributor has spotted typical BBC misrepresentatation in its attempt to extend the symbols which might cause offence to the average Muslim
Added: Sunday, 29 November, 2009, 17:53 GMT 17:53 UK
I have just been ‘somewhat surprised’ to hear the BBC’s reporter’s comments about religious symbols that might be acceptable, pointing to the Christmas tree behind her. I beg rather strongly to differ, but the Christmas tree is NOT a ‘religious’ symbol in any way, shape or form; Yes, it has been adopted by western societies to be part of our Christmas tradition, but it is no more religious than the Christmas card, pudding or cracker! So, please, let’s not get minarets and trees in the same boat.
Jerome, Redhill
Radio 4 really does need the kind of diversity Multiculturalists never mention (and the only real kind of diveristy), diversity of opinion.
can’t say I agree with ‘positive’ discrimination – but it’s expected from pretty much every major organisation now – bias? hardly
i love how a hugely diverse group of people is simpy labelled; ‘white’. skin colour isn’t important is it but why so much damn emphasis on it?
then again white people are more politically powerful so it’s impossible to be racist against them. sigh.
There’s a new version of a play out and about that is being promoted as addressing the under-represented needs of a certain racial group. This seems to have been achieved by simply swapping and unifying the race of the actors.
What a very odd message that does send.
Perhaps if there were no so many meddling in making things ‘work’ the way they believe it should, then things might just work out a lot better than if they or, to phrase it better, their jobs ceased to exist.
The ‘ism industries are out of hand and getting us in deeper daily.