JACQUI SMITH FOR BBC?

Who would have figured?

Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has sparked fury by bidding for a top BBC job less than three months after her political career ended in disgrace. The ex-cabinet minister, who famously charged taxpayers for the cost of watching two pornographic films, is lobbying to become vice-chairman of the BBC Trust. The plum position pays £77,000 a year for a two-and-a-half-day week and also offers generous perks.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

A BBC SUPPORTER WRITES..

Thought I would share this email I received from someone who seems to take issue with us. I leave you with Tony’s elegant words…

Your Email Address*:   Tony
Subject*:   Youroverall opinion of BBC  



“Message*:          Youfolks sound like you’re suffering from penis envy regarding BBC. They arebigger and better than you. BBC provides news that we don’t get here in thestates because of the bias of Associated Press (AP). Then there is the UnitedPress International (UPI)a news agency headquartered in the United States withroots dating back to 1907. UPI was purchased in 2000 by News WorldCommunications which is owned by Sun Moon founder of the Unification Church.Talk and write about bias. You guys need to lighten up a little. In the statesAP is not reporting about the genocide of the sexual minority community inIraq. There have been close to 800 suspected gay innocent men, women, andchildren kidnapped and brutally murdered by Iraqi police and religious fundamentalistsand were not getting that news by mo! st of the news media in the states. WHY?BECAUSE of AP. National Public Radio(NPR)is getting some of that story out.Certainly BBC does a better job than AP. Europe is better informed than thestates. So you folks need to stop the bitching and know that in some places onthis planet people are walking around like a bunch of god damn zombies, notthinking and not knowing what the hell is going on.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

BBC Clinton Worship, Part XXXVIII…..

In a gushing, slobbering, sycophantic piece of Hello style candyfloss on the BBC website Katie Connolly goes all Sylvie Krin over the Clintons and their daughter’s wedding.

Moreover, the Clintons are icons of a different, seemingly more youthful time in America’s history – a pre 9/11 era when the country wasn’t weighed down with wars, bulging deficits and billowing oil leaks.
Chelsea is a reminder of that time, and people feel invested in the life of that young girl who held her parents hands through their darkest personal days

Darkest personal days? Great therapy codespeak for this, methinks….

The Clintons, of course, are part of a select few that belong to the BBC’s Royal Family (Arafat, Castro, Nehru, Tony Benn etc) who are always treated with reverence and their transgressions initially minimised then airbrushed out of the “narrative”.

If it was a Palin or a Bush daughter getting married you can be guaranteed there would be plenty of veiled (and not so veiled) sneers and quotes from vitriolic haters (think Thatcher) so, to redresss the balance, and sustain the BBC’s Royalty image, we need an image that will be helpful to all the peasants crowding around their TVs watching their “betters” act out the higher life in that glittering galaxy reserved solely for the great and the good….

Just so you know,folks,like everyone else in these hard times the Clintons and the Kerrys are keeping things lean and mean….

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

PROPAGANDA TUNES…

Regular readers of Biased BBC may recall that I have previously revealed that BBC environmental ‘journalist’ Peter Thomson is also a political activist in that he is secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ), an organisation which, while masquerading as ‘objective’ on climate change, is actually a world leader in warmist propaganda. American Thinker, the influential US blog that the BBC doesn’t mention because it’s right-wing, has been doing some digging in this area, and it makes fascinating reading. Writer Russell Cook has found that the excuses for not putting on air so-called climate sceptics sound eerily similar among news organisations, and for this, he blames the efforts of the SEJ. The BBC also trots out similar wording when it is challenged on the topic – for example, Today editor Ceri Thomas.

Mr Cook. also notes that of 212 items about climate change/global warming since 1995 on PBS (for which Mr Thomson also partly works, because the relevant BBC US initiaitive is jointly with PBS) only three (yes 3) contained material from sceptics. I haven’t done the precise equivalent sums for the BBC in the UK , but my bet is that on this front too, they are in tune with the SEJ-inpsired PBS agenda.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

PREZZA HORROR…

The vile Prescott’s wife, Lady Prescott, is joining BBC1’s The One Show to front roving reports and as a presenter. The show’s editor, Sandy Smith, says that, “having been in the position she was…makes her a good person for us. We think she is, in a number of ways, typical of our audience”. What more can you say about the BBC’s editorial mindset?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Topical typicality

Douglas Carswell writes of the BBC’s divergent approach in covering public issues such as bullfighting in Catalonia and illegal immigration in Arizona. This is the reason I don’t watch the BBC: you know what the story will be from the barest description of it; I prefer to garner details from sources more varied and less predictable. Douglas attempts neutrality:


I’ve little interest in the politics of either Catalonia or Arizona, and even less in bull fighting. But I do wish our state broadcaster would report objectively, rather than on the basis of whether they happen to approve.

This the BBC cannot and will not do; the partisan interest they have (with its pan-national socialistic imperative) is what drives them to cover these stories and propels them all over the globe. Oh, that and license-payers’ money.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

MEXICAN WAVE – PART 2

I posted a couple of days ago about the ludicrous and slavish BBC reporting of a paper which suggested that the US would be swamped by Mexican immigrants forced out by global warming. The internet has done the job (that the BBC does not do) of providing balance. This article shows that, according to GISS, Mexico is not warming; and second, the statistical basis of the claimed correlation between crop yields and movement of people is utter nonsense. What are BBC journalists being paid for?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

CBBC HORRIBLE BIAS

A B-BBC reader observes..,

“For the mostinsidious kind of BBC brainwashing-stroke-propaganda, you should take a closelook at a few episodes of Horrible Histories on CBBC. This ‘humorous’programme, aimed, naturally, at children, is rife with politically correctreinterpretations of history. 


Two days ago we were treated to a sequence demonstrating medicine in the MiddleAges. The black Arabian doctor invariably dispensed natural, workable herbalremedies, along with profound wisdom, while the white European doctor waspresented as a complete barbarian, hacking off limbs for no apparent reason. Incase we missed the message, we were then literally told, as fact, that Europeanmedicine was backward compared to the enlightened Arabian version.

Earlier today, we had a presentation about the British Empire . Need I even gointo detail? The sequence ended with Queen Victoria singing a song about’British Things’, only to be corrected by a courtier who informed her thateverything she assumed was British – such as tea, and cotton (?), etc – was infact stolen (their word!) from poor downtrodden overseas countries.

This series is shown daily, I believe, and repeated endlessly. The drip, drip,drip of daily, anti-British propaganda is shameful and sickening.” 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

BBC Silent on Wikileaks Fingering of the Coalitions Covert Afghan Helpers

BBC World Service on Wikileaks: “Are you glad this information is public?” (No bets being taken on how the BBC would answer that question – almost all the reporting has been solemn but with that classic BBC edge of implicit approval. The Beeb loves leaks unless, of course, they are about their top level salaries, bonuses and expenses…)

The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel have published more than 92,000 secret military files from the website Wikileaks detailing the war in Afghanistan. The news has got you divided.

mmmm….no need to read the comments, almost all from Dave and Deirdre Spart.

But so far haven’t noticed much about this aspect of the leaks from the lovable Swede, Julian Assange, in the BBC.

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Expect Taliban revenge attacks on many individuals soon. Moreover how many Afghans would now be willing to work covertly with coalition forces now they realise that Mr Assange will always be willing to finger them?

Never mind, although many individuals and their families will die as a result of this (quickly if they are lucky, more slowly if the Taliban stick to their preferred modes) the chattering classes in NW1 who the BBC exists to serve will rest easy. As the Coalition weakens in its resolve (the main aim of the BBC over Iraq and Afghanistan for these last few years) an exodus of pro Coalition Afghans will provide a nice source of cheap labour for the chattering class’s servant pool

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

What We Voted For?

Some say Cameron’s infatuation with Turkey is pure political expediency. Others say ‘I told you so’.
Some say his comment about The Real Islam shows naivety, and others think that these remarks are also part of a convoluted political expediency, some kind of strategical move in a long term end game which is in the national interest. Or in other words, he doesn’t really mean it.
But why did he have to make those remarks about Gaza? They have unleashed yet more virulently antisemitic comments from those who were only waiting for the go-ahead. So the gloves are off.

People who support Israel are horrified.

What is the BBC’s role in this? The BBC news webpage is dumbed down to such a degree that it’s difficult to tell. These days they talk to us as though we are a primary school class. Remedial.

The BBC has played its part through years of selective and biased reporting, and now we’re beginning to reap what they have sewn. Harvest time.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone