Fizzing, But Not Popping

I was going to post this morning on the topic D.B. refers to below, the stark contrast between the BBC’s treatment of two stories. Events overtook.
So belatedly here’s another post with the same starting point.(No Pasarani)

The left wing media’s laughably un-self-aware fantasy that violent metaphors are the prerogative of ‘the right’ is looking very ridiculous now. In their determination to blame the Tea Party for the Tucson shooting they ignored the facts and still went on contorting, finding ways to justify themselves rather than offering a simple retraction. It’s contortionism gawn mad.

Then the BBC’s bizarre reporting of religiously-motivated, Islamic-inspired violence in Egypt . As many of you have commented, they somehow manage to report a religiously-motivated Islamic-inspired shooting without blaming religion or Islam. In fact, like something straight out of the Basil Fawlty school of not mentioning the war, they go to the trouble of particularly mentioning that they haven’t allocated blame.

Robin Shepherd has written another superb article on what’s been happening in Egypt. It starts: “I had to rub my eyes a couple of times this morning as I opened the BBC website to find two more stories about the ongoing violence against Christians in Egypt.”
We’ve been rubbing our eyes over the BBC website for quite a while.
The contrast between the BBC’s anomalous positions over these stories clearly spotlights their hypocrisy, and begs the question, why?
What good does it do to suppress discussions about the rise of Islam? Will it make it go away?
The tendency of the left, even the moderate left, to side with Islam because of their hatred of Israel and America, and perhaps Britain, is beginning to look more and more irrational and less and less easy to explain or justify. No matter how many accusations of ‘incitement by gun-totin’ metaphor’ each side fires off against the other, the BBC’s Islamist heroes fire real bullets, and commit real violence. This ought to knock the left off any moral high ground they think they occupy.

Perhaps these verbal contortions are the last vestiges of the BBC’s institutional repression which will one day have to find an outlet. Perhaps all these suppressed inconvenient truths will suddenly burst forth like Jack Straw’s fizzing and popping testosterone, but the longer they put it off, the worse it will be.

LATEST PALIN OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE

She said “blood libel”. BBC hacks begin the pile on:

Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds used the same phrase earlier this week and has explained why to Politico’s Ben Smith. However, I’m not expecting nuance from the BBC on this one.

UPDATE 17.30. BBC Twitter Tutor Sue Llewellyn retweets Guardian.co.uk editor Janine Gibson. There’s a PDS epidemic in the leftie echo chamber.

UPDATE 18.50. The National Review lists previous uses of the term “blood libel” in American political discourse.

OLBERMANN ON THE BBC

This is another post about the Tuscon shootings, but I’m not apologising because the BBC seems to be getting even more partisan about the affair, difficult as that may be to believe. Tuesday’s Up All Night on Radio Five Live gave Keith Olbermann the best part of twenty minutes to slag off the American right while presenter Rhod Sharp tossed up softball questions and agreed with every pompous sanctimonious comment from the MSNBC blowhard. Sharp’s evident political bias was matched only by Olbermann’s stunning self-righteous hypocrisy. Once you’ve listened (if you can bear it, that is) compare the butter-wouldn’t-melt moral posturing from Olbermann with this little collection of anti-Bush rage:

Incidentally, I know many of you have commented on the contrast in the BBC’s coverage of the Tuscon massacre with Jon Leyne’s report about the murder of a Christian man by an off-duty Muslim policeman in Egypt. No Pasaran has a blogpost about that very subject (and it’s attracted the attention of Instapundit).

UPDATE 17.20: More evidence emerges to undermine the BBC/MSNBC narrative:

“He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.”

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Wonder if you caught “Thought for the Day” with Shaikh Abdal Hakim Murad, Muslim Chaplain at the University of Cambridge (Where else?) this morning. I so enjoyed his comments on how the use of martial images in politics has a long history. I guess he could also have pointed out it also has a long history in religion, not least Islam. However his treatise focused on the American “right-wing” (Natch) and “others”. Wonder who the “others” might be? Surely not the likes of THIS guy — a glorious story in left wing hypocrisy entirely ignored by the Palin-loathing BBC.

Question Time LiveBlog 13th January 2011


A reminder, as if we needed one, that the grim horror of Question Time returns tomorrow Thursday the 13th for the first show of 2011. It’s BBC bias in the raw; at its most blatant and visceral.

As usual we’ll be hosting a live chat here starting at 10:30pm and followed by the unspeakably awful yet strangely unmissable This Week with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo. If the wine hasn’t run out and the enthusiasm remains we might stay online for the Oldham by-election result straight afterwards too.

The main event though, is first up and promises to be an unwelcome return to bias-as-usual. Join us here to discuss it, live and uncut, from 10:30pm tomorrow!