OK, what is concerning you about the BBC today? Here is your new weekend proof Open Thread!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- kingkp April 18, 2024 at 6:14 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Are these the same cosmologists who discovered that when they observed galaxies they couldn't account for ninety percent of the...
- Sluff April 18, 2024 at 6:09 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024What a wonderful thing to see the dreadful SNP swallow large amounts of humble pie to scrap their ludicrous virtue-signalling...
- Fedup2 April 18, 2024 at 5:56 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Very impressive speech - and the discipline in the public gallery at the end was impressive. There are similarities between...
- tomo April 18, 2024 at 5:25 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024The public is being denied data.... - OK to give it to pharma companies though.... https://youtu.be/kd99uVOMWEk
- Fedup2 April 18, 2024 at 5:08 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Personal statement 3 - I wish to say that if I ring you up at 3am and ask for £10000...
- Zephir April 18, 2024 at 4:39 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024@Digg Yes those poor innocent palestinian civilians attacking an Isreali civilian hostage in a mob attack The same sub human...
- pugnazious April 18, 2024 at 4:36 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024You can't fix stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE
- pugnazious April 18, 2024 at 4:32 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Contrast the urgent BBC reporting about allegations about Tory MP Mark Menzies with the total lack of interest in Rayner's...
- pugnazious April 18, 2024 at 4:28 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024The BBC is reporting on the SNP's scrapping of climate targets but it is all very anodyne and accepting and...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Fox’s Greg Gutfeld And Bob Beckel Admit To ‘Pulling Punches’ With ‘Co-Worker’ Sarah Palin
During a quick segment on Sarah Palin’s Hannity appearance, The Five’s Greg Gutfeld and Bob Beckel both discussed the difficulty with ever saying anything bad about the former Governor since she is, technically, a “co-worker.” This has always been the criticism of Palin’s appearances on the network but we’ve never heard Fox News employees admit it so bluntly.
Yes, Fox News people admit it, on air, on Fox News. Ever heard the BBC make such a frank admission?
Yeah, that’s the huge difference between the bias of Fox News and the BBC, Fox are honest about their bias, pussbags like Gavin Esler lie through their back teeth about it.
But his stupid tweets let the cat out of the bag.
Right now on the BBC homepage, the perfect summary of their operation:
#whatsoundsgoodontwitter
It’s a tool, guys. Not a a manual for your very existence.
Hey, Sopel: using the scientific name for a zebra mussel isn’t “posh”. Which media outlet is dumbing down and coarsening public discourse again?
The very same one that will ignore this:
http://tinyurl.com/3k466yd
I wonder when the BBC will finally decide that the EU is a busted flush and another left wing failure?
Steph ‘two Ed’s Flanders’ was spouting her usual claptrap on the BBC news.
The EU cannot bail out Italy.
Remember Stephanie Floundering Flanders originally told us that Greece and Ireland would get nowhere near default….
So how she has any credibility when talking about Italy escapes me entirely
It was only in May she told us that the Greek bail out was going well….How is it going now Steph?
You know what…given Italy is nothing more than a collection of disparate city states I reckon they could continue without any problems if the country of Italy actually fell over anyway.
I think there is a slight silver lining though…yes we are getting pinged to the tune of BILLIONS of pounds to bail out all these bankrupt countries BUT it could have been so much worse if we were actually a fully integrated member of the EU. I reckon 🙂
Mailman
Did anyone notice at one point in last Fridays epsiode fo May Family, Janey was reading The Guardian?
Expect Islam Not BBC (INBBC) to buy this up:
“Raymond Ibrahim: New Muslim ‘Reality’ Show Is Anything But “
yep! must be an advert for peace & love in in Dearborn-istan
oops just don t mention the “Arab Festival”
A BBC report on the murder of Nicholas Pearton by a black gang.
In the supposed absence of racial epithets not much reason to raise the issue of a racial motive, but if it had been a black teenager murdered by a white gang in the same circumstances, I very much doubt the BBC would not at the very least be inferring a racist motive. Agenda is everything, truth is nothing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14400876
No reason for doubt.The BBC would have inferred a racial motive.
Whites can never be victims.
Unless they are left-wingers killed by a right-wing extremist.
These vile savages should swing, along with Baby P’s killer who was just released.
This was close to chez LC, as was another white boy “shanked” by a gang of black youths recently.
Its the usual story the media don’t want to touch for fear of being called racist. Male youth mostly of West Indian origin brought up mostly by single mothers on South London’s council estates. The father’s scarper shortly after conception, its cultural, dontcha know.
15 years later gang leaders replace the missing male role model and the gang provides a sense of belonging. The daughters repeat the cycle by getting pregnant as soon as they can, like their friends, and like their mum did. The gangs fight over territory which gives them a sense of purpose.
The fruits of decades of Tory and Labour social policy without a shade of difference or a clue what to do.
Just wondering if the admins of BBBC are thinking of entering an e-petition request regarding privatising the BBC?
Could be fun 😉
Or to enhance the petition by suggesting the break up of the BBC while it’s being privatised in the way the railways were broken up. The petition could also include an assurance that a watchdog with teeth can be set up to monitor BBC output to ensure it fulfills its impartiality obligations.
IF the BBC was ever broken up it would whither and die on the vine without all that lovely free public money.
We can only dream cant we.
Mailman
BBC-NUJ journalist, ROBERT, son of LABOUR LORD PESTON, with, apparently, ‘insider’ knowledge, obtained by hook or by other means, late in the day, has this about Labour-supporting ‘DAILY MIRROR’:
“Detective firm invoiced Mirror 230 times in two years”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14386696
Next question: which independent body will investigate BBC-NUJ and how it gets its information?
What do you mean, Mr Peston with your ‘never mind all that, get Murdoch’?
But it is very unlikely that the Mirror’s readers had any knowledge that Southern was such an important resource for the daily and Sunday tabloids.
It’s also very unlikely that the BBC’s audience had any knowledge that a lot of certain special interest groups were such important resources for the daily and Sunday output of the BBC. Since they kind of don’t tell you certain people’s affiliations.
The BBC admits it has used private investigators follow the link…
The BBC and private investigators
Half the comments have been censored. Maybe this is one for the freedom of information act. How much of TV Licence Fee payers were paid to private detectives, who was paid, and who did these private investigators target?
‘Half the comments have been censored.’
Par for the course.
And FoI doesn’t apply to the BBC, as it is ‘unique’.
Funny free speech systems the UK has, eh?
As BBC-NUJ-Labour concentrates it political propaganda on Murdoch-Cameron, there’s this on Salmond and SNP:
“Leader: Salmond letters open the door to charge of hypocrisy”
http://news.scotsman.com/comment/Leader-Salmond-letters-open-the.6813285.jp
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_private_investigators#incoming-196931
Well done mate, I jumped the gun a bit. But you left out who the BBC targeted. However, wait ten days, and if the BBC do not reply with the correct information, then the press can say that the BBC are covering up their hacking. Just like the BBC have been saying about everyone else.
John Horne Tooke here is a suggestion. Why not give the members of the blog on how to use the freedom of information act. That website is amazing but does it work? Are there results? Does the BBC ignore them?
If they do not, then it is a very powerful weapon.
And any refusal can be viewed as a cover up!
I am no expert on FOI. This will give you an idea of what is and is not deemed to be a suitable FOI to the BBC.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/bbc
BUT surely that would be exempt from FOI as it was collected for news reporting purposes?
ACtually that could be an interesting one…whether FOI can be ignored if the activities used were illegal or maybe even immoral?
Mailman
BBC-NUJ, in its politically Labour-orientated campaign for MASS IMMIGRATION, is totally opposed to British public opinion:
“‘There ARE too many immigrants in the UK’, say seven in 10 Britons”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022432/There-ARE-immigrants-UK-say-seven-10-Britons.html#ixzz1U6ddnDg6
For INBBC:
“Immigrant plot gang ordered to repay £400,000 ”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/immigrant_plot_gang_ordered_to_repay_400_000_1_3653188
Ho Ho.
I see the bBC has got round to reporting how those nasty hooked nosed Jews have attacked poor innocent Gaza for lobbing over a few rockets which caused no damage.
Second night of Israeli strikes on Gaza after rocket fire
Israel has carried out a second night of air strikes against targets in the Gaza Strip. Palestinians say one of the targets was a training facility for the military wing of Hamas, and smuggling tunnels along the Egypt border were hit.Medical sources say five people were injured in the attacks.
Ah and here is how a real Islamic news agency headlines that story:
‘Armed group’ claims Gaza rocket attacks
GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — A claim of responsibility has been issued for an attack Wednesday in which two rockets struck Israeli territory and prompted air raids early the next day. The “Abdulla Azzam Brigades” said it fired Grad rockets toward Asheklon and Kiryat Gat. In a statement, a spokesman explained that the attack was “a normal reaction to the occupation’s crimes. Firing rockets will end when the occupation ends its attacks against the Gaza Strip.”Two air raids targeted military sites including one belonging to Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades, a Ma’an correspondent said. There were no reports of injury or damage following the attacks.
The thing is Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel since Sunday, on Monday a woman was injured and yet the bBC doesn’t report the story until Isreal strikes back.
With so much other dire stuff going on in the world – why does the BBC run this as one of its main radio headlines ?
Obsession ? Bias ?
Perish the thought !
yada yada……..moving on
back to the news of real importance
..”blessed are the peacemakers”….
Three months after the two main Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas signed a unity deal,
business as usual “today R4”
<!– E ILIN –>
Blessed are the cheesemakers???
like it…..like it 🙂
As I pointed out here the BBC reports everything vis a vis Gaza and Israeli operations as Israel attacking, ignoring almost completely Palestinian rockets.
Search newssniffer for anything relating to Gaza ans see what I mean, eg:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/versions?commit=+Search+&page=1&q=fresh+israeli+strikes
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/versions?q=gaza+rockets&commit=+Search+
LIBYA.
Not forgetting the role of the London School of Economics and of INBBC’s chum, S. Chakrabarti:
“Libya: LSE feared ’embarrassing’ Gaddafi’s son over donation”
(March, 2011)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8362602/Libya-LSE-feared-embarrassing-Gaddafis-son-over-donation.html
And now:
Gadhafi Jr.: On second thought, let’s get help from the jihadists — “Libya will look like Saudi Arabia, like Iran. So what?”
http://order-order.com/2011/08/05/david-leigh-the-guardians-hacker-in-chief-lied-to-guido/
Wonder if this will ever find it’s way onto any of BBC news sundry outlets?
Yes, BBC-NUJ’s first instinct will be to censor it.
Supplementary:
“Now Guardian executive faces Met hacking probe”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23975850-paul-mccartney-i-will-be-contacting-the-police-about-hacking.do
It’s quite possible that the BBC has used material handed to them by the Guardian friends which has been gleaned from phone hacking. Unfortunately, since the BBC is ultimately unaccountable, this will instead lead to a lot of moral posturing and disingenuous discussion about how sometimes it’s acceptable. When it’s for a good cause, don’t you know. And it’s always for a good cause when the BBC is involved, right?
INBBC chum, TARIQ RAMADAN, to whom it defers on matters Islamic:
“Tariq Ramadan openly calls for Muslim colonization of the U.S. — Dallas, July 27, 2011”
(censored by INBBC).
ah….”brother tariq”,(now there IS a good read)..
last seen lying through his teeth, on the truly nauseating
El Beebs “life of moh”.
seen here being dispatched roundly from from his
self righteous cloud of bullsh-t by D Murray
http://youtu.be/bMfcL0_njRU
http://youtu.be/tX_DENyRLlI
extremely slimy individual
Christian historical claims against Islamic Turkey.
BBC-NUJ is keen to report and support Kenyan Mau Mau claims against Britain.
Is BBC-NUJ keen to report and support Christian claims against Islamic Turkey?
House Foreign Affairs Committee passes resolution calling on Turkey to return Christian churches confiscated by Ottoman Empire
Boy, I sure hope that polar bear wasn’t reading Mark Steyn or Melanie Phillips recently……
The whore of Babylon, Arming the Libyan rebels and half the story.
Libya’s embattled rebels beg for ammunition
By Orla Guerin
Rebel fighters in western Libya say they are running “dangerously low” of ammunition, and are now using their reserves. A rebel source told the BBC the lack of weapons and ammunition is stalling their efforts against troops loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, and could lead to a stalemate. “We aren’t firing unless we really have to; we are begging for ammunition,” he said. “Nato wants this over as soon as possible,” the rebel source said.”If we are tooled up we can make a push for Tripoli. But the minimum we need is a constant supply of ammunition.”
So the bBC runs a story about how the poor Libyan rebels are demanding that the infidel supply them with arms and ammunition (Whatever happened to that so called Islamic Brotherhood bBC?)
Yet leave out of the story the tiny bit about UN Security Council Resolution 1970. You know that one which forbids any nation from sending arms to Libya.
Oh, goody, the President is making another speech and the BBC News Channel has dropped everything to bring it to you. More platitudes, the only plans offered are things that are actually already happening. But He just gave plenty of fodder to Mardell and the other disciples: the budget deal was “divisive” and “delayed”, and businesses need to “take their cash off the sidelines” and start hiring people.
Good grief, words fail.
Now the newsreader is just repeating highlights from the speech some BBC assistant producer was writing down as He said them. Steve Kingston is back on, telling us what to think. He’s a President who is “running for re-election in a very difficult economy”. No kidding. More Obamessiah support from Kingston now. He’s showing “Reagan-esque optimism”, and everyone thinks that Congress is divided, they’re the problem, not Him.
Is it just me, or is every BBC report about the US now focused exclusively on how it affects the President and little else?
The bBC, and their take on the death of a violent thug.
Tottenham police shooting: Dead man was minicab passenger
A man shot dead by police in north London was a passenger in a minicab stopped during a planned operation, the police watchdog has said.Officers stopped the car in Ferry Lane, Tottenham, on Thursday to carry out an arrest when the 29-year-old man, named locally as Mark Duggan, was shot. Three shots were fired. A bullet was found lodged in a police radio.
So reading the above do you get the impression that Mark Duggan was the victim here. Lets see he was in a taxis , 3 shots fired and somehow one became lodged inside a police radio. The bBC then states:
A police officer was also injured in the incident, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said.
So how was he injured bBC, was he shot by his own side. I don’t know as you don’t say? But you do mention this:
Two shots were fired by an officer and it is believed that one shot was discharged from an illegal firearm inside the car.
So who shot first, the Police or the dead man? According to the bBC the Police did and the man replied. But just to make sure that the reader is left in no doubt about how bad the Police are in London they finish with this:
Appealing for witnesses to the shooting, she added: “I fully recognise how distressing and disturbing this must be for the family and the local community.”David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, said he was “shocked and deeply worried” about the incident.”I think there’s quite a lot of anxiety now in the community, but we should try to stay calm and not rush to judgement,” he said.Local resident Jay Crowned, 39, who said knew Mr Duggan, said: “He’s not a troublemaker but he’s been down since his friend was stabbed in Mile End in around April this year.”His friend was like a brother and he lost him brutally. Since then he’s been really down.“”He’s never had trouble with the police before.“
No jay, he couldn’t have been a trouble maker, I mean owning an illegal gun which he just happened to have on him when the Old bill try to lift him and which he used to shoot the copper who arresting him. Funny how while everybody else is mentioning how the Police radio saved that policeman’s life they simply state a bullet was found lodged inside it.
The word ‘Circumlocution’ must have been created for the new breed of ‘let’s take the facts and turn them into a properly interpreted narrative’ BBC ‘news’ team.
That’s part of the curriculum at the Journalism College.
I like this:
“it is believed that one shot was discharged from an illegal firearm inside the car.”
They could have written that the villain fired at police but it is almost as if the gun fired itself.
Two shots were fired by an officer and it is believed that one shot was discharged from an illegal firearm inside the car.
So it looks as if the police had an illegal firearm inside the car. I see…
Well done, Beeboids.
Yes its funny that. They can say that a policeman fired 2 shots but for some reason they cannot bring themselves to say who fired an illegal firearm inside the vehicle.
You could have argued that the BBC were waiting for all the facts before reporting this (it has been mentioned before by defenders of the BBC news), but if that were the case they should only report that 3 shots were fired and await the full facts.
If the police had informed the BBC that they fired 2 shots, then they would also more than likely tell them who had fired the 3rd.
Whichever way you look at it the BBC are not in possesion of the full facts and therefore should not be speculating on the incident.
The news should be that a “suspected gunman has been shot dead.” anything else is specualtion untill the IPCC has carried out its investigation.
Further to my last the bBC have updated their article in which to ompart a little more information yet still leave the reader feeling that the Polcie are operating a shoot to kill policy. But for some strange reason they leave out this snippet which the Guardian mentions:
The dead man’s girlfriend, Semone Wilson, 29, said she had received a text message from him shortly before the shooting. “At about 6pm he sent out a message on his BlackBerry saying ‘The Feds are following me’, and that’s it. That’s the last time anyone heard from him.”
He was killed 15 minutes later. So if he knew the old bill was following him, why did he try to shoot his way out?
I think you’ve just answered your own question.
Its facinating to compare this report
http://www.iwradio.co.uk/news/national-news/cop-saved-after-gunmans-bullet-hits-radio-16044150/
with the BBC version
This might be a daft idea but since the governments e-petition site is now running I am thinking about puting one in suggesting a change in the way the BBC is funded.
I know it will never be acted on, neither will most of the most popular ones, but I would still like to put one in.
What I would like is suggestions for the wording.
After some alcohol I am think of
‘ Nobody should be obliged to pay for any one TV channel to be allowed to legaly watch any other TV channel.’
Not so much compelling evidence of BBC bias per se (as it seems all major news broadcasters “ignored” it), but how about the curious lack of reporting on the recent murder of four Asian workers by a Kuwaiti police officer. He murdered them, apparently, because they weren’t fasting: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/08/04/Kuwaiti-police-officer-allegedly-kills-four/UPI-18631312467046/
If this had happened in the US, et al, the BBC would no doubt be relishing their usual tirades about “lax” gun control. Those Middle East correspondents are doing their jobs well, it would seem (as always)…
How does a write up in the Radio Times (the only weekly TV listings guide to consistently feature Matt Smith and Karen Gillan’s blank pouting faces on almost every single cover) turn from a chat with Al Gore turn from the 50 greatest documentaries (regarding a programme on his TV channel “Current TV”) to a discussion on Murdoch, Fox News and parent company News International by the second half of the first column?
Invite BBC Former North American Editor and Radio 4’s Today Presenter Justing Webb to write it.
I’ll give a brief description of the article. I won’t dwell too much on anything Al Gore says – it’s largely irrelevant, since he isn’t a BBC employee, except for when it’s a response to Justin Webb’s questions and feeds.
First, an introduction to Al Gore – former Vice President, made “An Inconvenient Truth”, aformentioned film’s legacy in raising green awareness, and then the discussion goes onto “impartiality”.
Al Gore says there maty be a few films in the list that are “fairly described as polemical, but there is a difference between having a point of view and creating a polemic argument.”
Halfway into the first column (of 2 and a half) the focus changes for pretty much the rest of the article.
Justin Webb asks Al Gore whether he accepts the points of view from the other side. “How about Fox News – Rupert Murdoch’s feisty, right-wing cable news channel? Fox cannot stand Gore and the feeling is mutual.“
Al Gore goes on to decry their “largely harmful” role in lowering the quality of public discourse. He gives percentages on how many fox viewers believe the science of global warming (50%) and how many non-viewers (so to speak) believe in the science (85%), and concludes the harm that can come from crossing the line into a political agenda.
Quite.
That brings us to the 2nd paragraph in the 2nd half column, and Justin Webb asks whether he is “…pleased to witness Rupert Murdoch in trouble…“. Gore is not quick to bite (Gore: “Well I don’t want to make any comments about him.”), but Justin follows “But what about the power of his empire, the power of Fox News?” [so different from the enforced subscription, I’m sure you’ll agree], Gore answers in agreement, voicing concern at how editors and reporters at Fox New are instructed by corporate exectutives to ignore certain facts, etc.
“So might the Murdoch difficulties be a turning point?” Gore says any development where people discover they are being lied to would be good for democracy.
As a quick aside, wasn’t this News International scandal about phone hacking? When did Murdoch’s “difficulties” translate as owning a television network with a large right-wing viewer base?
Final column.
Justin Webb finishes off that point by paraphrasing Gore on how he’s hoping Murdoch’s downfall may cause “changes – serious changes…” in America. Gore’s words. No quarrel with that. Justin tops it with “A change of ownership at Fox News would be a revolutionary move in modern US politics, a real game changer.”
On to Al Gore’s Current TV station. The question – “Does Fox News do a different job to Current TV?… [is it] Fair and Balanced?” Justin states the station has enlisted Keith Olbermann (“…one of the leading lights of the American left…“) therefore (in answer to whether Current TV is impartial) “Not really. But Current TV reaches far fewer people than Fox, and Al Gore plainly feels the balance is wrong.” Clearly, both men believe Current TV can be as biased and impartial as it wants, because it has a far lower viewer base than Fox news.
“But there is a wider battle where Mr Gore can expect, with more justification to end up on the winning side.”
It’s the article’s final stretch, summing up Al Gore’s love for documentary making. The final reads “Al Gore is charming and earnest. I imagine his TV station is as well. Will it outlast Fox? [hardly]He is far too polite to suggest it, but the News of the World scandal [which had nothing to do with Rupert’s dominace in the media, remember? Milly? Soldiers, Hugh Grant?]has given the former vice-president a new spring in his step.”
And that ends the article, as found in BBC magazine’s (a subsidary of BBC Worldwide) Radio Times.
Justin Webb wrote an article about Sarah Palin in the Radio times a few months ago (I would have wrote it up, but I was too slow), so he’s a Radio Times favourite. Check out this Radio Times blog entry to get a BBC radio presenter’s view (expressed in a BBC TV & Radio listings magazine) about how uncouth Sarah Palin is, and how nice and wholesome Barack Obama is. I’ve just found it online in writing this post, but I promise you, something similar – if not identical appeared in my copy of the Radio Times a few months back.
Current TV is okay, actually (funny how ol’ Justin feels free to tell you his opinion even though he’s never seen it), but it’s a bit rich for a Beeboid like ol’ Justin to talk about someone else being responsible for lowering the qualit of public discourse, considering what he said over and over again about Sarah Palin while he was still BBC North America editor, never mind the crassness of about half the BBC’s output these days. I’m sure Justin would just roll his eyes if someone asked him if the Trust changing the BBC’s definition of value of public service broadcast from quality to “higher ratings” was also lowering the quality of public discourse.
Webb is just as bad as the rest of them.
Forgot to mention that those two dopey “reporters” who snuck over the border into North Korea and got caught, causing a minor international incident, were from Current TV. The network initially lied and said that North Korean guards crossed over into China to grab them without warrant, but eventually had to admit that the women were really just that stupid.
They felt invincible, like they would get away with it, because they knew that a powerful person was behind the network.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC)’s PAUL ADAMS still propagandising at full blast for Islamic jihadists and their supporters in American jails.
A typically totally biased ‘report’ by INBBC:
“US under fire for running ‘little Gitmos'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14414332
Spot the Missing President’s Name.
Just revisited From Our Own Correspondent – the programme BBC hacks use to prove how ‘in’ they are with the trendy lefty consensus on the way in which we are all meant to think about issues.
FOOC is produced for the World Service by the awful Alan Johnston. They found him this snug little post after he took an extended break, no doubt fully-paid, once freed from captivity in Gaza.
(I recall that the loathsome creature cut short his first interview with the BBC on his release, breathlessly declaring that he had “to go to breakfast with the Prime Minister.” The latter, of course, being chief Hamas terrorist Ismail Haniya.)
Anyway, the latest FOOC had one Yolande Knell demonstrating her biased attitude to the Israeli-Arab conflict in the guise of a report on place names in Jerusalem:
“Where are you going?” asks the friendly but slightly over-familiar Jewish Israeli boy sitting next to me on the flight from London.
She has to emphasise that this guy is Jewish? It’s not self-explanatory from what follows?
“I work in Jerusalem,” I replied.
His smile instantly turned into a scowl. “It’s not Jerusalem,” he said, “it’s Jerushalaim.”
“That’s in Hebrew. But in English we say ‘Jerusalem,'” I protested.
This find is almost too good to be true for a BBC hack. She probably made the story up.
Continued below
But the BBC are always very careful to say Mumbai, Beijing etc.
Continued:
Land may be at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but every day the struggle to control the historical narrative is played out most tangibly in language.
How true. And the BBC struggles heroically to control it on behalf of the Palestinians.
Place names are the most obvious example.
To her, maybe. To me the most obvious example is media propaganda.
If some prominent politicians on the Israeli right have their way, then in future the road signs here will only point to Jerushalaim.
It’s a dumb idea and I can’t see it happening. She can, because she wants to, for anti-Israel ammo.
There’s strong opposition from Arab Israelis and certain experts who argue it will confuse tourists.
One has to be an “expert” to argue that case?
Blimey. Yolande had better not go to Wales, then. All those signs in Welsh are very confusing to the non-Welsh-speaking fraternity. How dare those Welsh people have pride in their language!
Clearly, prominent politicans on the Welsh right have had their way…
They’re allowed, though, because the Welsh were also oppressed and occupied by the nasty English.
Surely Wales cannot possibly be called Wales at the BBC
My goodness it is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/
A bit xenophobic of the BBC that, is it not?
Welsh =
“Middle English Walsche, Welsse, from walisch, welisch, adjective, Welsh, from Old English wælisc, welisc foreign..”
Continued:
But others believe complete Judaisation of the map is long overdue.
There’s that word again – straight from a Palestinian propaganda leaflet – as if the Jewish nature of the ancient capital of the Jews is a foreign concept imposed on the Arabs and the BBC. Isn’t it terrible of the Jews to want the capital of their own country to retain its Jewish character.
Knell goes on to talk about Knesset member Tsipi Hotovely, who is apparently promoting the “Judaisation.” Except she can’t pronounce her name, but calls her “Zippy.” Strange, that. The BBC is usually extremely clued up when it comes to foreign pronunciation. I guess they can’t be bothered when it comes to the Jews.
…while the names of streets around the Prime Minister’s residence read like an A to Z of Zionism, the upscale area itself is still called by its original Arabic name…
I guess she’d prefer them to read like an A to Z of Palestinian terrorists, like the ones honoured by Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s peace partner. This is the old slur about the Zionists dispossessing the local Arabs, dressed up in new language by Knell. She must be so proud of herself.
Knell goes on to talk about opposition to the plan from A well-known, energetic Palestinian activist.
I’m sure he would never scowl when sitting next to her on a plane from London. Or if he did, she wouldn’t dream of reporting it. And I’m sure he would never be over-familiar, not even slightly.
Yet another example of the BBC selectively pronouncing the names of foreign cities. Some deserve their domestic version, yet some don’t. Too bad for the Jews, they don’t deserve the same respect as people from Mumbai, or Chill-lay.
Forgot the link to the FOOC clip:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00j6vft
Alan Johnston sounds as though he’s being held by force under a blanket. He’s struggling to get the message out because he’s being pinned down by the neck.
If that counts as mocking the afflicted, v sorry.
A BBC phenomenon, which I put down to lack of imagination, in which all employees assume that everyone in the universe is just like them, means that when they are sent to places outside their manor, such as Salford or Uzbekistan, they judge events through a parochial prism.
Why the BBC thought fit to send Yolanda Knell to Israel, or Jon Donnison, neither of whom give the impression that they have any personal insight into the human psyche or the basic history of that or any other area, no-one will ever know. But there is one thing in their delivery which somehow gives a clue as to their insularity and inflexibility. It’s their pronunciation of the word “here.”
Both of them, and many of the crop of BBC broadcasters of a similar generation pronounce it: “hee”
I don’t know exactly why, but for me, this is a kind of giveaway.
So Yolanda Knell, Jon Donnison and myriad others stick with what they know, and they seem to know very little, other than what the BBC thinks of Zionism and Jews.
I cannot listen to Johnston. He sounds drugged out of his mind and probably is.
Probably the side-effect of too much après-trauma valium.
So two Ed’s Steph Flanders has some woman called Baroness Vadera on to discuss the world economy. Who the f*** is Vadera? A Government Minister? Nope anothe ex Liebore stooge.
Funny that the BBC never have a problem finding some no mark socialist to tell us what the current Government is doing wrong.
She was part of team Brown for years, bet that wasn’t mentioned at all though…
Message for pink-BBC:
“Are You Ready For Sao Paulo‘s ’Heterosexual Pride Day?’”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/are-you-ready-for-sao-paulos-heterosexual-pride-day/
I like this quote:
“the celebration of heterosexual pride is inappropriate”
Bet Auntie couldn’t agree more…
More BBC-NUJ propaganda for Labour.
Is there any reason for this BBC-NUJ propaganda for Labour MP for Blackpool South, who for all I know spends more time in Brighton than Blackpool?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14141038
By the way, who is the MP for Blackpool North, BBC-NUJ?:
Oh, it’s Paul Maynard of the Conservative Party.
Where is the “news” here? Its a political propaganda piece which has no news worthiness whatsoever.
Whats this “an Saint” – does the BBC not know that ‘an’ is used before a vowel and h, but not s?
Seems to be perfectly straightforward, utterly news-free, and perfectly proportioned piece of propaganda
The World Tonight had a long piece about anti-EU Finland tonight from 21 to 42 mins:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b012x13d
Naturally, this being the Beeboid Corporation, they managed to find a couple of immigrants, one a Somali reading his Koran, one a Kosovan who failed to be elected on an anti-racism platform. As usual, the Beeboids, overdosing on earnest concern, were anxious as to whether the unfortunate Finns, might be suffering from some psychological affliction. As if the Finns haven’t enough to put up with, finding out the hard way about the EU and its financial and social mismanagement, they now have the Beeboid Corporation on their case.
Anyone see Newsnight tonight? Stefanie Flanders said she found it “nauseating” to hear the Chancellor “crowing” about the UK being a safe haven.
Later she pointed to the Times headline “£180bn wiped off UK stocks” and said “not such a safe haven then”.
Osborne was talking about UK Government debt, not the stockmarket (which is blindingly obvious). Since our yields are among the lowest in the world, saying Gilts are a “safe haven” is a pretty fair statement.
Even if it weren’t, is it “impartial” for a BBC presenter to state she finds it “nauseating” that the Chancellor is “crowing” about it?!
While ‘Two Eds’ is slagging off her ex-boyfriends’ nemesis, the US has just been downgraded, and the dollar is going to be crap against sterling on Monday. Yet she’ll be lauded at the BBC.
why the long face Stephanie? 😉
Yes,I saw that too.She will know she shouldn’t have,but she just couldn’t stop herself.
Even after all these years of clocking obvious bias,I still found it astonishing that she would be so blatant.
What does it say about the BBC’s stated commitment to impartiality,that a presenter on their flagship current affairs programme feels she can get away with such a blatantly biased comment?
Her later quote from the Times headline does not suggest that she felt any contrition or need to backtrack,never mind apologise.
In any other organisation with a similar commitment it would be a disciplinary offence.
At the BBC it will probably bring promotion.
Yes, I heard that. I was utterly gobsmacked that she came out with that.
Polar bear in Norway mauls Eton schoolboy (no link to Anders Breivig yet), quick as a flash BBC Nature pops up to tell us, yes, its all down to – Climate Change
:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14422118
“The reason is climate change. As rising temperatures melt the sea ice, the number of polar bears may rapidly dwindle. That could mean that there are far fewer bears surviving for people to come into conflict with.”
Note the “may” and the “could”. So you are not sure eh BBC Nature? Why would that be? Because it’s not true? Because its been discredited? Or because Greenpeace has been using Polar Bear scare stories to dramatise (non-existant) global warming so it must be true?
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/taxonomy/term/1806
I have yet to understand why the “British Schools Exploratory Society” is registered as a charity. It cost £2,900 to send your child on one of these adventure holidays. What is charitable about that? It’s a travel company for kids of well-off folk. Time the Charities Commission quango got a good sorting out.
“No link to Anders Breivig yet” – He was white, he must’ve been a Nazi!
I see the kid that was killed wen to Eton, I’m expecting that leftie dyke from the Guardian to be twittering about how she can’t see sorry for posh kids on gap years again.
I notice that the far-left BBC saw no need to mention the skin colour, eye colour, hair colour or religion of the ‘couple from Oldham’ on the R4 news yesterday.
Brown skinned, brown eyed, dark haired Muslims – Mohammed Sajid Khan, 32, and Shasta Khan, 37 – were charged with terrorism offences.
I wrote earlier on about how the coverage from the bBC about the killing of a man in Tottenham Hale makes the police out to be gun happy murderers who just go around shooting black people for the sake of it. Now they have knocked up a video report and even by its past standards even I have to admit the image they present is very onesided.
London police shooting: Dead man was minicab passenger
Funny while the bbC reports that the police fired their gun for no apparent reason the London Evening Standard reports this:
A gun was found at the scene and a spokesman for the independent police watchdog said it appeared the officer was shot first before police returned fire.
The bBC, the perils of unbridled immigration from the Middle East and guess which country it defends?
The bBC airs a video about how people from one Middle Eastern country are swamping another where they hope to find work and a new life. So want to guess which country the bBC is worried about: UK, Ireland, Cyprus? Nah the UAE.
The bBC, its defence of Somali Islamic terrorists and half the story
Somalia’s al-Shabab rebels leave Mogadishu
Somalia’s al-Shabab Islamist rebels have pulled out of all positions in the Somali capital of Mogadishu, government and rebel spokesmen say.President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed declared the rebels defeated after they left overnight on trucks.
However, al-Shabab described the move as a “change of military tactics”.
African Union peacekeepers and government forces have for months been contained to small areas of the capital. Recently they have been battling the rebels in a bid to secure delivery routes for emergency supplies of food, water and medication. The pull-out followed reports of gun battles in the capital on Friday night.
Oh how the lying bastards at the bBC must be distraught over how their Islamic Heroes have had to leave the Capital of Mogadishu. According to the sycophantic beeb their favourite terrorists have decided to regroup elsewhere. What they don’t tell you is they have been losing ground to the AU for over a year. (You only have to read other sources of news to find that out) Also and a big also the Islamic terrorists have lost the support of the local people. What with banning nearly everything going: Football, TV, Films, Bras, Aid, Single women, Music, Mobile phones, Tampons, Schools, it isn’t hard to see why the bBCs favourite Terrorists (You know those who brought peace to Somalia when they ruled) have been losing the support of the local people. No doubt to the bBC these people must be shown the error of their ways and will field numerous articles about how Somalia will fall to the Terrorists again.
The bBC, the fifth column for Islamic terrorists.
Dan Hannan gets an unexpected email.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100098085/unconscious-bias-and-a-handsome-apology-from-the-bbc/
I heard this live. I too was suprised that Bacon didn’t get unduly contentious (thought Hannan, I feel, is being over-generous to him). I think Finkelstein was on later making a criticism of the BBC, and again Bacon avoided getting contentious, as is his wont.
It came a day or two after Cameron announced Leveson would also be looking into the BBC. I wonder if there was a connection?
On today’s Dateline London, the objectionable Abdel Bari Atwan, fresh from shouting down Michael White of the Guardian for daring to disagree with him about ‘the West’s wars’, later tried to talk down Saul Zadka (former Europe correspondent of Haaretz). The topic was the ‘Arab Spring’.
Gavin Esler began the section by asking Atwan a respectful question. (Esler always treats Atwan with friendly respect). Everyone listened to his answer, but when Saul Zadka’s turn came and he began saying that Hosni Mubarek is being treated in an appalling way, Atwan began interrupting and kept on interrupting until Gavin stopped Dr Zadka and brought Atwan in.
Atwan said he agreed that the Syrian regime is brutal “but don’t forget the Israeli (sic) killed a hundred, a thousand…”. At which point, Saul Zadka understandably tried to interrupt him back. Atwan wagged his finger and (with breathtaking gall) said, “Let me complete. I didn’t interrupt you”, and continued on the “brutality” of Israeli actions in Gaza, saying that the Israelis killed twelve hundred people “most of them children and civilians” (an outright lie). “So Israel is the last one to talk about…” Saul Zadka again tried to interrupt to refute this diatribe, but Gavin Esler again intervened to say “Just let Bari finish.”
Why is Bari Abdel Atwan the most regular guest on Dateline London? Why does Gavin Esler treat him so affectionately? Where is the BBC’s ‘moral compass’?
What is it about the left and their knack of trying to shout down anybody with a different viewpoint from theirs.
A few years ago I was discussing the book i was reading ‘six day war’ when somebody jumped in and started shouting out that the jews were evil and that all they do is cause trouble. Not knowing who this bloke was (turns out he was a lawyer) I made the mistake of trying to quote facts in which to correct him. Oh no he wasn’t having any of that he simply raised his voice and his body stance in which to try and sound me out. I in turn simply said “Do you want to step outside in which to continue the discussion ” (Note I never raised my voice) He went quiet as a mouse , said no and left. Kind of said it all to me.
Here’s an updated list of the journalists from British newspapers invited onto Dateline London over two long periods, showing the dominance of those two left-liberal ‘broadsheets’, the Guardian and the Independent:
20.6.09 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
27.6.09 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
4.7.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
11.7.09 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
18.7.09 Ned Temko, Observer
15.8.09 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
22.8.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
29.8.09 Bruce Anderson, Independent
5.9.09 Ned Temko, Observer
12.9.09 Michael White, Guardian
19.9.09 Michael Gove, Times
26.9.09 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
3.10.09 no one
10.10.09 Johann Hari, Independent
17.10.09 Steve Richards, Independent
24.10.09 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
31.10.09 no one
7.11.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
14.11.09 no one
21.11.09 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
28.11.09 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
5.12.09 no one
12.12.09 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
19.12.09 David Aaronovitch, Times
26.12.09 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
2.1.10 Peter Oborne, Daily Mail
9.1.10 Michael White, Guardian
16.1.10 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
23.1.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
30.1.10 David Aaronovitch, Times
6.2.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
13.2.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
20.2.10 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
27.2.10 Ned Temko, Observer
6.3.10 no one
13.3.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
20.3.10 no one
27.3.10 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
3.4.10 Johann Hari, Independent
10.4.10 Steve Richards, Independent
17.4.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
24.4.10 Michael White, Guardian
1.5.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
8.5.10 no one
15.5.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
22.5.10 Bruce Anderson, Independent
29.5.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
16.10.10 David Aaronovitch, Times
23.10.10 Michael White, Guardian
30.10.10 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
6.11.10 no one
13.11.10 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
20.11.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
27.11.10 Will Hutton, Observer
4.12.10 Simon Jenkins, Guardian
11.12.10 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
18.12.10 Steve Richards, Independent
25.12.10 no one
1.1.11 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
8.1.11 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
15.1.11 no one
22.1.11 Ned Temko, Observer
29.1.11 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
5.2.11 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
12.2.11 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
19.2.11 David Aaronovitch, Times
26.2.11 Isabel Hilton, Guardian
5.3.11 Johann Hari, Independent
12.3.11 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
19.3.11 Ned Temko, Observer
26.3.11 Michael White, Guardian
2.4.11 no one
9.4.11 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph
16.4.11 Simon Jenkins, Guardian
23.4.11 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
30.4.11 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
7.5.11 Ned Temko, Observer
14.5.11 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
21.5.11 Michael White, Guardian
28.5.11 no one
4.6.11 no one
11.6.11 Ann Leslie, Daily Mail
18.6.11 Ned Temko, Observer
25.6.11 Janet Daley, Telegraph
2.7.11 Polly Toynbee, Guardian
9.7.11 Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Independent
16.7.11 Michael White, Guardian
24.7.11 David Aaronovitch, Times
30.7.11 Steve Hewlett, Guardian
6.8.11 Michael White, Guardian
The total appearances for each newspaper now stand as:
Guardian/Observer – 35
Independent – 18
Sunday Telegraph – 11
Daily Mail – 7
Times – 6
Between them the two lowest circulation papers – the Independent and Guardian/Observer – have received 53 invitations to appear on that programme. The others have only 24 between them.
Absolutely indefensible bias, surely?
Take away the estimable Janet Daley and Ann Leslie and the sum total for the Telegraph and Mail combined would be 1:the soft-left Peter Oborne.
Also,not one male journalist from either of the 2 main right-wing papers.
Biased?No not us.
Good work, Craig.
Just out of interest, which of those newspapers supported the Labour Party during the last general election?
But anyway you are making some lazy and rather too convenient assumptions:
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown “Independent” also writes for The London Evening Standard (which isn’t ‘left-wing’ by any stretch of the imagination).
Simon Jenkins “Guardian” also writes for (and used to edit) the Evening Standard.
Ned Temko “Observer” is ex-editor of the Jewish Chronicle.
Bruce Anderson “Independent” is ex-political editor of The Spectator; and yet according to your “analysis” he’s part of a left-liberal BBC bias?
Good to see you again Dez!
Your first point though is a massive red herring. The ‘Guardian’ came out in support of the Liberal Democrats in 2010 mainly because of their support for PR; however, they also urged tactical voting to keep the Tories out. (Be careful what you wish for, Graudianistas!) The ‘Independent’ also came out for the Lib Dems for much the same reasons, saying “There is a strong case for progressively minded voters to lend their support to the Liberal Democrats”. Both did so for solidly left-liberal reasons.
As you would surely be the first to point out, however, which party a newspaper endorses at an election isn’t always a reliable guide to its editorial stance. The ‘Sun’ endorsed Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005, but remained a right-leaning newspaper. Similarly, when the ‘Times’ backed Labour in 2001 and 2005, it still held to a largely centre-right editorial position. The ‘Guardian’ and the ‘Independent’ are left-wing papers, so asking who they supported in 2010 is a side issue, with chips.
The rest of your points could be called ‘quibbles’.
Which newspaper are the journalists mainly associated with? ‘Dateline’ always introduces YAB as being from the ‘Independent’ – and rightly so. She hasn’t written a regular column for the London Evening Standard since April 2009. (Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia, Dez!). She’s a columnist for the ‘Independent’, plain and simple.
You’re on stronger ground with Simon Jenkins as regards the ‘London Evening Standard’, as he contributes as prolifically to that as he does to the ‘Guardian’ , but ‘Dateline’ introduces him as being from the ‘Guardian’, not the ‘London Evening Standard’ – as do other BBC programmes such as ‘Today’.
As for your ex-editors of this and that, what does that matter? Ned Temko is now of the ‘Observer’ and stopped being editor of the ‘Jewish Chronicle’ six years ago. (He also used to write for the ‘Guardian’, if we’re going into newspaper archaeology). Bruce Anderson left the ‘Spectator’ nine years ago and was, when he was making his appearances on ‘Dateline’, “of the ‘Independent'”. My analysis doesn’t call the contributors ‘left-liberal’ (which Bruce Anderson certainly isn’t) only the newspapers they’re representing at the time of their appearance. So, David Aaronovitch – who represents all but one of the contributions from the ‘Times’, is a Labour supporter.
So nothing but red herrings and quibbles Dez? Aren’t you going to do your usual count-up of left-leaning and right-leaning papers this time? (I wonder why not!)
The bias shown by that list is very, very clear and you know it.
‘But anyway you are making some lazy and rather too convenient assumptions’
That… would never do.
Much better to leap in with some truly desperate claims and ridiculous connections that could only convince a BBC editorial pre-pro meeting.
You contributions in this regard are, as always, invaluable.
BBC-NUJ: forever campaigning for MASS IMMIGRATION (in this case Finland):
“Norway attacks fuel Finland immigration debate”
(by Ritula Shah)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14425816
BBC-NUJ also CENSORS Brussels directives for even more mass immigration of unemployed immigrants, to be paid for by British people:
“EU demands that Britain admit immigrants intending to go straight on to benefits”(by Daniel Hannan)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100089292/eu-demands-that-britain-admit-immigrants-intending-to-go-straight-on-to-benefits/
The first item looks like a transcript of The World Tonight report from Finland that I posted above with a link to iPlayer.
goodness…
another El Beeb scoop?, finding that big, burly,bushy bearded, desert dressing,(probably koran carrying) Somalian immigrant, who when he goes for a job, is told “no dice”.
????
‘Greenie’ BBC climbs on the anti-fracking campaign in Blackpool, Lancashire, as undertaken by two concerned ‘local’ people from Surrey and Sussex.
‘Greenie’ BBC unwilling to put the case for developing British gas resources.
“Anti-fracking protesters target Blackpool Tower”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-14431512
The BBC uses the word ‘controversial’ to qualify fracking.
Controversial only if you accept the neo-luddite prejudices of the green left.
The BBC further raises the old discredited nonsense about inflammable taps in Pennsylvania to underpin the ‘controversy’ plus the minor earth tremor misunderstanding.
So fracking is controversial but AGW is settled science.?
There is no hope for the BBC. None at all.
H
“Somalia’s al-Shabab Islamist rebels have pulled out of all positions in the Somali capital of Mogadishu, government and rebel spokesmen say.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14430283
from that online report we get “analysis” by Will Ross East Africa correspondent. He tells us “Very few analysts think peaceful days are ahead in Mogadishu”, whilst the main body of the report says “Some analysts have suggested the Islamist insurgents withdrew because funding from the Arab world had dwindled and they had become militarily weaker.”
Meanwhile a completely different beeboid appears on the News Channel from Mogadishu & tells us the opinions of “many analysts”.
Why don’t the BBC get rid of their expensive field correspondents & just bring us the sound bites published by “analysts”? – Hey they could even give them attribution.
‘Jihadwatch’:
Somali president declares victory as al-Shabaab withdraws from Mogadishu, but…
Sorry if someone has alreayd posted this: David Lieigh, BBC, Guardian, bias etc
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/odd-one-out-the-insipid-biased-bbc/
And in the comments a petiton has been started: “Abolish the TV licence fee by 2013”
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/264
I think it should be abolished at 8 pm never mind 13 minutes past.
There is even more to this here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/06/mcintyre-from-climategate-to-guardiangate/
The David Leigh hacking story is spreading.
The Mail has it: Now Guardian reporter is to be quizzed by police after admitting phone hacking
As does the Sun: Guardian journalist: I hacked a phone
And the FT:Guardian to bare all over hacking claim
And Sky News: The Things They Say….Part 2
And the Washington Post:Guardian reporter admitted to phone hacking
And Forbes:Is There Such a Thing as Benign Phone Hacking?
And Australia’s Herald Sun: Journalist at UK newspaper The Guardian admits phone hacking
Even Newstrack India: British phone hacking scandal deepens with Guardian journalist admitting to crime
As does the Daily Express, Metro, the Gulf Times and the Toronto Star, among others.
Commenters at B-BBC have been reporting it for a couple of days now.
As Autonomous Mind writes, one news organisation (“the world’s largest broadcast news organisation”) still isn’t reporting it – the very news organisation that relentlessly co-led the charge (with the Guardian) against NI:
…the BBC: zzzzzzzzzzzz
They are going to have to report it eventually though, surely.
there’s some bullshit on BBC News right now, ‘Our World: Oldham’
BBC-NUJ reports on Tottenham, London riots tonight.
Its reports appear to rely on immigrant, anti-police comments, as e.g. on Radio 5, Nolan show.
The following words have been avoided by BBC-NUJ:- ‘immigrants’, ‘race’, ‘diversity’.
Radio 5 is, of course, using the word ‘COMMUNITY’ a lot to describe the people of that part of Tottenham, which is BBC-NUJ code for non-white or immigrant.
BBC-NUJ, inc Nolan, has relied a lot on the account of ‘local resident’ Mr Akinsanya, who says he is a friend of a ‘Guardian’ reporter. Akinsanya’s comments feature on BBC news online yesterday, and now.
BBC-NUJ’s anti-police narrative seems apparent.
As I understand it, the demographics of Broadwater Farm, Tottenham, historically is that the area was predominantly white decades ago, then predominantly Caribbean (Jamaican), and more recently West African (Ghanaian), Turkish, Kurds and Somalis.
But this should not be mentioned in any BBC-NUJ ‘report’.
A friend of mine grew up in Tottenham, still has family there. Remnants of the old Jewish neighborhood, not much of it left.
The riots were triggered by the shooting of someone called Mark Duggan. Doesn’t sound Mozzie so much as Chav.
For BBC-NUJ: re- Mark Duggan.
“Pictured: The ‘gangsta’ gunman killed in shoot-out with police as officer is saved from bullet by radio”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022670/Gangster-Mark-Duggan-shot-police-London-cab-shootout.html#ixzz1UKNW61Uf
The bBC how it is jerking off over the deaths of US soldiers and how it subtly rewrites the headlines in which to promote its jerking off.
‘Taliban’ kill elite US forces
Really, because from what I’ve read on the news they shot down a Helo (not confirmed yet) and the occupants died in the resulting crash. So really they didn’t kill them as the bBC promotes. But get this, this transpired in Afghanistan and minutes after the news broke the bBC was pushing the ‘Allah ackba’ line for their Taliban heroes. Yet and a big yet, in Tottenham last night a gang member who shot a policeman and was in turn shot by police and the bBC still (while everybody else has) cannot get round to reporting just who shot who? Really does make you wonder about what agenda the bBC is promoting when it brings you their version of the news.
Exactly my reaction on reading that article yesterday. It’s rubbish. Even if, at the time, they knew the SEAL force were on board (and they didn’t) the headline is just, as you say, “jerking off’.
Seeing as the so called community (gee I wonder what colour they all are?) is up in arms over the shooting dead of a gang leader who shot a policeman and paid the price for doing so in darkest Tottenham . I wonder just how much the biased bBC reporting of the story: Victim,victim,victim.
Has played on the current riots. Gosh you’ve really got to give it to the blacks in London they make up the biggest group when it comes to victims of violent crime yet when the police try to do anything about it, they play the race card in which to defend the very people who are going around killing their own. The thing is the odious bBC is more than happy to promulgate that hatred of authority because in their eyes people in authority can only be racist.
BBC may have lost rights to F1. Never mind, Five Live are very excited about the live coverage they have tonight of another minority sport, one they have been busy nurturing for some months.
Street rioting.
The BBC have put in a lot of ground work here….
They have been consistently denegrating the Met Police.
Romanticising street protests.
Continously insisting how people are ‘angry’.
Putting out slanted anti-Police reports of the shooting of a man carrying an illegal firearm resisting arrest on a London street.
You have to take your hat off to the BBC.
BROADWATER FARM, TOTTENHAM.
From Wikipedia, not from BBC-NUJ:
“There are currently between 3800 and 4000 residents of Broadwater Farm. Following the events of 1985 a number of local residents left and were replaced mainly by recent immigrants, particularly Kurds, Somalis and Congolese. In 2005, approximately 70% of residents were from an ethnic minority background and 39 different languages were spoken on the estate.
Worth a mention, BBC-NUJ?:
“TOTTENHAM MANDEM”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham_Mandem
No BBC are uncomfortable about certain adjectives. Nolan last night on 5Live referred to Operation Trident the Police squad dedicated to gun crime in the {blank} community.
From the linky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham_Mandem
“Tower Gardens Black Bandana Gang (New Youngers Set) ”
Sounds like an obscure 70’s prog-rock group. Hope they don’t have to have the name tattooed on….
“Give me a “T” !” “Give me an “O” !” “Give me a throat lozenge ! “
What’s really said about the BBC’s reporting on the police is that the cops themselves are mostly all die-hard Labour, union members, hate the Mail, hate the Torygraph, hate Cameron, hate the cuts (that aren’t, really), and only a handful vaguely grasp that the squeeze they’re feeling is due to upper management decissions to screw them over while maintaining the gravy train of specialist desk jockeys and advisors and champions. Only vaguely, and they still blame the Tories for it.
Even an occasional reader of Inspector Gadget’s blog will have seen that they were to a man (and woman) in total support of the cause behind the last few rounds of riots against various budget cuts, and only as a testimony to their professionalism did they not join in and start bashing the rich. The vast majority really do want to protect the public, and even Gadget has at last realized that the Guardian ignores tragic stories about how little girls are continuously molested because of soft magistrates and soft laws. And they still hate the Mail, which does cover it. They care about doing their job, but it won’t last forever.
If the BBC continues to degrade them in the public eye, too many of them will one day decide that it’s more than their job’s worth (which is worth less now anyway thanks to management decisions, which they blame on Cameron), and you will have little or no police protection next time something like this happens.