New Open Thread as last one has slipped down the order.
Open Thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC April 26, 2024 at 1:56 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Hamas figures are their own ficticious 'total'. They do not differentiate between civilians and terrorists. Which I suppose is because...
- JohnC April 26, 2024 at 1:51 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Their latest 'method' is to ruin people they disagree with. If they can't do it with 'cancel culture', they are...
- JohnC April 26, 2024 at 1:48 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction overturned in New York https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68899382 It was obvious from the sta...
- vlad April 26, 2024 at 12:44 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Love the euphemism: recalibration. Newspeak in all its glory.
- StewGreen April 25, 2024 at 11:58 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024strange that a MSM finally talks about TR, but it 's only on the Radio version not TV or YouTube...
- StewGreen April 25, 2024 at 11:48 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024St Georges Day vid Short video clips are rubbish cos they hide context but the the vid does appear to...
- StewGreen April 25, 2024 at 11:21 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024@Zombie_Zun tweete another view Good job I was in Oldham that day and I have a vid of the MDL,...
- digg April 25, 2024 at 11:20 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Trump, Fox…. Seems like more anti-lefty people are coming under massive court driven ridiculous financial penalties…. This must be a...
- StewGreen April 25, 2024 at 11:15 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024A Labour MP has put up a twisted Facebook post which rants about TR and the non-existent EDL Surprise ..normal...
- StewGreen April 25, 2024 at 11:06 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024MDL = Muslim Defence League "RACIST MDL MEMBERS JAILED FOR AN ATTACK DURING A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN: 25 men have been...
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
Dennis Sewell appears to have identified the correct subjects
There are still certain people and things that the BBC institutionally doesn’t much care for: Lady Thatcher, social conservatives, political Conservatives, people worried about immigration or multiculturalism, businessmen, traditionalist schoolmasters, toffs (particularly fox-hunting toffs), Eurosceptics, evangelical Christians, Catholics, Zionists… and plenty more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9337932/How-the-BBC-is-dragging-its-feet-on-bias.html
A very good article. Worth remembering the BBC does not like climate change sceptics.
Whenever have you heard a BBC interviewer ask a question from a traditional right-wing point of view? For example: ‘Please can you tell us, Mr Miliband, how you would solve Britain’s youth unemployment problem when just about every new job vacancy is taken by an immigrant, a result of your government’s mass immigration policy?’
The article is absolutely correct, of course, but the point needs to be made more firmly.
The Cultural Marxism as described – au fond – is hell-bent in the destruction of everything. That is its purpose. It therefore needs an equal or superior force to defeat it.
I just don’t see how namby-pamby papers and articles will make one jot of difference.
The BBC has done a report on the Palestinian attack on Israeli civilians working on the fence at the border with Egypt without blaming Israel for it. I’m as shocked as anyone that even Wyre Davies isn’t blaming Israel for the killing. I’m kind of surprised they reported it at all, seeing as how they usually wait for Israeli retaliation before covering it so they can whip up the usual outrage at the disproportionate response.
It’s such a rare occurrence that I had to mark it here. A small step forward in BBC reporting on the region. Baby steps!
DP
Perhaps you missed this snippet
“The workman who died was an Arab citizen of Israel, according to Reuters news agency.”
I wonder if Wyre would have been quite as impartial if he’d been a Jew. Nevertheless Wyre went on to write that “in August last year, gunmen crossed the border into Israel and attacked buses near Eilat, killing eight people”.
Gosh – a straight statement of (what I think it’s safe to say is) fact: not even prefaced by “Israel claims . . “.
Is the worm turning? I doubt it, but it’s nice to see that the BBC is able, from time to time, to report news from the Middle East unskewed.
By and large, I’ve found Wyre Davies to be a much fairer reporter than most of the BBC’s Middle East pack, or he certainly was at the beginning of his posting to the region.
As I’ve said before, Paul Wood seems to be the fairest of all.
Will the BBC inform us of this.Islam at its finest: Leading Egypt candidate wants to relocate captial of Egypt to Jerusalem
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=338_1339420403
What???? The BBC have finally admitted that Jews are people? Usually they are just ‘Israelis’, never ‘people’!
Well bugger me sideways and call me ‘Tom Paulin’. Wonders never cease.
Don’t the Comrades at the IBBC know that some of the greatest leftys etc were members of Judism. Also Cultural Marxism was founded by nearly 100% jews.
Baby steps indeed and one I would welcome.
Having said that you only have to go to Israeli media including the left leaning Haaretz to see there appears to have been a bit of a spike in activity with this being one of the incidents and one which is particularly prickly.
The sinai is an increasingly volatile area and is something of a soft underbelly for Israel in that lawlessness is the halmark within it yet Israel is in many respects helpless to act in thanks to the ceasefire agreement with Egypt.
There is also some suggestion that Hamas related operations come out of the south of Gaza and in to the Sinai to take potshots at Israel. Israel is seeing an increase in the number of rockets being fired into Israel (or not if you rely on the BBC for that information) from the sinai, leading to the need to extend the early warning system.
Well, it seems that the MB and most Egyptians between the ages of 15 and 50 are aching for all-out war with the Jews. And I’m sure not a few Beeboids are salivating over the prospect as well, although they have to keep it under wraps for the time being as making too much of it would distract from the Evil Israel Aggressor Narrative.
Wanting a war between the Arabs and the Jews just proves how stupid the IBBC really is. If it happens its armagedeon for all of us.
he Egyptian army is probably more realistic. It would not stand a chance.
I agree, Dave, and suspect that’s why they’ve balked at handing over full power to the MB. As corrupt and manipulative as they are, the generals aren’t stupid and would probably prefer to keep their cushy lifestyles.
Forget a 6 day war this would be 6 minute event.
Completely missing from any BBC analysis is the history of Israel withdrawing from areas on the premise that peace will follow and the profound effect this has on the national psyche. This is fundamental to any understanding of the land issue.
The BBC website is all about the Greek elections but nothing about France’s. Funny that. You’d have thought the Beeb would have been trumpeting the Socialist triumph but it seems that being pro-EU is in this case more important than being left wing?
The Beeb has been pushing for greater power for shareholders of our ‘greedy’ companies, so here’s a great idea; we elect the next Director General of the BBC.
http://tinyurl.com/cryzvsp
The frontrunner [for next DG] is Ed Richards, currently struggling by on four hundred grand a year as chair of Ofcom. I was astonished to learn that he worked for Tony Blair’s policy unit, as well as performing some important duty or other for Gordon Brown – it must just be coincidence that he ended up at Ofcom. His “partner”, incidentally, is a former Labour member of the Welsh assembly: just another socialist family, managing somehow to keep their head above water, by surfing the crest of public sector appointments.
Almost like North Korea, innit?
What do you mean “almost” ?
The author asks: “Why is the national broadcaster immune to this process?’
He might look back to what he has written earlier:
‘Every other club I elect to join’.
Like the rest of us, with the BBC he has no choice.
It will all be sorted out by the next DG
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100166021/we-should-vote-for-the-director-general-of-the-bbc/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
….or perhaps not
Just think if the associations he has with Labour and business were reversed for a more right wing candidate
Michael Gove for PM !!!!
The BBC were not keen to show the performance of Michael Gove at Leveson – Brilliant !! He answered clearly and authoritatively in the way I would have hoped David Cameron would have…but alas..
Leveson was clearly disturbed and intimidated facing an intellect superior to himself. Gove answered all questions immediately without referring to notes and without “umm..ing and aahh..ing.”
To counter,Leveson tried to show his intellect and came up really short. With a great deal of pausing and staring down deep in thought, he tried to make a pathetic analogy of the law to deal with a speeding driver and the driver’s defence, with that to regulate the Press. It was pathetically wide of the mark in its relevance and I am sure Michael Gove was itching to say so. He of course refrained and politely set it aside.
At one point Leveson churlishly told Gove he did not need to be reminded about the need to maintain freedom of speech.
I do NOT agree, I think this farcical and highly expensive process, both in monetary value and politician’s time, has degenerated into a gag Murdoc and vilify the Tories witch hunt.
After dismissing Michael Gove, the suddenly deflated Leveson, no doubt feeling inadequate and not so superior, rushed off to telephone the head of the Civil Service ; ” Please Sir that nasty Mr Gove kept answering me back”
Caught the end of ‘Broadcasting House’ yesterday as I was tuning in the car radio for the missus to listen to The Archers. A thinly-disguised, chortling hatchet job on Gove’s performance designed to show ‘what an arrogant, toffee-nosed bastard he really is (how dare he stand up to our hero Leveson)’.
If the story of Leveson complaining about Gove is true then he has truly devalued himself.
And proved Gove right, into the bargain! Delicious…
Seems I was wrong, it was the Cabinet Secretary to whom Leveson was whining.
The reviewer in the BBC’s Radio Times takes exception to a wartime narrator finding the nightly bombing of his city a bit tiresome
Although there is also the more questionable commentary of wartime ruin, which notes that “indiscriminate bombing is the hallmark of the Hun”
http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/q46k2/london-on-film-the-west-end
Ha, you’ve got to laugh.
Just as the BBC did all they could to divert attention away from the actual perpetrators of the child grooming scandal in Rochdale, so the modern BBC applies its “guidelines on diversity and multiculturalism” retrospectively to the Blitz;
Paraphrasing the leader of Rochdale Council as reported enthusiastically here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18410862
“it would be wrong to point the finger at the Germans, there are issues in all communities, it is important to focus on the crime and not the identity of the perpetrator. It is only a small proportion of Germans who are dropping bombs on our heads.
May I draw your attention to a new book called “Leak – How Mark Felt Became Deep Throat”. I’ve linked to a YouTube clip in which the author Max Holland speaks for himself.
What I think is relevant to this blog is the implication that “Deep Throat”. the Watergate whistle-blower, shared his secrets not for the noble reasons to “protect the office” of the presidency or “effect a change in its conduct before all was lost.” Holland recasts Deep Throat as an avenger and not a patriot, claiming his motive was self interest. Felt, the third most important FBI official wanted to replace the late J Edgar Hoover as Director, Holland writes, and leaked to the press to undermine Nixon’s nominee, a guy named Pat Gray. Furthermore, he says that Felt used Woodward and Bernstein to further his aims, which did not include bringing Nixon down. So, Holland says, rather than prizing information from “Deep Throat” it was Mark Felt who manipulated the heroic reporters.
A generation of young journalists have pursued their ambition to become Woodward and Bernstein – inspired by the movie “All the President’s Men”. Wouldn’t you like to be played by hot stars like Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman? For years “investigative reporters” have been the new media heroes.
Now, there’s a hint that maybe – just maybe – like the moody gumshoe of literature, the “investigative reporter” is just such a myth. Maybe all leaks are the result of disappointed men and women passed over for jobs, people who need revenge, people dumping on their ex-colleagues.
I’ve always questioned the motives of “sources”. Perhaps the time has to come to reassess the reason why a story hits the headlines – a why some are buried.
‘I’ve always questioned the motives of “sources”. Perhaps the time has to come to reassess the reason why a story hits the headlines – a why some are buried.
Indeed. Nick Robinson’s use of ‘sources who say’ makes his ‘reporting’ basically no more than his personal political pulpit or, via him, those who feed his broadcast content. As to what gets buried, or why, not impossible to track, but hard.
My point exactly, “Guest Who”. That is why I use my real name in these discussions. I want to be held accountable for what I post. Sources throwing stones at glass houses should be brave enough to be named.
I use the name I inherited as a consequence of a system change years ago, which changed me to ‘Guest’. Some master debater who had an actual forename and surname decided that meant that whatever tripe they wrote was more valuable in opinion because they had a name shared by millions. So I changed it a bit to ‘Guest Who’.
Doesn’t stop the kind of genius that tries to make such silly points when they lose the plot (along with the last vestiges of the argument). And in comparison, I am much easier to locate and hold to account than most of these brave Online Tigers.
For continuity I keep it and now see no reason to change.
Opinion is opinion and mostly as valuable as how well it is argued.
I see no problem with pseudonyms online, especially blogs, embraced for whatever reason, so long as consistent. We recently had one (or two..or..) schizophrenic who seemed to feel being different folk in the course of the day was in no way an odd way to conduct him/herself. Not so sure he/she/they are not making an unwelcome return now too.
However, when it comes to paid and/or professional news, as far as I am concerned a source is worth zippy with attribution and confirmation; a capability few BBC ‘reporters’ now seem capable of, much less attempt to even practice.
I wasn’t making a personal point. Just warning us about people like “Dez” who I think pops up under different names just to put us off the topic. Also BBC managers monitor us and respond using odd names.
I would lose names like “John the Fish”, “Pah” and “Dysgwr_Cymraeg” for anything.
For me, using my real names keeps me from sounding off mindlessly.
That should read “I would NOT lose…” Sorry guys.
‘I wasn’t making a personal point.’
None taken. There has been a less than subtle attempt to do so elsewhere, but so ineptly hypocritical it served only to further make the author look a fool.
If I made it sound I was reacting poorly to you I apologise. That you are ‘you’ is great, and your body of work here has a value accordingly, so long as it’s the same person. Honestly not fussed on the actual name as it is just that. Not like we’re going to pop in for a bowl of sugar or anything. With public figures or media it is different, as context, agendas and back stories so have a bearing on how what they claim gets assessed, especially on a words vs. deeds basis.
I must confess, of late, there have been a few left-field comments from some usual stalwarts that have caught me by surprise. Passion can lead to robust language I guess.
Which is why I often end up weighing in on any lazy ‘you lot’ attempt, especially from a nom du jour trying a conflation swoop.
Just as the forum is made up of individuals, so individuals can write something to be agreed with, disagreed with or, as an option only the brain dead can try and make an issue of… best ignored.
Real name available if you want it. Not so rememberable as dysgwr_cymraeg tho’.
I use it on twitter:
Graham Evans
I think this site is self-policing – if anyone steps out of line they get pulled up by others. You get a feel for the people who post on here after you’ve been reading their stuff for a while, so it’s not difficult to spot the mischief-makers who don’t really want a proper debate. However, when they use multiple monickers (as we suspect they sometimes do) it is irritating. Nothing to stop them using multiple ‘real’ names either, so your suggestion doesn’t really hold water.
How the bBC milks its anti-tory agenda.
bBC version
Cost-cutting plans for free milk
The government says it remains committed to providing free nursery milk despite launching a review into the rising cost of the scheme. The Department of Health says the cost has doubled in four years to £53m – with some childcare providers claiming back 92p per pint provided.A third of a pint of free milk is provided for all under-fives having at least two hours of childcare.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18483742
Daily Mail version
The new milk snatchers: Probe launched after taxpayers are cheated out of £10 million a year earmarked for nursery school drinks
A probe has been launched into the free nursery school milk scheme after taxpayers were cheated out of £10million a year. Middlemen are being paid almost £1 a pint for milk – while most consumers can buy a pint for 45p. A loophole means the Government are forced to pick up the bill, regardless of costs, submitted by firms acting on behalf of schools.’In four years, costs have jumped from £27 million in 2007 to a staggering £53 million in 2011. Estimates show that modernising how the scheme operates could save as much as £20 million each year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160176/The-new-milk-snatchers-taxpayers-scammed-10-million-earmarked-nursery-school-drinks.html
Love the quote from the School and Nursery Milk Alliance about how milk is really, really important and the Government should be more concerned about children’s health than “the bottom line”. Does everyone already know that they’re the very middle-men ripping off the taxpayer so the BBC doesn’t need to point it out?
‘Does everyone already know that they’re the very middle-men ripping off the taxpayer so the BBC doesn’t need to point it out?’
Funny as I work through posts this morning is just how often the BBC seems to neglect the full story, which makes what they do produce, to all intents and purposes, fiction.
Worse, a fiction designed to mislead and skew.
Why… are we required by law to fund this misinformation?
Well said. The Labour government had no concept of the value of money or the fact that it was taxes from hard-earned wages (plus zillions on the nation’s credit cards) they were squandering. Not surprising really when there was not a man jack of their cabinet who had ever been exposed to the rigours of private sector efficiency drives or tight budget management.
So no surprise to read in this morning’s paper that they have jumped fearlessly aboard this particular bandwagon (Diane Abbott – who else?) calling the government’s action ‘window dressing for cruel cuts’, even though milk will continue to be provided and £10 million worth of taxpayer’s money saved. (£10m = annual tax paid by approx 3500 on the average wage.)
It is an on-going mystery to me why the electorate of this country are prepared to vote Labour back in (if opinion polls are to be believed) after their collossal spending binge which treated taxpayer’s money with absolute disdain and left the economy in ruins. Is it stupidity or are they just sticking their heads in the sand hoping we can all return to the safe haven of ‘no more boom and bust’?
The Labour brand is the most enduring and robust of any in world history. Every Labour govt has left the country in a worse state than it found it, only to be re-elected soon after.
But, as George Bernard Shaw said, ‘any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul’.
“But, as George Bernard Shaw said, ‘any government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul’. ”
Yes and that is the whole point: people are voting for a government that will pay them money that’s taken from someone else. It’s a no-brainer really for those voters. it may well be an extremely short term view but it’s hard to counter. And of course if you can flood the country with millions upon millions more of that class of person, well, the advantage is obvious isn’t it?
Not to mention hard core benefit claimants and a bloated public sector.
Gordon’s ‘client state’, in fact.
Funny how defenders of the indefensible are leaving this one alone. Fruit not hanging low enough, I guess.
Very noticeable by their absence. Not esoteric enough for them, I’d guess – too many hard facts to deal with.
Yes and Labour is still associated with a time of seeming plenty (the “good” times, hah!) while the Conservatives are associated with bad times (austerity, “cuts” etc). Of course we know who keeps banging on about the uncut “cuts” and why that association with the present government would be fixed in the public mind by now, while allowing the veil of amnesia to be drawn over Labour recklessness and excess and the resulting damage to the economy and the country.
The Labour Party stilllives off the myth that THEY created the sacred cows of the Welfare State, the N.H.S., etc.
In fact they just happened to be the party in power when the Beveridge recommendations were implemented. ALL the main political parties signed up to implement the Beveridge proposals in one way or another.
Labour like to give the impression which, unfortunately, has gained traction with a majority of the public, that they actually came up with the idea and creation of the said Welfare State.
The only thing Labour has done is to pervert the concept of a Welfare State in order to create benefit dependant client voters.
Interesting one this because providing children with milk after weaning is medically very controversial.
Many years ago whilst at Uni doing my degree they did a study looking and French and Brit kids. The French apparently don’t give their kids milk and drink very little themselves and the study was trying to establish trends in heart disease. The French have a lower incidence than the British.
The results were indeed interesting in that milk is not good for children and increases the risk of coronary heart disease. However an interesting twist in the study was that they also found that certain enzymes in wine reduce the incidence of heart disease which was confirmed in studies on Italians. Both countries introduce children to wine at young ages.
So in essence there are better ways of providing calcium (loads in the form of lime in our water) and Vitamin D (produced through exposure to sunlight).
So if the Govt’s health advisers were a bit more switched on and the Beeb’s health correspondents were a bit more investigative they would save all us suckers a shed load of money and reduce heart disease and save even more money.
Free school milk is an outdated anomaly that should have been scrapped years ago. It was originally given to infant schoolkids after the depression of the 1930s led to malnourished children developing rickets. As we don’t see too many bow legged teenagers about nowadays I can’t really see the need for it.
Palestinian ‘attackers’ killed by truck driver
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18478829
The usual “Palestinians killed in W bank” headline. Followed by ‘Israel says’.
Hey, no obligatory boilerplate about the settlements being illegal but Israel disputes it! There’s a line about tensions between settlers and Palestinians remaining high, which is fair enough, but that’s it.
Either editorial standards at the BBC are slipping and the supervisor simply failed to instruct an editor to tack it on, or there’s been an improvement in integrity in the staff responsible for the region.
On Facebook there’s a group of Beeboids who have a page all to themselves. There hasn’t been much activity discussion-wise since 2007 (though there are items posted as recently as this year) but some of the discussions are most interesting, and there’s one in which Beeboids bitch about their employer, i.e. this discussion started by
Navdip Dhariwal
The BBC board – bored ?
Do you think BBC boards are the best way to decide which is the best candidate for the job ?
But these two discussions produced comments that will be of interest to many here:
First,
Richard Sambrook
Impartiality and Facebook
It seems to me BBC staff – and journalists in particular – need to be careful about declaring their political and religious affiliations on Facebook profiles. Not that they are not entitled to have such affiliations or to share them with friends and colleagues. But Facebook is a public space and it’s only a matter of time before a newspaper decides to confuse personal views with professional impartiality and brew up a storm. I wouldn’t want any of us to be caught in the middle of that.
The BBC’s blog guidlines for staff (produced by a staff Wiki rather than imposed from on high) should apply to Facebook as much as anywhere else:
http://bbcwikis.gateway.bbc.co.uk/confluence/display/bbcblog/Home?decorator=printablembrook
Second.
Kevin Marsh
Impartiality
Interested in thoughts on this … http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/impartiality.html
we’ve got a series of lectures and seminars planned to start in the autumn … and we’re writing some interactive ‘test yourself’ stuff for the CoJo site now …
But what do people think? Does the report take us any closer to a working meaning for ‘impartiality’? Does it mean more for non-news parts of the BBC (drama, fr’instance)??
Peruse the comments next time you’re having a cuppa, before the group stymies us by making the group a closed one
http://www.facebook.com/groups/2943145306/
BBC College of Journalism is the group’s name
Don’t know if it is irony incarnate, but clicking on http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/impartiality.html to find out more about BBC impartiality, for me results in… ‘Page not found’.
Maybe what The Trust thinks on the subject is under an FoI exclusion:)
Interesting. I’m amused by the fact that a Beeboid is worried that somebody will “confuse” personal views with professional impartiality. If they all think the same way, it’s a problem, period. No amount of gestures towards impartiality can undo that.
A rather telling tweet…
Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage
Many requests from major American media outlets following my speech yesterday. But none from their British counterparts…
It’s not like anything he has to say might be relevant to the biggest news story of the moment or anything. If it weren’t for the internet, none of us would have been able to see this speech or any of his others. Newsnight were happy to grant the Green Party leader her moment in the spotlight last week when she used parliamentary privilege to name an under-cover police officer, but Farage gets no coverage or credit for his prescience in relation to this Euro disaster.
Because the media, especially the BBC, have backed the Euro project all the way. When Tories opposed the entry into the ERM they were portrayed as little more than racist. Despite the ERM fiasco much of the media enthusiastically supported the introduction of the Euro – even the BBC now admits that the air of celebration surrounding their reports was inappropriate.
They won’t invite Farrage on because they are afraid he will remind viewers of the BBC’s responsibility in shaping public opinion and political direction.
Nigel Farage is forthright and uncontrollable and inevitably, therefore, the BBC think he is dangerous. He must be starved of publicity.
‘Newsnight were happy to grant the Green Party leader her moment in the spotlight’
Ah, the BBC and spotlights.
Like holding which power to account and when, where their spotlight falls, or not, seems unique to a selective degree.
Mr. Farage seems to share with Ms. Palin an oddly variable attention level, namely full exposure when anything negative possible. Otherwise, watertight oversight.
A revealing interview on Today this morning.
The ATL Union woman was rattled about being patronised in regard of her worries about synthetic phonics as the sole means of teaching kids in the early years.
Her opposing speaker “patronised her”…her being a PhD an` all…which is the cardinal sin in the eyes of feminist harpies of the Left.
That thousands upon thousands of kids leave her schools after eleven years compulsory attendance , and unable to read is no sin at all-that`ll be the Tories and their cuts-but to have her PhD traduced by a lesser mortal…well that`s THE scandal bub!
INnthe eyes of the likes of Boustead anyway-and Humphrys was meek as a lamb despite his books bemoaning the dumbing down of English…that`ll not have anything to do with the stranglehold of educational provision by the useless Marxists in the teacher training institutions.
Something dodgy about these “Doctors” isn`t there?…John Reid, Vince Cable, Mary Boustead….small certificate syndrome perhaps?
I do think that she was patronised and she had a valid point. Unfortunately she started off using the language of the left and hence immediately I found her annoying. However in reality both the speakers were saying much the same thing.
He wanted to use purely phonics and she wanted to use phonics plus other strategies. Having just had my children learn to read in the past five years I think the way they have been taught has been good. They have learnt with phonics plus some other strategies.
The way being advocated now is to purely use phonics and I don’t see why that is helpful. The teacher should have a range of options available with phonics at the core. And that is what has been taught in the recent past.
Yes and Labour is still associated with a time of seeming plenty (the “good” times, hah!) while the Conservatives are associated with bad times (austerity, “cuts” etc). Of course we know who keeps banging on about the “cuts” and why that association with the present government would be fixed in the public mind by now, while allowing the veil of amnesia to be drawn over Labour recklessness and excess.
Oops! Duplicate post. Am having some problems posting here today. The system seems to be stalling. Thought I had lost a post, rewrote and posted it again, only to find the original had meanwhile appeared!
I tend to agree with what Jim Rose says in this Telegraph article here. To me it seems common sense, but it also tallies with what the ATL union women was saying. Rigid application of only phonics can’t be a sensible way forward.
Here’s a link to the interview. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9729000/9729158.stm
I posted a comment about it which got lost somehow and didn’t appear. Drat! I can’t be bothered writing it all again. I would just say I’d like to know what level of literacy the school children have achieved in the Hackney schools run by Phonics Man, compared with other schools not using it exclusively. Humphrys didn’t ask. I will be delighted if Hackney is producing children who can read and write well. I think we should be told.
Kirsty wark has the answer ro all our woes, in order to creat growth you have to spend… err spend what?
whose money?
A blast from the past for those who remember Mark Mardell’s predecessor as top Beeboid in the US, Justin Webb. Still giddy with joy from the election of The Obamessiah, ol’ Justin makes a bold prediction on Nov. 5, 2008:
The Obama years will stretch America. The nation will come to think differently about itself. But Barack Obama is too focused and too, well, too midwestern in outlook, to really stick it to the right. He will govern from the centre and relish the battles with his own party that that will entail. He will do it because he will feel it to be right but also, of course, because that is the way to be re-elected in 2012, overcoming the fearsome challenge of Sarah Palin.
The overt worship is just embarrassing. As it turns out, I don’t think he could have gotten this more wrong if he was Stephanie Flanders talking about how the Greek bailout had worked. It’s this kind of brilliance that got him the coveted seat on Today, of course.
You couldn’t make that bilge by Webb up !
Sycophant Webb was so far up Obama’s rear I am not sure physically how he could write anything at all. Maybe he can write with his toes ?
How could we forget? I know I never will be lucky enough to forget the spectacle Webb made of himself with his childish sycophancy and fawning hero worship of Obama.
Anyone noticed the bBC scare agenda about the euros has dropped off the radar? There have been no lynchings of black people, no sea of Nazi flags to be seen either. What I HAVE seen has been a well organized tournament, lots of happy supporters, great venues surrounded by clean cities sporting some stunning architecture. Looks like the collective pantie-wetting of the bBC came to nowt so far. Maybe they should “organize” an incident, someone to duff up.
‘Maybe they should “organize” an incident’
There is a precedent for that, as Godwin was already invoked by the BBC, from history.
Of course, such a thing can also be easily provoked online to stir things up, too, as some may appreciate.
Or a mixture of the two, as Houla showed.
I wrote this on a Telegraph blog suggesting the new DG of the BBC should be elected.
The BBC, as the mouthpiece for the Labour party, should be funded by the Labour party, not the general public.
It’s DG could then be elected by them or appointed, or whatever.
As I have to pay £145 a year tax for owning a telly, to fund a political organisation I do not support, and listen to it’s opinions I thoroughly disagree with, I am not interested in thinking about whether the DG should be elected; I am interested in why no one in the Government, in Ofcom or anywhere, has not taken the BBC to task for breaching its Charter on a daily basis regarding political bias, and bias by ommission – And why the hell have they not been dragged before Leverson regarding their clearly vindictive attitude towards Murdoch and NI, who incidentaly, I have no time for, but at least I can choose whether to view his output.
Even it’s print arm, the Guardian isn’t funded by the taxpayer, (although the Guardians holding company isn’t too keen on paying tax)
So, Graeme forget writing articles about spurious superficial ideas; Research and write articles about the true rotteness, bias and nastiness of the BBC, then you’ll be doing some proper journalism.
Now let me see, a recognisable but fairly minor actor who had a hit single nearly thirty years ago has received a lengthy obituary on the BBC website. I wonder why that might be? Oh, look:
“”He was also fantastic actor, fantastic singer and a fantastic man. He was an old-fashioned socialist [who] was caring and kind. He did a huge amount of work for charity over the years. He was an honest person. He supported the miners during the strike; he supported every cause.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18489401
I see the finger-on-the-pulse BBC got it spot-on today on the Today program. While millions are facing financial ruin, on the verge of losing their homes and jobs the BBC spent ten minutes or so talking about the dress code for Royal Ascot. Smug and independent of reality doesn’t come close. Yet another reason to get rid of this snooty, metro-trendy production line for Chardonnay socialists.
I noticed this. It is the last time the BBC gets to go to Ascot so another freebie bites the dust. They will have to pay for themselves in the future.
Just listened to the first of Nial Fergerson’s, Reith lecture. How this go past the bBC thought police I don’t know. Very good, is not an advert for the lefties. Should be made compulsory listening in every school and university.
The subject matter is how did the west get it wrong with all this debt, especially the unseen long term public debt.
Is a Labour crony who turned a blind eye to porn fit to run the BBC?
Clearly he isn’t, but this part struck me as pure BBC.
Tory MP Richard Bacon, who is on the Public Accounts Committee, told me this week: ‘When one examined Ofcom’s budget, there was more than £30 million spent on items that were very, very nebulous. For example, one item was £2.7 million for a “thought partner”.
If anyone would like a thought partner, I am available for much less than £2.7 million.
He, Richards, has the same idea about salary as the bBC. i.e. My underlings salaries have to be very generous, so that my obscene salary does not look out of place.
I am a Eurosceptic – meaning that I accept that we in the UK may have to come to some special economic agreements with Europe (since they have decided to put together a trading block that might otherwise unfairly punish our exporters). But I do not want political integration with Europe. I do not want to ‘pool sovereignty’ with Europe.
Why? Because I am democratically minded and although our British system may not be perfect I have a feeling that it is better than European political systems.
Greece for example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18501602
They have a PR system
‘Under current electoral law, parties need to clear a 3% national threshold. The rest of the seats are distributed proportionally among all parties which reach the threshold. The 12 state deputy seats are allocated proportionally from closed lists in a nationwide district.’
So a nice left-liberal PR system with a 3% barrier to keep out the complete loons. But suddenly we learn this…. ‘The political force which garners the most votes is awarded 50 extra seats. ‘
This is of course a travesty of the PR system. But is this not simply because Greece would be even more ungovernable without a PR cheat?
And yet this is just the sort of European democratic system with which we are encouraged to pool sovereignty.
Now I feel many British people have similar instincts to mine and I feel that we have been very badly served by the BBC over many years.
I notice that the BBC has constantly attempted to implant anti-British and pro-EU attitudes and ways of thinking. Too often BBC commentators knock our political system and refer to European examples as better ways of doing things.
In fact I would like to see the BBC report much more on Europe. I would like the BBC to show more of what actually goes on in the European Parliament – not just some of the Nigel Farage or Dan Hannon speeches, for example.
I would like the BBC to have shed some light on the Greek economy and politics – before things went into complete meltdown!
Otherwise we get a general sense that it is all just hunky dory over there and anyone who doubts we should integrate further is a Little Englander. The BBC quietly perpetrates a view that it is just fine that we should be more closely linked politically – because European ways of doing things are in some way better than ours.
One area of the BBC’s coverage of politics which particularly annoys is their rather snide attitude to our ‘first past the post’ voting system. Now when we had the AV referendum the Beeb had to be very careful to present both sides of the arguement for and against proportional representation. In the event the proposition that we make a change was heavily defeated – despite a lot of previous BBC propagandising for PR.
Don’t believe me?
Take a look at this little lesson for our youth taken form the BBC Learning Zone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/first-past-the-post-and-proportional-representation/10097.html
First we get an introduction from Jonathon Pyke of the Electoral Reform Society (This political pressure group campaigns for PR by STV). No balance to his view is needed – this is BBC educational output. The BBC narrator then deploys the phrase ‘In Britain, at the moment, MPs are elected under the first past the post system’
Now is that use of ‘at the moment’ not a subtle call for action?
In the example a group of teenagers go to a Pizza restuarant. ‘What would happen’ we are asked ‘if they used the first past the post system?’
Now the propaganising becomes very crude.
Obviously they choose different pizzas. 6 out of 12 plump for Paradiso – so they all get Paradiso. The example is of course preposterous. They should have chosen a coalition from the group who went away into a closed room and knocked up a hybrid pizza that nobody had voted for.
[On the up side at least with them all getting the same order the splitting of the bill will be a cinch.]
Anyway in the BBC example, of why our electoral system is flawed, the youngsters who did not get what they wanted say ‘I’m really upset’ and ‘I’m very upset’.
Notice the BBC stressing the emotional aspect to their reaction to a logical problem that requires a rational solution?
Remind you of the BBC telling you about ‘anger’ at spending cuts – but that is another matter for another day.
Well said. The explanation is propaganda: enough people are “happy” with the result, so it must be the correct one.
a brief intrusion on your turf: 11 O Clock News on Radio 4 tone of reporting of RBS job cuts so utterly BBC
http://tomwinnifrith.com/articles/56/rbs-job-cuts-bbc-bias
Ah but you see the fact that RBS is largely state owned is the game changer. It is a first principle that to sack an employee of the state is both callous and uneconomic. All spending on staff at RBS now qualifies as ‘investment’.
I’ve listened carefully to BBC commentators and I have learnt this fact : any money expended by the state is a good thing, it will inevitably lead to something called ‘growth’ and it must always be termed ‘investment’.
A useful byproduct of this thinking is that the BBC itself simply cannot ever be too large or overmanned.
Spot on. Where were the BBC when tens of thousands of jobs were being lost in the banking sector from the mid-1980s onwards? Banks had to make themselves more efficient to remain profitable – which they did largely through mergers and technological innovation (though not a little outsourcing to India, too) – a concept completely alien to the feather-bedded, £4.4 bn income-guranteed BBC. If only we could outsource them to India – ‘Mumbai’ sounds ideal.
Where were the BBC in the early Blair years when 100,000 farmworkers lost their jobs. Oh sorry because they were in the countryside and likely to be Tory voters it wasn’t worth a mention. As it also meant that aged right-wing farmers themselves were having to do heavy physical work well past their 65th birthday (doctors please note), it just wasn’t worth a mention. This was because of low prices of agricultural produce and the CAP with some help from Gordon’s policies – so liked by the BBC.
How the BBC salutes itself.
What would you expect if you saw the headline Aung San Suu Kyi pays tribute to BBC on the BBC homepage? Intrigued I followed the link to Burma opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi visiting UK and found nothing. She visited the BBC Burmese Service but if she said something other than the usual pleasantries expected of a guest no one, least of all the BBC, thought them important enough to quote.
Perhaps opening a door and admiring a microphone was endorsement enough?
That’s not the headline, so guessing another ‘wouldn’t fit’ job from the home page or a stealth edit?
Or maybe someone started reading the higher rated comments..
50. Shazbat21
Just listening to the Jeremy Vine show on R2. The discussion is on whether Aung San Suu Kyi had neglected her family (and is at fault for doing so) by going back to Burma. Good grief, this risible ‘debate’ beggars belief.
OK, most know that Mr. Vine’s ‘show’ is no more about reasoned debate than fly in the air, but seems that well-tuned BBC sense of propriety post-Jubilee is working well still.
The bBC at it’s shrine the LSE, seeing her given a honorary Doctorate. As close to having a 99er (I don’t mean an ice cream either) as the bBC can get.
Great to have the great lady among us.
Bet she`s already rehearsing what she will be saying when she gets to meet the Hairy Cornflake.
Apparently DLT plans to ask her just what it was about his show that was so great…a typical beeboid to his vacuous core.
Well, it took them a while but the BBC Complaints department has finally replied to my latest complaint.
My complaint went as follows:
“I wish to complain about Norman Smith’s ‘spider’s web’ report for the BBC News at Six.
Firstly, the report sounded sharply biased. Norman Smith’s repeated use of a ‘spider’s web’ graphic showing David Cameron at the centre of a web with Jeremy Hunt and James Murdoch was compounded by his highly loaded assertion that Cameron is being “dragged ever deeper in”. The phrase “ever deeper in” is not what you would except from an impartial reporter in this context. It is an opinion and a highly questionable and controversial one which chimes too closely with the point of view being expressed by the Labour Party.
Secondly, the report was factually inaccurate. Norman Smith said, “So, what did happen when the Murdochs tried to buy BSkyB? in June 2010, News Corp launched its £8bn bid. Jeremy Hunt appeared enthusiastic, writing ‘Rupert Murdoch has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person’.”
This is incorrect as Hunt wasn’t “writing” anything. He was speaking, being quoted by ‘Broadcast’ magazine during an interview.
http://www.jeremyhunt.org/newsshow.aspx?ref=452
This sort of basic error is not what you should expect from a BBC chief political correspondent in a pre-recorded report.
Hopefully some form of clarification will be made on a future edition of the BBC News at Six to correct the false impression this gave BBC viewers.”
This is the BBC’s reply:
“Thanks for contacting us about the ‘BBC News at Six’ on BBC One.
Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.
I understand you were unhappy with the content of Norman Smith’s report in the bulletin of 25 May on the subject of Jeremy Hunt’s handling of News Corp’s attempts to buy BSkyB. I note you felt it was inaccurate and not impartial, particularly with reference to the use of a spider’s web graphic, and the phrase “dragged ever deeper in”.
We forwarded your complaint to Norman Smith who in relation to your first point explained that the spider web graphic was used twice, at the start and end of his piece.
He added that stating “ever deeper into” is a phrase that we would contend is justified given the involvement of Andy Coulson, David Cameron’s friendship with Rebekah Brooks and Jeremy Hunt, which seems to entangle David Cameron in the Hacking controversy and hence the use of the spider’s web.
On your second point, he acknowledges that Jeremy Hunt did not “write” and was instead “quoted” in Broadcast magazine. However he added that the significance is in what he said and that is why we used the quote.
Nonetheless, please be assured your complaint will be added to our audience log, a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards”
I don’t think that Norm really answers my point about what is implied by the loaded phrase “EVER deeper in”. (It implies a one-way road to perdition!).
At least Norm admitted that he got his facts wrong, though this was rather spoiled by the justification that followed – a variation on the old ‘it may not be actually true but it’s poetically true’ ploy.
Well done. However…
‘I don’t think that Norm really answers my point’
Me either. And I doubt that was unintentional.
Love the now inevitable cookie cutter ‘we are late but what can anyone do about it’. Odd that when we are writing to them the deadlines seem pretty fixed. Especially when the only actual response to anything is ‘a phrase that we would contend is justified.., which means as much as ‘belief’ or ‘feeling comfortable’.
Facts are all that matter, and on these they cannot but accept they stuffed up, albeit in true BBC weasel style.
Now, given they HAVE stuffed up, what is this ‘log’ lark. Is that a nifty ‘unofficial’, just between them, doesn’t count mark?
Because if so, if you complain again, even though they were wrong and have (sort of) admit it, you will end up with a strike against you for what they will deem a complaint not upheld if up via ECU to Trust level. Bear in mind the amazingly low level the Trust does uphold.
Tinkers, eh?
True, Smith is wrong in his response about the “ever deeper”. He can claim that Cameron is already entangled, so to speak, due to those associations he mentions, but there is no basis for taking it further, which is what he did.
I like how he simply doesn’t care about misleading his audience about the Hunt quote. The end justifies the means. I wonder how much other BBC reporting is tainted in this fashion?
Nice try Craig, but I suspect you are not surprised at the outcome.
The real scandal of the BBC reporting – and their innate bias – is revealed in their response when they say Cameron’s friendships “seems to entangle David Cameron in the Hacking controversy”. It does absolutely NOTHING of the sort, and the BBC knows it. Cameron was not involved in hacking, so why are the BBC trying to insinuate he was, with their sinister spiderweb graphics. What next from the BBC, photoshop pictures of Cameron in Nazi uniform?
The politicians that were much closer to Murdoch at the time of the hacking were Blair and Brown – no BBC spiderwebs for them tho.
When the BBC say that Cameron “seems” to be entangled, I think they mean that they can twist the story to make it ‘seem’ like he was, though any honest reporter would know he was not, and nor incidentally were Blair or Brown.
Just wondering if this has been previously noted by the proprietors & followers here at B-BBC?
http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/?q=node/853
(apologies in advance, if already remarked upon… )
Slightly off-topic, but the latest from The Climate Policy Network reports: Two Green Heretics Come Out:
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN’s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too. –Fritz Vahrenholt,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html
and James Lovelock:
it seems James Lovelock has had a change of heart. On the eve of a major environmental summit, he has attacked the modern green movement – declaring its theories ‘meaningless drivel’. The 92-year-old described the modern green movement as a ‘religion’, which used guilt to gain support. Speaking about climate change, he said: ‘I’m not worried about sea-level rises.’ He added: ‘At worst, I think it will be 2ft a century.’ –Marion Ledwith
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drivel-environment-guru-Scientists-U-turn-doomsday-claim.html
Of course the BBC are all over these defections like a rash, Blackharrabinshukman are finding out the facts for us in a totally impartial manner of course and asking the awkward questions that ecofascism needs to answer.
If you want the full lowdown (very low down – how low can they sink) on the IPCC, I urge you to buy this, it will leave your gob smacked harder than if it had been smacked with a bagful of whale flippers:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/
More success of New Labour’s red tape producing machine…
———————————
Confusion over a band called 4am and the time the group was due to perform on stage, prompted a visit from licensing officers and police to a local pub.
The Feathers in Laleham, Surrey, had advertised live music “from 4am”.
Two licensing officers and two police officers visited the pub the day before to stop the performance, before being told it was the name of the band.
The pub’s licensee, Kate Dillon, said she was “speechless” after the visit.
She said: “I was angry more than anything on the day. We’ve never had any need to call the police or had any trouble.
“If one official turns up that’s funny enough, but if four people come into the pub like they did, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
“When I calmed down a bit I thought it was absolutely hilarious. They made idiots of themselves really.”
————————————
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-18502818
…and New Labour made idiots of us all. Where’s that ‘Great Repeal Bill’, Dave?
The BBC announce the death of Gitta Sereny today with all due tribute.
What`s not to like?…the original do-gooder who tried to get Mary Bell some money for contributing to Serenys “fascinating study” of evil.
The original Mein Kampf student whose reading of it was described by Evan Davis as “precocious”…never seems to get Ratzinger a fair hearing though does it?
But what I hated about this do gooding cuckoo with big words was her justification of why she slavers around the murderers…but neglects those victims of theirs.
Basically-only the murderers are alive to tell her their tales-the dead have nothing to add to her fascinations…hence her siding with Bell, Venables and Thompson…sanctioned and indulged by her psychobabbling camp followers of evil there at the BBC and liberal media practitioners of the soft sciences.
I hated this womans inevitable pimping off evil for a well upholstered living…big words and lots of stroking of sub-Freudian beards, but-of course-endlessly fascinating to the BBC and the like.
Why confront evil, when you can take your cut of its consequences?…Sereny was the evil of which she spoke-and therefore just what Giles Fraser WOULD choose to eulogise…but of course!
I’m not worried about sea levels, says climate change expert
Climate change expert James Lovelock, who once predicted the death of billions of humans due to global warming, has now performed a remarkable u-turn to criticise the green movement as a “religion” using “guilt” to forward their cause.
Climate change expert James Lovelock, who once predicted the death of billions of humans due to global warming, has now performed a remarkable u-turn to criticise the green movement as a “religion” using “guilt” to forward their cause.
Another once often quoted figure has just become a BBC non person, persona non grata, on the blacklist, never heard of the bloke, must be in the pay of big oil. Once the darling of the ecofascist BBC he no longer exists, his crime? He has looked at the evidence and changed his mind, just a case of ‘better the sinner repents at length than not at all’. But the BBC is not about to let people know that former cult believers are now becoming sceptics are they?
The CAGW fraud is falling apart and the BBC like the East German MSM will be the last to acknowledge it.
Got a fair bit of respect for old Lovelock.
The last of the individual seekers after truth in many aspects…a genuine eccentric and polymath who does go where the evidence leads him-even if and when it gets him into real trouble.
His population ones are awful, but are the logic of his thinking taken to their logical conclusion and right up to the terminus…no weasel words or obfuscations like the Porritts, Shrivers and the like.
I know where I stand with Lovelock and I respect that.
I agree. I’ve always rather liked his eccentric English manner and admired his willingness to speak out about the many failings of the green movement – “The problem with the greens is that they’re not very numerate”.
Also, unlike many enviromentalists, I’ve never detected any political ideology driving his outlook, in contrast to the likes of Monbiot, who is the epitome of the authoritarian watermelon.
“I’m neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats.” 🙂
I might not always agree with him, but in the various interviews I’ve seen of him I’ve always sensed a good-natured decency and humility about the man.
Poor Canada. After months of being left out in the wilderness, the BBC finally has a flurry of reports on the country, and it’s only about gruesome murders. Is there nothing else in the country worth mentioning?
Indeed , David. This new ‘Canada Direct’ site which the BBC launched a month or so ago (after years of neglecting that great country) is already providing crystal-clear proof of BBC bias (albeit not the sort of proof that will inflame most Brits, sadly).
Its main commentator is Lorraine Mallinder, a left-leaning freelancer who is open in her dislike for the Conservative government of Stephen Harper and her support for multi-culturalism and environmentalism. A selection of her biased BBC articles to support this claim can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-18086952 (many attacks on Harper’s government)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18164796 (a piece on a bolshie student leader)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-18020931 (a violent pro-Green attack on Harper’s environmental policies)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16219305 (which asserts that right-wing Harper is un-Canadian).
She also reports for ‘From Our Own Correspondent’.
Other articles on the ‘Canada Direct’ page also push Lorraine’s “Difference is Interesting” angle on the benefits of multi-culturalism.
There’s “Canada prepares for an Asian future: The influx of Asian immigrants to Canada is creating new opportunities”, currently the lead story on ‘Canada Direct’ by another freelancer, Ayesha Bhatty .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16219305
The site also has an ‘In pictures’ section on Vancouver’s Chinese community that praises “the unique cultural mix of the city” and all the wonderful new food dishes available there as a result of immigration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-18208006
Indeed, much of Canada Direct’s coverage seems to be geared to this very end. There’s also Lyse Doucet hymning the multiculturalism of Monteal:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-18105651
The BBC overview of Canada is explicit about this:
“Immigration has helped to make Canada one of the world’s richest nations.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16841111
The same Canada profile of Canada has a skewed section on the country’s politics. It chooses as its sub-headline to characterise the recently re-elected right-wing government “Economic crisis” and is clearly hostile to Harper.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16841117
Not one piece so far reflects the opposing, right-leaning point of view.
“Not one piece so far reflects the opposing, right-leaning point of view. ”
…or, apparently, anything to do with mainstream Canada.
Excellent sleuthing as usual, Craig. I wasn’t aware of this. They found the Canadian version of Michael Goldfarb, then.
There’s a new biography out about the President, and this one debunks a lot of stuff in His celebrated autobiography, “Dreams from My Father”.
The BBC’s US President editor, Mark Mardell, actually tweeted about it, but that’s it. Once again something that makes Him look less than stellar is considered not worth reporting by the BBC.
All sorts of revelations that His autobiography is full of BS are in this new book, and it’s basically proof positive that the mainstream media simply refused to vet Him in 2008. We were, as I said at the time, sold a bill of goods. And the BBC went right along with the charade, as dutifully as any Benedictine Oblate is to the Faith.
This makes fools out of the Newsnight producers for having a panel of towering figures – Ian Rankin, Oona King, and Oliver Kamm – discussing the book, and a special segment of actors giving dramatic readings of excerpts.
I guess this also makes the judges at the British Book Awards look like fools for giving His autobiography first prize in its category. I also wonder if Lulu still thinks the book changed her life more than any other.
Related…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/9-tall-tales-from-barack-obamas-memoir
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html
BBC take on what their boss has had to say.
‘BBC Director General Mark Thompson has told MPs that the corporation has “lessons to learn” from its coverage of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18512995
‘Mr Thompson acknowledged that there were “some inaccuracies in the commentary that we shouldn’t have had”.
However, he added that he thought it was “a really good piece of broadcasting” on the whole.’
There you are then. I don’t know why we all make such a fuss.
He only acknowledged them, belatedly, because the Daily Mail listed all the cringemaking gaffes, making him and his grand Corporation look like fools!
Wondering what all the fuss was about with the BBC and this Jubilee thing?
BBC best buddies Horrible Histories with their take on the Jubilee.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18293060
According to Mark Thompson’s figures 80% of people thought BBC Jubilee coverage did not alter their view of the BBC. 8% were negative and 11% said it had improved their view of the BBC. Really?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18513287
It’s a bit like the voting numbers in the USSR. 110% voted the for the party. It is really rather pathetic special pleading. I noticed he still has not shaved properly- that just means I cannot ever take him seriously.
Look at him and you see just why this old land is going to rack and ruin.
A court case of no interest to anyone except the locals in Shropshire. Well at least we can be secure in The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (chairman, K. Vaz) assurances that it is not a specifically ‘Asian’ crime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-18498000
when will the BBC do a ‘documentary’ on the plight of gays in North Korea?
I’d like the BBC to do a series on Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School.
Just tune in – it’s in pretty much everything they broadcast. 🙂
It would appear that Stephanie Flanders has her mind on the big issues at the G-20 meeting. From her twitter feed.
“But no-one should underestimate the risks, and not just for the Euro. I just burnt my toes doing live interviews in the sun ”
Next she tells us yet again how the bailout of Greece has worked once she has taken another holiday.
Stop worrying about the future of the Euro. BBC 5 Live just had on an economist from the LSE so if he says Greece will stay in it must true.
And that’s not all. Rachel Burdon told us that when she was in Greece recently she noticed lots of investment opportunities!
Don’t laugh, she knows a good thing when she sees it. Refering to the Beeb’s move to Salford she had this financial advice….
‘We won’t sell our house,’ says Rachel, 35, referring to her four-bedroom Edwardian home in Ealing, valued at £650,000.
‘London prices are likely to rise faster than other parts of the country so we want to hold on to it and let it out.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2005814/North-turn-BBCs-MediaCity-Radio-5s-Rachel-Burden-makes-move.html
Newsnight told me tonight that Burma was a difficult country to govern given that it has many ethnic minorities yet the BBC tell me that large numbers of ethnic minorities in my own country are a good thing. Grrrr.
I had a lovely dream last night, about the selection of the new Director-General of the BBC. The shortlist of candidates was:
James Delingpole
Dr David Starkey
Richard Littlejohn
Peter Hitchens
On hearing the shortlist, 75% of BBC staff resigned en masse. Delingpole won, the license fee was cut in half, and the BBC started airing impartial, intelligent, and informative programmes that catered to the majority of taxpayers.
Then I woke up to the horrible reality of BBC World News. Damn!
With Jeremy Clarkson as chair of the board of governors!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18516088
I wonder, if I summon the BBC to tell them what to say, will they oblige?
The way the comment ratings are going, there may need to be another early closing for our Nick and his famous ‘editorial analysis’.
A funny thing happened…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18516088
I wonder, if I summon the BBC to tell them what to say, will they oblige?
The way the comment ratings are going, there may need to be another early closing for our Nick and his famous ‘editorial analysis’.
Is it just my browser, or have all comments to this thread now disappeared? If so, why?
Rachel Burdon on BBC 5 Live quotes the doctors (or their trades union the BMA) as saying ‘…the Government are not listening to our complaints..’
Well I suggest they take two asprin, have a good night’s rest and see how they feel in the morning.
No, I’m sorry, I don’t make home visits. No, I’m sorry, I can’t give an appointment time for you to come to see me. Turn up to the surgery, get a ticket at reception and wait your turn with everyone else. No I can’t see you after five. I’ve got this drug company reception…..I mean training…. to attend. No, I don’t do weekends. That golf course won’t play itself. Well if your problem gets worse go to your local A&E. Well if it is impossible for you to go out we’ve got this Ugandan locum – don’t suppose you speek Swahili? No? Well we are living in a multicultural society so we shouldn’t take these things for granted. You only speek English then? Disappointing. Can you describe your symptoms to him using sign language? You can come in tomorrow? Oh sorry, I’ll be taking strike action to defend the NHS. Well, it is really all about my own pension, but up the workers and all that!
How true! Not one GP out of eight at my local surgery does a five-day week. Only one manages even four days in the surgery. And those “days” are short days, when it comes to actually seeing patients. Not exactly overburdened with work by the looks of things.
How the bBC always paints Israel as the badguy.
Hamas fires barrage of rockets into Israel
Hamas militants in Gaza have fired rockets and mortars into southern Israel following air strikes against the Palestinian territory. The Israeli raids have killed at least six Palestinians in recent days. The death of a two-year-old girl in Gaza was initially blamed on an Israeli air strike, but it now appears a botched rocket launch was to blame. The rocket barrage follows months of relative restraint by Hamas, which has been observing a fragile truce…In a rare move, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said earlier in the day that Hamas was responsible for the rocket attacks, and that the Israeli strikes had prompted the group’s military wing “to take a firm stance” and launch rockets.
So reading the above do you get the impression that Israeli military action reluctantly dragged peaceful Hamas to defend itself. I quote:
The rocket barrage follows months of relative restraint by Hamas, which has been observing a fragile truce
And here is what the peoples of Malta get told by their news agency:
Army figures show that since the start of 2012, Gaza militants have fired more than 290 rockets into Israel.
In fact 10 mortars were fired into Israel from Gaza over the weekend. Yet the bBC give the impression that actually Israel is the belligerent here. And then the so called bbC reporter comes out with this classic whitewash:
The BBC’s Jon Donnison in Ramallah says it is the first time Hamas has said it was directly involved in attacks against Israel for more than a year, although Israel believes Hamas allows smaller militant groups to carry out strikes. Our correspondent says it is not clear why Hamas has chosen this moment to re-engage with Israel directly.
Really, nobody at the bBC can work out the aim of Hamas is to broaden the affair with Israel by dragging in other players. You know like how they dragged Turkey into the quagmire and from the looks of things they wish to drag Eygpt into it.
Nope the bBC continues to play the anti-sematic card by portraying the Jews as the root of all evil. Unlike that peaceful followers of Islam who are taught from birth to wage war on non-Muslims.
The bBC, the traitors, in our midst
Further to my last about how the bBC don’t know why Hamas has upped the ante with Israel, here is how Bloomberg report the same story:
The Israel-Gaza fighting started after an attack on the Israeli-Egyptian border that came as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Mursi claimed a victory in Egypt’s presidential election, the first since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak last year.
“There is a link between the heightened tensions between Gaza and Israel and what looks to be the drift of Egypt to Islamist rule,” said Jonathan Spyer, a political scientist at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. “This would be a strategic change and we can expect a much more tense southern border than we have seen for many years.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-20/israel-planes-hit-gaza-in-third-day-of-violence.html?
Yet the fool Donnison says “it is not clear” why Hamas is suddenly more vocal. How stupid does he think we are?
Just had a scope of the BBC editorial blogs. An awful lot closed after not long and not many.
This takes some beating mind:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18498449
It’s like they don’t really want our views at all, and want to be the only power that can provide an account.
“BBC head must not be political, says senior Tory in blow to leading contender”
By Paul Revoir
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161910/BBC-head-political-says-senior-Tory-blow-leading-contender.html#ixzz1yJwDt3LF
Seems quaint that such a blatant tribal flagwaver was ever in the frame, much less a front-runner, given the gene-based impartiality one of his competitors bleats about endlessly, like she is taken any more seriously as such.
The bBC and how it loves to defend rapists
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum at Ecuador’s London embassy. The South American country says it is “studying and analysing the request”.Last week, the UK’s Supreme Court dismissed Mr Assange’s bid to reopen an appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes
So the lefts champions for freespeech (until somebody is talking about him) after exhausting the legal process in the UK, in his fight to avoid been returned to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct has done a runner and put up his tent in the Embassy of Ecuador.
Now instead of reporting the fact that Assange is doing everything he can in which to avoid talking to the Swedish police over his peccadillos, they instead report on what a victim Assange is:
He fears that if he is sent to Sweden it may lead to him being sent to the US to face charges over Wikileaks for which he could face the death penalty.
And
Mr Assange denies any wrongdoing.
And
The claims were made by two female former Wikileaks volunteers in mid-2010. No charges have been filed.
And
The Australian anti-secrecy campaigner, who claims the sex was consensual, could still take his case against extradition to the ECHR and has until 28 June to make the move, or extradition proceedings will begin.
And
Mr Assange feared Sweden would not protect him from being extradited to “a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition,” Mr Patino said.
And
Labour peer and human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy QC said she understood his Swedish lawyers had warned him that if extradited to their country – which had been expected imminently – he would be handed over to the US at the conclusion of the sexual assaults investigation.
But she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “In international law, a country to which a person is surrendered should only deal with him on the offences for which he has been surrendered and, at the moment it’s finished, he should be allowed to exit that country.
And
Vaughan Smith, a friend who allowed Mr Assange to stay at his Norfolk home until December 2011, told the BBC he was surprised by the move but understood why he may have decided to seek asylum.”There’s been an organised campaign to undermine him,” Mr Smith said, “and he believed that if he was sent to Sweden he would be sent to America.”
And just in case you stumped up the cash to keep Assange on the streets here is how the bBC reassures his followers that they have nothing to worry about:
Baroness Kennedy said that, as it was known exactly where Mr Assange was, his supporters would have a strong argument for getting their money back because bail was usually put up to prevent flight or to ensure attendance at court.
Really bBC and what part of his bail agreement of him visiting the local nick doesn’t figure in the above.
Anybody else notice how the bBC will jump to the defence of Muslims, Film directors and this sex pest, when it comes to rape. But when it’s a Catholic priest then its hang them high.
The bBC and how it loves to defend rapists
Great post. He’s also chosen to seek immunity from a country whose extreme-left government are notoriously anti-free speech. But they are also anti-American, so that’s ok.
As I’ve posted before (sorry to be boring) – it’s all a case of the leftie hierarchy of causes. In this case, women’s rights are trumped by an anti-American anti-secrecy campaigner (who happens to be fiercely secretive about himself, according to ex-associates).
This guy is near the top of the list of all-time leftie hypocrites.
UH OH!
surprise surprise 😀
V. Drearybyshire, has some Assange supporters on this morning. to re instate the el bbc narrative, this morning
on 5Live, how refreshing.
can t wait 🙁
You might have thought that after the UN’s utter failure in Syria the BBC would have realised that their favourite organisation is no more than a hopeless talking shop.
But as part of a BBC Q&A on the Falklands Islands we are told…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18424768
‘What is the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation?
The body monitors implementation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, which in 1960 granted independence to colonial countries.’
Did you notice the UN granting independence?
Of course the UN bigs itself up and the BBC just parrots what certain organisations tell it.
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/
‘In a vast political reshaping of the world, more than 80 former colonies comprising some 750 million people have gained independence since the creation of the United Nations’.
Some of those have been during my lifetime – so perhaps I should claim some credit?
Back to the BBC comments
‘The decolonisation process most recently saw the return of British-ruled Hong Kong and Portuguese Macau to China in 1990s and East Timor’s independence from Indonesia in 2002. ‘
Any sensible commenator will tell you that the Chinese territories changed hands in bilateral agreements while the East Timor settlement came following a bloody stalemate long after Portugal gave the island its independence in 1975 and then in the same year Indonesia (independent from Holland since 1949) invaded. [What a bad example, by the way].
‘But the job is unfinished as 16 “non-self-governing territories” still exist. ‘
It is a fascinating list:
Western Sahara Spain
Anguilla United Kingdom
Bermuda United Kingdom 53 68,265
British Virgin Islands United Kingdom 153 24,939
Cayman Islands United Kingdom 260 50,209
Falkland Islands (Malvinas)4 United Kingdom 11,961 3,140
Montserrat United Kingdom 98 5,118
St. Helena United Kingdom 122 7,670
Turks and Caicos Islands United Kingdom 430 23,528
United States Virgin Islands United States 340 109,750
EUROPE
Gibraltar United Kingdom 6 28,877
ASIA AND PACIFIC
American Samoa United States 197 66,432
Guam United States 549 180,865
New Caledonia5 France 35,853 252,352
Pitcairn United Kingdom 5 48
Tokelau New Zealand
Sorry that list was a mess – I must have hit the wrong button and left in a lot of population numbers.
It looks as though the UN are picking on Britain – no wonder the BBC are keen on it.
FRANCE: Al Qaeda attack in Toulouse.
Two early, contrasting reports:
1.) ‘RT’ report:
“Self-proclaimed Al-Qaeda member takes hostages in Toulouse bank – police.”
http://www.rt.com/news/self-proclaimed-al-quaeda-takes-toulouse-279/
2.) INBBC report:
“‘Hostages held’ in France Toulouse bank incident”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18516934
Self-proclaimed Al-Qaeda member takes hostages in Toulouse bank – police
BBC-NUJ’s unchanging Labour Party:
pro-mass immigration, pro-Islam, pro-spend, spend spend public finance-
“Livingstone tops Labour executive committee ballot”
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-06-20/livingstone-tops-labour-executive-ballot/