“Viewpoint” Or Propaganda?

This “First Person” segment for the BBC’s online Magazine is not journalism but instead borders on political advertisement. It’s another one of those “bespoke” video magazine pieces for which the BBC has increased their spending and staffing in the US.

Why are ex-convicts in the US barred from voting?

Is it just me, or is that an interrogative? We should expect an answer of some kind from the piece, no? No. Unless by “answer” you mean getting told that they should be allowed to vote, which is answering an entirely different question.

I understand that the concept of “First Person” necessarily involves presenting that person’s perspective. In and of itself that’s not bias. But this goes far beyond that and is little more than an advocacy advertisement.

The entire piece is a combination of an interview with an activist for restoring voting rights to felony ex-cons, Hasan Zarif (an ex-con prison chaplain, a rather common phenomenon), and quotes from the activist group The Sentencing Project. This group identifies itself on its website as an advocacy group, but the BBC doesn’t think you need to be told. I guess it’s supposed to be obvious so they don’t need to, but it’s really just another example of the BBC declining to label a person or organization if they’re on the Left/approved side of an issue.

It’s all about justifying the restoration of voting rights to felony ex-convicts. We also get ominous interstitials informing us of gently prodding facts such as how only the Governor of Virginia (one of the states at which the BBC’s bony finger is pointed) has the power to restore the right to felony ex-cons. As if that’s supposed to be evidence against the policy. At one point, Zarif speaks with another felon who is currently petitioning to get  his right to vote back. Zarif helpfully reads out the evidence that the man has turned his life around and deserves it. We’re meant to think that if this violent criminal can do it, why not all felony ex-cons? It’s a false proxy, but that’s all part of storytelling (just like the tear-jerking piano ostinato in the background).

Plus, due to the unspoken (because we all know, right?) fact that African-Americans are convicted of felonies* at a much higher rate than white people, they’re hit hardest, when the BBC tells us that more of them are affected by this policy, the message is that it is de facto racist. The real question ought to be: is this de jure racist? Do we get an alternative perspective? Don’t make me laugh. That’s not why this piece was produced.

The only moment which is even a gesture towards explaining why felony ex-cons are barred from voting is when Zarif says this:

“We have committed some terrible acts, so it is reasonable that many individuals, they don’t want to see us vote.”

That’s it. This counts as balance in BBC land. The very next sentence is back to the advocacy.

“We need to prove that we can come back to society, be contributing members of the social order, and that we can take that second chance and do great things.”

Once again that’s a reason why voting rights should be restored. At no point is there discussion as to why some States withhold the right, which is what the title asks. Why don’t the anonymous Beeboids who produced this bother to go into it? Because you’re all expected already to have the approved thought that it’s wrong, so the question doesn’t really need answering at all. If you think like them, that is. This piece was produced from that perspective.

Because the BBC isn’t interested in discussing the overall scene in the US regarding the voting rights of ex-cons, here’s some information to put this sob story into perspective. It’s always difficult for the British Beeboids (and sometimes for the US-born ones as well) to grasp the concept of States Rights (aside from slavery and the Civil War, of course – in that case they definitely act like they know all about it), so they probably don’t understand how this can be. As one would expect, the rules vary widely around the country. Some states hold that people lose the right once they’re convicted of a felony, and even there the metric varies. Maine and New Hampshire even allow felons to vote via absentee ballot from prison. Other States restore the right to ex-cons after parole, or after petition.

What’s left out of this bespoke video piece – professionally produced from a media perspective as it is – is the fact that in every single State it’s possible for an ex-con to get that right back one way or another. Every single State. But that’s not good enough for advocates: they want it restored automatically, and eventually want the right granted to incarcerated felons. The goal of this particular BBC report isn’t about that at all, but is rather about pushing the idea that felony ex-cons should have the right restored, full stop. That’s why the insterstitial about how in Virginia only the Governor can restore the right is presented so ominously.

Before any defenders of the indefensible get busy, let me remind you that my opinion on whether or not felony ex-cons should be allowed to vote is irrelevant, as is yours. This is about the bias of the BBC’s video report.

* I’m using passive phrasing here, rather than saying “African-Americans commit  felonies at a much higher rate”, in the interests of appearing impartial.

CHEERS?

A Biased BBC reader observes…

“File on 4 Alcohol Fraud has been discussing the rise of the problem this week. No mention of course of the close link with immigration, not only in the fraud itself, but the huge numbers of immigrant run corner shops selling dodgy alcohol and putting honest British businesses out of existence.

Perhaps most telling is that they chose to focus on this case of high end fraud, run by Brits (although with assistance from a Pole): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-15888342

They ignored this Lithuanian run operation, where people actually died, even though it was more of a news story at the time! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-18154900

They also fail to warn against the risks of such brews,  or reveal  horror stories such as:

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/9389714.Bradford_warning_as_illegal____vodka____nearly_blinds_man/

Muzzled By The Tyrannical BBC

 

Churchill’s disagreement with the pre-1939 war policy of appeasement was kept off the air by the BBC…..

“For 11 years, they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views that proved to be right. Their behaviour has been tyrannical.”

The BBC’s own Nick Robinson spills the beans….and a lesson for us all….

‘The way Churchill was handled is a powerful warning of the dangers of the BBC believing it is being balanced by excluding the voices of those who do not represent conventional wisdom….

 …he (Churchill) did complain to a young BBC producer who visited him on the day after Chamberlain returned home from Munich. A memo records their meeting. They spent hours discussing the Nazi threat and “Churchill complained that he had been very badly treated… and that he was always muzzled by the BBC”. The producer was called Guy Burgess. The man who would become his country’s most famous traitor tried to reassure the man who would become its saviour that the BBC was not biased.’

Churchill was expressing the voice of the people…a thing that the BBC assiduously works to avoid:

‘After Churchill became prime minister, on 10 May 1940, vast numbers listened to his extraordinary wartime broadcasts. Churchill claimed that all he did was to give voice to the national mood of defiance: “The people’s will was resolute and remorseless, I only expressed it. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.” ‘

 

Now not saying that there is any similarity at all between a dyed-in-the-wool communist traitor like Burgess and any working at the BBC now who entertain anti-war ideas but you can’t help making comparisons……but today of course no one at the BBC is in any way biased…they were in the past but Mark Thompson has assured us that’s exactly that…in the past.

…but it seems further comparisons could be made with today….the BBC’s attitude towards Murdoch and his media ’empire’ may have  deep roots:

 ‘[Churchill] had decided to break the monopoly that his old enemy John Reith had considered so vital for broadcasting. He did so in the face of Reith’s hysterical warning that commercial television would be as disastrous for Britain as “dog racing, smallpox and bubonic plague”.

They Don’t Like It Up ’em!

Clare Balding mounts defence of BBC with some black propaganda…..or a distortion of the truth…or a lie if you like.

The photo below was presented to us by Balding as if it were a picture taken in secret by a paparazzi in  the bushes and published without consent by a newspaper for dirty old men to ogle…..the truth is entirely different and puts another, completely different, perspective on the story.

Body confident: Kylie Jenner poses in her bathing suit and shares the occasion with two million followers

 

The BBC are rattled, very  rattled.  They are being subjected to the sort of inquisition that they  normally dish out to others whom they perceive to have committed some form of misdemeanour.

We have long been witness to the defensiveness of those working for the BBC when their integrity is brought into question….just how prickly does Humphrys get when challenged about BBC reporting…or Campbell or Derbyshire?

There is an unwillingness to accept that the BBC can do anything wrong or to challenge their own perceptions.  Which BBC journalist has dared to investigate the Balen Report?  Any journalist worth his salt would be digging away at that one….it has the potential to be absolute dynamite if it says what many think it might say.

 

Rather than fully accept that they maybe got things badly wrong they are lashing out and trying to divide up the ‘guilt’, pointing fingers at others,  so as to lessen the BBC’s own part in this saga.

 

The latest ‘Have I got News For You’  sold its soul and became a mechanism to channel the BBC’s propaganda.  Even the doughty Hislop toed the party line, taking the BBC shilling, and rather disengenuously defended the BBC by claiming no one was examining the NHS’s role or that of the Press……the BBC is hard done by and innocent of all wrong doing.

They claimed no one knew about any of Savile’s actions or those of other people….but again that’s not true….as senior staff were informed of ‘goings on’, just as with Liz Kershaw, and they decided to ignore them…..former BBC director David Nicolson told The Sun that a BBC boss had said “That’s the way it is” and “That’s Jimmy” after he reported that Savile was having sex with a young girl in his dressing room.

Hislop said that no one knew the allegations were true…since when has that stopped an investigation into ‘allegations’?…as a BBC journalist himself says…..

“In most newsrooms if you are not quite there [with a story] you would just keep going.”

Did the Press do anything?…..In 1971, according to the Sunday Times, the News of The World ran an expose of the ‘goings on’ off camera at ‘Top Of The Pops’ and the partying and procurement of girls…..nothing was done.

Such behaviour, not just Savile’s, seems to have been pretty endemic, but accepted or brushed under the carpet. 

They knew but chose to ignore it.

The fact that similar behaviour by Savile was happening under the eyes of the NHS doesn’t let the BBC off the hook one little bit….and the NHS has come under considerable scrutiny from the rest of the media over this business and so the claim of the BBC being singled out does not stand up at all.

Clare Balding dug out a photo from the Daily Mail Online…from its sidebar…which she calls ‘its sidebar of shame’.  However looking at it now the sidebar is entitled ‘Femail Today’…..stories about women for women.

Balding tried to assert that the Mail showing a 14 year old girl in a bikini was somehow tantamount to procuring young girls for the likes of Savile……the reality is that the only readers of that part of the Mail Online is likely to be women…..I’ve read the Online Mail hundreds of times and never once bothered to click on anything on ‘the sidebar of shame’…..so the photo was for women’s eyes only.

What Balding doesn’t reveal is that the photos were on the girl’s Twitter page….on which she has two million followers….and the fact that she is one of the stars of the US show about the Kardashian family.

The choice of photo is also questionable….the BBC chose a shot that looked as if it had been snapped in secret with a hidden camera…..rather than taken as it was by a family member or friend.   The reaction from Merton et al said it all….shock….because they weren’t told the full story of course.

The BBC could have chosen these shots of kylie’s sister, Kendall, from two years ago….taken when she was 14 by a professional photographer as she launched her modelling career….but that wouldn’t have looked half as seedy as the one BBC picked to present the Daily Mail in a damning way…so they chose a very particular photograph in a particular style and presented it with a particular spin.

Balding tries to claim the moral high ground by saying the Mail is peddling stories that are only interested in what women look like….is this from a BBC that mainly employs young, good looking women to front its programmes?  Balding is a sports reporter….so exceptions can be made.

The girl in the photo shown by Balding is Kylie Jenner who has a column in 17 magazines giving her (and her sister’s) expertise on ‘fashion, beauty and style’….are those columns all ‘columns of shame’?

I think Balding needs to recognise that there is a big difference between the Mail publishing shots of your cellulite and wobbly bits and the BBC ignoring sex abuse going on on its premises by its employees.

That is an example of the BBC counter attack….using its own programmes to launch a bitter attack on a paper it disdains anyway.  The Daily Mail is the bete noire of BBC presenters who all pretend not to read it but undoubtedly do so avidly underneath copies of the Guardian.  That photograph did not appear from nowhere….the BBC had to dig around to find that…..and clearly did so with a purpose…..and that is to try and paint others in such a bad light that the BBC comes off better….nowt but BBC black propaganda at work.

However under the slightest scrutiny Balding’s story comes flying apart and it can be seen to be a mess of half truths and deliberate smears that sounded good on the night but turn out to be pretentious, pious, posturing rubbish….however mud sticks and the BBC knows that and are quite happy to have put the boot into the Mail whether the attack was merited or not.

 

To round off this sad little episode of HIGNFY Merton dragged in Thatcher….Savile spent a Christmas at Chequers with her….or ‘always spent Christmas at Chequers’  as Merton put it.  Apparently that might be the answer as to why Savile got away with it for so long.  If you were thinking maybe it was the BBC hiding anything sordid that might damage its reputation you’d be barking entirely up the wrong tree!

So then,  that’s it, the answer…..Thatcher is to blame for Savile’s long career of  abusing young girls and getting away with it.  

So that’s three boxes ticked….Defend the BBC, blame Thatcher for the ills of the world, and launch a clearly well planned assault on the Daily Mail.

Comic Gold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BBC. Too Big. Too Powerful. Too Arrogant.

Further to David’s comments on Bland…..

 Savile was said to have got away with what he did because of his reputation and celebrity status……I would suggest that the very same effect is allowing the BBC to get away with its own sordid, illicit liasons…its finger prints all over several crime scenes of political and cultural vandalism as it snuggled up with the Labour Party.

 

Bland’s comments on the Today programme perfectly showcase the sheer arrogance of the BBC mindest….the self righteous belief in their own goodness, their sense of entitlement to lecture us and yet be free from any need for transparency or accountability themselves because….

….as Bland told us….‘Given the BBC’s reputation we should take it on trust that it would never do anything wrong.’

He maintains that BBC editors and producers are completely independent of management and do not take direction from them as to what programmes to produce and whether to broadcast them or not.

Now that is obviously no where near the truth…..no organisation can work like that.  We know for certain that the BBC operates an internal consensus driven narrative on certain subjects…Climate, Israel, immigration, Toryism, Europe to name a few…with guidelines being passed along the chain to mould how programmes are made, what programmes are made and what the agreed line is intended to produce in the way of affect on the audience and its perceptions and thoughts.

The programme makers are not independent…and nor is the BBC…..their coverage of abuse in places such as Rochdale, before the truth finally came out, followed the official Establishment line of  ‘nothing to see here….and if there is then the girls are just trash and not to be believed.’

The BBC essentially colluded in covering up a shocking series of crimes for years.

This line is still coming out in places…Nicky Campbell when discussing Savile asked if it could still happen now….and his answer was of course it could…look at Rochdale….why did it happen there?…because, he says, the girls weren’t believed.

Really?   That’s not true is it.  The reason nothing was done was because of sensitivity about race and a certain religious minority….the police knew it was true…they just didn’t act because they were afraid of charges of racism….a legacy that can be laid at the feet of the likes of the BBC who have driven that particular line of thought…that any talk of immigration or race is ‘racist’.

Jimmy Savile seems to have got away with it because those who knew kept quiet, the gangs in Rochdale got away with it because those who knew kept quiet, Labour were allowed to impose mass immigration upon a crowded nation that didn’t want it and didn’t get asked because the BBC kept quiet.

The BBC has failed and failed again, and again, to do what is really its primary purpose…to inform and educate the Nation….it has hidden not only its politically favoured friend’s dirty secrets, but it has hidden its own using its world class reputation for trustworthiness, honesty and accountability to fool us all.

An organisation that lectured us on gender issues and even has its own ‘Woman’s Hour’, was found to be operating an ‘ageist’ and sexist policy for older female presenters. 

It has berated bankers, businessmen and politicians for tax avoidnace and yet has been found to be operating its own little scheme on an industrial scale….never mind paying banker style salaries to some of its stars.

This is a BBC that would be horrified if the Army were to have a regiment just for British Black soldiers….and yet the BBC has its very own ghetto radio…the Asian Network….staffed by Asians.  Are Asians British or what?  If British, why do they need an ‘Asian Network’?  Does a brown skin mean they can’t like fish and chips, Eastenders and Dr Who? 

Mark Thompson admitted the BBC had been left wing once and had failed to report on Europe and immigration in a balanced way.  And yet even now we get the same old stuff coming out of the BBC.  Thompson’s legacy is a BBC that if anything has become even more polarised, anti-Tory, pro-Climate Change, anti-Republican, anti-war, pro-Muslim, pro-Europe and pro-immigration.

Its historic failures with Savile continue and the results are the same…..the failure to ‘hold Power to account’  has allowed The Power, in one shape or another, to corrupt and damage our society, culture and democracy.

The BBC has allowed one political party to do enormous damage to the economy and the makeup of society.  The BBC’s betrayal of its duty, the faith and trust placed in it,  has served to undermine nearly every aspect of this country’s being, from its economy, its welfare system, its political and cultural values, and even its very ethnic makeup….the ‘whites’ being too hideously white and British to be allowed to ‘dominate’ in their own land….so much so that Labour were allowed to import literally millions of foreigners to break the ‘dominance’ of the natives…as well as to serve a calculated political purpose….the new arrivals would, Labour believed, vote Labour, vote for ‘Europe’ and never vote Tory. 

The BBC has in effect collaborated in a quiet coup  that has attempted to gerrymander the voting system and deliver up an almost one party state…that one party being Labour….as well as a peverse sort of ethnic cleansing to dilute the whiteness and Britishness of Britain.

It still works to that end…even now Labour surge ahead with around 10% more support…..Labour’s past has been pretty much erased from BBC history…..the most likely BBC culprit for the credit crunch, if not the Banks, is Mrs Thatcher. 

The BBC cannot be trusted.  It cannot be trusted to hold itself to account and it certainly cannot be trusted to reform itself.

The BBC Trust can no longer be the body that is the ultimate arbiter in disputes….it cannot be both BBC cheerleader and chief critic.   Only a completely independent, politically and intellectually diverse body, can hold the BBC truly to account and make it answer for its actions.

It maybe that this body infact needs to be weighted towards the ‘Right’ to balance what is the very difficult problem to solve of Left wing bias within the BC given where it recruits from, the sort of people likely to be attracted to journalism and the dominant culture within the BBC that ensures anyone who goes against the internal cultural ‘stream’ sinks….slow promotion, rubbish jobs and a career reporting from places like Bogota.

Whatever the solution is it is one that needs to be found…and soon….as well as a pair of balls for the politicians who have so far run scared of tackling the all too powerful BBC.

 

 

 

 

 

JIM SURE FIXED IT BUT WHO AIDED HIM?

The BBC stands indicted concerning precisely who knew what and why some did NOTHING during the decades of alleged sex abuse carried out by BBC star and national treasure Jimmy Savile. I don’t know about you but I think this response is utterly inadequate…

“The BBC is to launch two inquiries surrounding sex abuse claims made against Sir Jimmy Savile, director general George Entwistle has announced. The first into why a BBC Newsnight investigation into Savile was shelved last year will start straight away. The other into whether culture and practice at the BBC at the time enabled Savile to carry out the sexual abuse of children will wait for police go-ahead.”

BBC investigating the BBC? No. Not good enough. We need a Judicial led independent enquiry that can challenge evert detail of this horrendous case. There was an interview on Today this morning at 8.29am with Sir Christopher Bland, the former Chairman of BBC Board of Governors. If ever there was a man well named, it is he. His arrogance and scorn for those “conspiracists” – as he calls those who challenge just what went on at the BBC and who knew about it – shone through! Think Justin Webb actually did a good job on him.