to joke about assasinating Bush. This clip gets to ‘kill Bush’ stuff about 3 minutes into the broadcast. (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
The BBC thinks it’s funny
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- JohnC April 19, 2024 at 2:10 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Never underestimate the power of group-think, especially among the weak. Just look at Islam. A ridiculous, stone-age religion followed so...
- JohnC April 19, 2024 at 2:06 am on Midweek 17th April 2024It's been my observation that when the Left accuse the BBC of being biased to the Right, they actually mean...
- Zelazek April 19, 2024 at 2:05 am on Midweek 17th April 2024I never liked the look of Peter Murrell. He always reminded me of Dunblane massacre killer Thomas Hamilton. One wonders...
- StewGreen April 19, 2024 at 12:28 am on Midweek 17th April 2024It seems about 85% of the Quote Tweets say the BBC is biased to the left
- pugnazious April 19, 2024 at 12:20 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Streets of London are unsafe for Jews because of the hate marches...even the police admit this now...... 'Shocking moment police...
- pugnazious April 19, 2024 at 12:18 am on Midweek 17th April 2024The racist...... 'The son of an elderly man who was doused in petrol and set alight near a mosque has...
- StewGreen April 19, 2024 at 12:07 am on Midweek 17th April 2024Well Martin Lewis cultivates the same Guardianland folk the BBC does Hence the wonky poll result [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GL...
- digg April 18, 2024 at 11:52 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024The illegal immigrant issue, small boats etc could be solved by a simple EU directive that made it mandatory that...
- digg April 18, 2024 at 11:40 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024The trump trial will come to symbolise the attempt by the left to gain total control of first the US...
- digg April 18, 2024 at 11:37 pm on Midweek 17th April 2024Watching bbc question time… every left wing blather from audience = bollox but applauded, every Conservative response is ridiculed… There...
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
arrgh! should’ve known…
i was nearly sick when i heard that the assasination-call issued forth from the mouth of that hook-nosed marxist, non-comedian, Jeremy Hardy.
i hate that snidey, unfunny twat with a passion.
if i have to hear another tedious, self-congratulatory bush/blair/iraq “jibe” from any of the multitude of overexposed lefty f*ck-faces on any number of sneery BBC panel-games, …i will feel seriously ill
Is that the same “comedian” who said he wanted to shoot BNP members in the back?
Kilroy-Silk is beginning to look better and better to me right now.
Christ, is the BBC seriously sick or what?
some people think it’s funny to joke about the fact that neocons ensured Bush’s “election” and subsequent “reelction” by rigging voting machines, scrubing legitimate voters from voting roles, and throwing out absentee ballots. in other countries we call it a coup d’etat, but in America we call it a democracy.
congrats for giving that address…it was funny ,he even suggested shooting a future king and queen of england(…err britain)
clever word play and they did call bush all sorts of bad things but then said that Kerry couldnt even overcome those plusses for his side..
Yawn. Surely the ‘selected not elected’ BS isn’t going to fly for another 4 years? If you want to see electioneering American Soldier look at the Democrats actions in the recent election. Hilariously desperate. It would be funny were it not so illegal.
If there were *any* substance at all to ‘American Soldier’s’ accusation the Democrats would be trumpeting it from the housetops and Kerry would be doing a Gore demanding recounts and investigations and what-not.
Off topic.
Why did you vote for Bush?
Usually on Have Your Say, the editors are trolling for worn out cliches and conspiracy theories. The Have Your Say above is so out of character, I’m a little bit baffled.
I assume they read the BS in the US press about Bush winning on “moral values” and assumed that “moral values” = “homophobia.” If they were trolling for Bible-thumpers and gay-bashers, they were disappointed.
The only “froth-at-the-mouth” comments were sarcastic anti-Bush postings. These were so totally out of place that it made the editors look like idiots for letting them through…
Indeed why post anti-Bush comments in a thread entitled: “Why did you vote for Bush”? It’s like they couldn’t stand to have people answer their own question.
Anyone listened to this morning’s Radio 5 Live phone in? I think it was the most appalling edition of this brain-lite programme I have ever heard. I’m afraid it made my blood boil. I suppose I should have rung in myself, but why are these programmes always dominated by the anti-war/anti-American left?
A series of stop-the-war coalition agitators rang in with the same old delusions and anti-American bile. The terrorist head-hackers were lionised by more than one caller. Flabbergasting stuff. The presenter, Victoria Derbyshire, allowed silly statement after silly statement to pass without challenge. And to top it all, the last word was left for Lindsey German, that “staunch supporter” of democratic principles. It is no wonder that the BBC thinks that the general public thinks the same.
Eamonn
Was Lindsey German in the studio? If so the BBC has completely fallen off the edge.
Yes I heard that. The presenter referred to the Falluja terrorists as ‘resistance fighters’
I used to work with an old Persian man, he swore that propaganda on the BBC world service was responsible for the Islamic Revolution. It really wouldn’t suprise me at all if he was telling the truth.
Did you know that the BBC trained Al Jazeera producers, editors and correspondants when it first began? What the hell is going on?
…and Al Jazeera is now the only independent media outlet in the middle east, with extremely impressive journalistic values. If it’s not overwhelmingly supportive of the Iraqi occupation it’s only expressing a view shared by its viewers.
Maybe we should show the Arabs the wonders of freedom and democracy by forcibly taking it over and turning it into a Bush love in?
Also, I think you’ll find that the Islamic revolution in Iran came about because the former Western backed leaders were abysmal, rather than because of the BBC.
..and now the current Islamist Iranian leaders are abysmal and unpopular. Go figure.
“If it’s not overwhelmingly supportive of the Iraqi occupation it’s only expressing a view shared by its viewers.”
Call me a reactionary, but what happened to the simple art of reporting facts? Keane, tell me something: you know that Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting the videos of infidels having their heads hacked off by ‘militants’, yes? Do you know the name ‘Fabrizio Quatrocchi’? He was executed by the ‘resistance’ too. However before they could shoot him in the back of the head he destroyed their snuff film …
con’t …
He managed to pull his hood off and declare
“I’ll show you how an Italian dies!”
Al-Jazeera didn’t broadcast that video. They refused to. Why ever not? They broadcast all of those others showing infidels as pathetic wrecks pleading for their lives. When one shows defiance in the moment before death … nothing.
Why is that, do you think?
Great from, BBC:
‘Watching tragedy engulf my city’
‘http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3996111.stm’
The journalist in Falluja ‘who reports for the BBC World Service in Arabic’ (no wonder they all hate us!) runs through much of the Standard List of American Atrocities, such as hitting mosques, medical facilities etc.
I’m awaiting an update telling us that a baby milk factory and a wedding were hit.
And why is ‘tragedy engulfing’ his city? Because foreign mercenaries and Baathist die-hards have elected to use it as their headquarters. Presumably this journalist would much rather the ‘insurgents’ were left in peace to go on killing dozens of Iraqis for every American.
Probably for the same reason that Fox refers to ‘homicide bombers’ and the ‘disputed territories’. Al-Jazeera doesn’t have the public service obligations of the BBC – it’s not an impartial national broadcaster and it has a target audience which it needs to pamper, just like any of the pro war US networks.
Also, I think you’ll find that the Islamic revolution in Iran came about because the former Western backed leaders were abysmal, rather than because of the BBC.
Keano,
I’ve known a few expat Persians who blame the World Service for demonising the Shah and helping to give a mandate to the mullahs to take over. They are quite skeptical of BBC reporting on anything.
At the end of the day the mullahs were much better mass murderers…They managed to execute more people in one day than the Shah did in his whole abysmal career. Impressive.
Keano- Humour me, name the pro-war US networks.
I have no doubt that unless you’re a rabid Islamicist the Shah might now look preferable to the current Iranian government, but if the Shah was crap (which he was) surely the BBC was right to criticise.
Should the BBC refrain from all criticism of Labour on the basis that if they ‘demonise’ them too much the Conservatives might get in?
Andrew:
http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_assets_owned_by_general_electric.html
Conflict of interest at the very least…
NBC? They’ve hardly been pro-bush. CBS has been the most partisan network (against Bush).
What about Murdoch?
http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/print.php?story=03/04/07/8503785
Murdoch supports Bush and the Republicans, no shock there. He supports the winners basically (ie Thatcher and Blair).
I honestly fail to see what the big deal is, most media groups are anti-republican, anti-right. It seems odd to highlight one of the few pro-bush organisations when it’s in the minority. The BBC for example has a clear slant to the left, and it’s a national broadcaster! Webpages such as these are there for people to express their discontent at this situation. Private broadcasters can to an extent do what they want (I take exception to the outright lies from CBS over the election campaign) but the BBC simply should not be permitted to express such a clear bias and subscription to a wide ranging but clear agenda.
Andrew: Okay, if we talk about the UK only, I would say that the following television news channels/programmes ‘slant’ to the following political directions.
BBC = Left
ITN (ITV) = Right
ITN (Channel 4, my personal favourite) = Centre (quite critical of war etc. but always highly factual not opinion led, always gets both points of view)
Channel 5 = Right, very tabloid-y
Sky News = Centre, but certain issues (Murdoch’s proposed takeover of Man U comes to mind) Right.
Would you agree?
IMO the overwhelming tendency for the broadcast media is to reflect luvvie Islington left wing opinions; there may be a few outposts of right wing capitalism in ITV but the both the BBC and Channel 4 appear to pretty much reflect a left wing / progressive and certainly anti-conservative view of the world.
Of course the BBC is the worst offender as revealed by examples on this site. We need objective independent TV and radio stations which are not constantly trying to prosyletise the audience with their trendy and damaging views.
I think you’re being far too generous to Channel 4 ghost. Jon Snow’s personal views are hardly a secret and they certainly taint his output. If anything I’d consider C4 news further to the left than the BBC. The difference is C4 news isn’t on all the time, unlike BBC output. Also it isn’t a ‘proper’ public broadcaster unlike the Beeb therefore IMO it’s allowed an editorial/opinion. I have the choice not to watch it after all.
The BBC on the other hand is paid for by everyone and shouldn’t be permitted opinion/editorial. I want ‘The Metro’ not ‘The Guardian’.
At present the BBC skews opinion. If it stuck more rigidly to the facts of any situation the bias of all other media would be clearer. Because of where the BBC is on the left-right spectrum any media aiming to be of the centre would appear to the right. Its my opinion that many fall for this fallacy. ITN News is one example of this.
Not that I’m defending the BBC which should be far more objective, but in a free(ish) market the privately owned media has to reflect the politics of its viewers in order to keep viewing figures up and ad rates high. The vast majority of the population doesn’t watch TV news. Those who do tend to be well educated, affluent employees with a strong interest in current affairs (check out the TGI).
Currently those demographics tend towards the economically centrist and socially liberal in comparison with the population as a whole, which is reflected in TV news coverage. It would be interesting to see if an overtly right wing news station could find a niche market though.
Clearly it’s suicidal for anything other than a very niche British media outlet to present the US administration in a flattering light on the basis that everybody hates them. Even the Sun tiptoes around direct praise despite it’s unceasing support for ‘America’.
I wonder how much people’s world views are influenced by organisations such as the BBC. The ‘chattering classes’ view on the Middle East, Israel in particular, is ill-informed and skewered, exactly like BBC coverage on the region. I wonder whether this is cause or effect.
Andrew: Point taken about C4 news but it’s certainly more in-depth than BBC news (poss. because it’s 35 mins. longer?). I guess what I’m getting at was that the BBC does provide balance against the other news programmes. Even if we score C4 to the left it leaves 2 lefties, 2 righties, and one centre-y (?). Now (hypothetical time..) if we assume the Beeb didn’t exist and all the current channels existed in their current state, and you’ve just bought the licence for channel 1+2, where would you pitch your news programme output? From a commercial point of view, pitching it to the left would seem the most viable option. I know that’s not taking in account the BBC’s history, but from what I’ve read about Reith etc, they seem very conservative chaps. Could it not be possible that the opening of the free market to broadcast television has actually pushed the BBC to the (further?) to the left? Just thinking out loud here…
Rich
“Currently those demographics tend towards the economically centrist and socially liberal in comparison with the population as a whole …”
I assume here you are saying that the majority of the population socially liberal. I disagree. Very much a minority of the nation is in my opinion. The description certainly applies to alot of London, the epicentre of left-wing elitism and cultural correctness but not for the rest of the nation. One of the advantages of spending alot of time away from London is the opportunity for an insight into the rest of the country. It is predominantly conservative.
redken
My take on your table:
BBC = Left
ITN (ITV) = Centre left
Channel 4 = Left
Channel 5 = Who knows? It lasts for 5 minutes so a conclusion is difficult to come by
Sky News = Centre left
So, we’re agreed then that its 4 to the left and one to be ignored. I tend to watch Sky and BBC News 24. This is simply a preference for watching the news in my time and not having to wait for it. I can tell you that Sky News is absolutely not in the centre.
The (ahem) ‘chattering classes’ view of the Isreali situation is skewed in that they tend to focus on the poor little downtrodden Arab underdogs whilst conveniently ignoring that their poverty is largely down to their own abysmal and corrupt leadership.
Having said that the more you read about the history of the region the more you appreciate that the Arabs have justifiable reasons to be pissed off with Israel beyond naked anti-Jewish prejudice. Right wingers can be equally ill informed in (rightly) defending Israels right to defend itself strongly against suicide bombers but without fully understanding the dubious nature of the positions that they are ultimately defending.
Pete,
Not saying that. I’m saying that the pretty small minority of the population who watches TV news is more likely that the average to be socially liberal.
There is a correlation between those with a better education (who are more likely to be interested in current affairs and watch the news) and the more socially liberal. This may well be that they (we??) think themselves up their own backsides or that they have the spending power to remove themselves from most people’s real life, but in any case it’s there.
I’m not trying to defend Israel to the hilt but a quick analysis of history illustrates that the root for the hatred of Israel is simply a convenient excuse for terror and anti-semitism. The lands ofIsrael have been Jewish since the dawn of civilization and the current refugee crisis was the product of one of the many Arab efforts to destroy the Jewish state.
At this present time, as long as the ‘right of return’ is taken seriously as a condition for peace (read the intentional demographic destruction of the Israel) then there will be no peace. Despite the fact there is clearly no one to talk to on the Palestinian side, Israel still takes all the flack which is simply unjustified.
contd…
The other night on Hard Talk on News 24, a Hamas spokesman was interviewed and it should really strike home how irrational these people are. They occasionally talk the talk of peace but it doesn’t take much to realise what their intentions are, you can simply ask them. At the moment it’s democracy versus tyranny and irrationality in the Middle East and it’s absurd that Europe seems to have sided with tyranny.
As with any historical event there’s a range of interpretations of which yours is as valid as any. To say that the ‘land of Israel has been Jewish since the dawn of civilisation’ is manifestly incorrect since Jews were a smallish minority in Palestine until organised immigration efforts in the late 19th century. Also the Jewish state originally envisaged by the British (which in itself bears analysis in the context of unjustifable meddling by a colonial power) was partly extended through Jewish terrorism. Some fuel there for hatreds beyond bog standard anti-semitism perhaps?
In any case, the sad thing is that the BBC and other media outlets rarely give historical context of any perspective in between their ‘evil Israelis killed a Palestinian baby’ or ‘evil suicide bombers killed dozens on a bus’ shock horror reporting.
Why were they a small minority? Persecution by Muslim’s perhaps? Lest we forget Islam is a very young religion and was spread through military conquest. The very term Palestinian was the Roman term for the Jews.
Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people since forever: fact.
Rich
I’ll go along with your point that most of the audience for tv news is socially liberal (actually I’m not so sure but let’s see …) Even so, the fact remains that the BBC is obliged by its Charter to be impartial. Because its protected from the free market it is free to be impartial and ignore the views of a (possible) majority.
And shouldn’t that be “downtrodden, desperate Palestinian activist blows up bus: dozens of Jewish children caught in blast”?
‘Forever’ is perhaps an exageration, the Jewish people haven’t been around forever – just four or five thousand years.
However it is true that there was a Jewish state in what is present day Israel from c. 1100 BCE to 135 CE and Jews continued to live in the territory of their former nation under oppressive foreign rule from the second century to the twentieth.
Given that Islam has existed only since the 6th century CE, and that assorted Islamic states have controlled the territory of Israel only since the 7th century – give or take – it is pretty clear who has historical priority here.
Presumably on that basis should the pagans make a come back we’d all better pack our bags, not to mention neanderthal man. Come to think of it I think I’ve seen a few in the pub recently….
I think we’ve collectively proved that there is no watertight way of determining ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (hence the conflict). My point is that unless the media provides historical background it all ends up with hysterically ill informed imbeciles using the issue as a banner for their extremist politics.
My point is that the Palestinians cannot exclusively claim precedence over the land of Israel nor can honestly complain when ousted militarily (of course this is a generalisation, most Palestinians who fled what would become occupied Jordan did so after being told by the Egyptians they would be slaughtered by advancing Israeli forces. Those that remained are equal and doing quite fine) given their presence in the region was entirely down to a previous military conquest.
Another beef I have is the role of the Arab League in this. I’ll be blunt, if the Arabs truly cared about the fate of the Palestinians they could have avoided this situation altogether but they chose not to. Israel didn’t choose to enter this situation, the Arab League did, I feel this is the main distiction which is completely ignored in the historical context so lacking from the BBC.
To be honest (and going against some of my more idealistic principles) if the British had had the balls to force the Arabs and Jews at gunpoint into the nicely defined areas drawn up under the 1937 Royal Commission it would probably all have settled down by now and we’d be spared the sight of Israeli and Palestinian flags being waved at Rangers v Celtic matches in Glasgow. But lets just agree that the BBC coverage is crap.
The Israelis wouldn’t have had to be forced. It was the Palestinians who rejected the admittedly odd patchwork dual state proposed by you Brits and the UN -which to be honest was probably unworkable anyway.
Rich:
“I think we’ve collectively proved that there is no watertight way of determining ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (hence the conflict).”
What absolute bollocks.
“if the British had had the balls to force the Arabs and Jews at gunpoint into the nicely defined areas drawn up under the 1937 Royal Commission it would probably all have settled down by now …”
More bollocks. The situation is simple: if the Palestinians lay down their arms they will have their homeland and peace, if Israel lays down its arms the Jewish people will be exterminated. Contrary to the opinions of some, this issue throws into light stark choices between right and wrong. Israel wants peace with its neighbours, its neighbours will accept nothing less than the destruction of Israel.
Rich, or anyone else who cares, you are welcme to go here and refute any facts:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
A particular insight into the nature of the ‘peace-loving’ Palestinians can be found here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html