This is where you can discuss any BBC-related issue that concerns you! The floor is yours…use it wisely.
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 April 20, 2024 at 2:12 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Seems like the emir of londonistan wants to introduce pay per mile driving in londonistan - a final nail in...
- Thoughtful April 20, 2024 at 2:08 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Funny thing is that it's not the same in Manchester where there are two main Jewish areas and they don't...
- Guest Who April 20, 2024 at 1:49 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Luckily, a new breed is coming. https://x.com/joshxhowie/status/1781618987366822171?s=61 For a joke to work there has to be some truth to it...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:49 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024He would certainly need that gift now, especially if he dared show his face in London at weekends, which is...
- Guest Who April 20, 2024 at 1:47 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024This is actually very damning. https://x.com/nickdixoncomic/status/1781637011519992017?s=61 The BBC finally does a satire. The audience soun...
- Up2snuff April 20, 2024 at 1:47 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Guest, at a guess I would say Mr Fox is refering to the aerial attack on the Twin Towers and...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:42 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024psrty gate party gate party gate week after week after week
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 20, 2024 at 1:38 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Good advice. Same applies to men being attacked by other men - a good kick to the crown jewels for...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 1:37 pm on Weekend 20th April 2024Yes, we saw the post earlier of Labour infesting charities with socialist activists. And, a family with 12 bloody children...
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
John Bosworth.
All good stuff. But I was reading it while listening to the first of this year's Reith Lectures. By a US prof mounting alll sorts of phony arguments against market capitalism. "Market" is a dirty word in his book, it seems.
And of course no mention of the root cause of the financial collapse being Democrat political interference in the housing mortgage market, and then the Dem refusal to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The prof is now droning on about global warming.
….and the invited audience for the Reith Lecture is lapping it all up, tittering at the Prof's inane jibes at market economics.
Time to switch off, methinks
John A
Yes, you have got to the heart of the matter. Although we should be forgetting the difference between the Republican and Democrat Party as the difference is only extremely superficial.
As 8 years of Bush has surly shown even Republicans. 8 years of Reagan should have given us all a clue as to who and what is now completely controlling the Republican Party. Which is EXACTLY the same group of individuals who have controlled The Democrat Party since its inception.
In short
The Democratic Party is in no way democratic.
The Liberal Party is in no way Liberal.
The Labour Party does not ever work in the interests of labour.
The Republican Party does not support the United States republican constitution.
The Conservative Party is not conservative.
Or put it this way.
They are all now, whether they have always been in the past or not, con-jobs, working for exactly the same people.
The Sunday Telegraph headline this:-
The BBC is on a collision course with ministers over plans to be announced to force the corporation to give up some of its £3.6 billion public funding for the first time.
but go on to detail only petty cash amounts
A long-awaited white paper by Lord Carter, the technology minister, is understood to propose "top slicing" of the BBC's budget – using up to £100 million of BBC funding to pay independent companies to make regional news programmes for ITV.
It is also said to recommend taking an extra £30 million – or possibly more – of licence fee money to allow producers to make current affairs documentaries to be viewed either on television or on the internet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5525934/BBC-set-for-battle-with-ministers-over-historic-licence-fee-shake-up.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/06/loathsome-charade.html
Quite how this once respected institution [BBC] manages to get its reporting so skewed, and so wrong, is one of those modern mysteries. But, it is coverage of Iran, it seems to be excelling itself.
-The KINNOCKS -as not reported by BBC:
"Glenys & Neil Kinnock have 6 state pensions" ('Sunday Times'):
"GLENYS KINNOCK, the new minister for Europe, has amassed six publicly funded pensions worth £185,000 per year with her husband Neil, the former leader of the Labour party.
"They have already received up to £8m of taxpayers’ money in pay and allowances, he as a European commissioner and she as a member of the European parliament.
"The pair are already drawing payments from three of their taxpayer-funded pensions. Glenys Kinnock, 64, soon to be elevated to the House of Lords alongside her husband, is collecting a teacher’s pension and from next month is entitled to another from Brussels with an estimated annual value of £48,000.
"Lord Kinnock, 67, is receiving one pension as a former MP and a second for his service in Brussels, together worth more than £112,000."
"Stars are paid twice in secret deals at the BBC."
"Jonathan Ross is among a select group of high-earning presenters who benefit from lucrative arrangements" Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Steven Swinford,
('Sunday Times').
"JONATHAN ROSS is being paid twice for his BBC chat show – by picking up a fee for selling it overseas in addition to his reported £6m-a-year salary.
"His programme premiered on BBC America on Friday with an episode featuring Dustin Hoffman, Hugh Laurie, the star of House, Eric Cantona, the footballer-turned-actor, and Gossip, the US indie rock band.
"Under the deal, BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the corporation, pays the bulk of the fees for the foreign rights to Hot Sauce, Ross’s production company."
('Sunday Times'.)
Is there a low level mole in the BBC Science Department?
On the page, referenced by JasonS 9:14 AM, June 13, 2009 Australians demand climate action there are links to LATEST SCIENCE:
*Climate scenarios 'being realised': The worst-case scenarios on climate change envisaged by the UN two years ago are already being realised, say scientists at an international meeting.
*Changes 'amplify Arctic warming': Scientists say they now have unambiguous evidence that the warming in the Arctic is accelerating.
*This year is coolest since 2000: The world in 2008 has been cooler than at any time since the turn of the century, scientists say.
Oops 😉
Andrew Marr Show. Always worthy of, well, comment…
John Simpson,'Good old-fashioned gumshoe reporter' says: 'I heard shots fired fired… but no one was killed'.
How does he know?
Then Harriet Harman, who says her main mission in life is to arrive at a 50:50 split on women in politics and the Cabinet.
An interesting priority, but one not worthy of any response from the most toothless interviewer (unless reading from certain scripts) on air.
Various people mentioning Carter's report – keep in mind that a bucketful of salt should be used with this report, as Carter is potentially in line for the top job at ITV and is therefore very likely to come up with something that favours ITV.
Marr was on biased form yet again today.
An aggressive interview with Conservative education spokesman Michael Gove contrasted with a gentle interview with Labour's Harriet Harman (a guest at Marr's dinner parties).
The statistics of 10 interrupions against Gove as compared to 7 against Harman (and Bias Coefficients of 2.4 against 2.1) don't do justice to the scale of the bias.
Marr's Gove interview had only 2 topics – SATS tests in primary (54% of the interview) schools & Tory spending cuts (46%).
Marr's Harman interview had 3 topics – reform of MPs expenses (53%), post office privatisation (17%) & women in parliament (30%).
Much of the Harman interview was spent on general, cross-party issues (with PO privatisation & a question about Hazel Blears being the exceptions). The whole of the Gove interview was spent on Tory-specific issues. The questions were much sharper & Marr displayed mock-outrage at one point.
The biggest bias of all, however, was that Marr didn't ask Harman about Labour spending cuts. Not a thing. Zilch. Nada. No balance at all. The only spending cuts under discussion today were Tory spending cuts. Marr is far worse than, say, Humphrys for shameless bias. Humphrys DID challenge Labour too.
Gove even picked up on this, telling Marr, "That's a line straight from the Labour play-book, which I'm sad to hear you repeating".
Sad, but not surprised I bet.
(Grant, Word Verification has just brought up "MISFUST". I certainly misfust Marr and the BBC!)
Labour Minister SHAHID MALIK.
Compare and contrast:
1.)BBC:
"Brown defends Malik return"
(inc. video,BBC 'politcs' page);
2,) 'Mail on Sunday':
"He's a crafty b******, says elderly council tenant who lived in flat Shahid Malik snapped up"
[Extract]:
"Scandal-hit Minister Shahid Malik was branded a ‘crafty b*****’ after new allegations concerning his use of Commons expenses were disclosed last night.
"He was reappointed to the Government last week, as Communities Minister, after an inquiry cleared him of any wrong-doing over the discounted rent he pays on his constituency home.
But Gordon Brown’s judgment in restoring the former Justice Minister so swiftly is set to be questioned after a 'Mail on Sunday' investigation uncovered allegations that Mr Malik:
-Allowed three of his brothers to use his taxpayer-funded second home in London as student digs.
-Tried to buy his flat at a knockdown price from the elderly council tenant who lived there.
-Is refusing to release papers to allow a heavily pregnant neighbour to move to her new home.
Also, Mr Malik paid his father Rafique £7,000-a-year from his Commons expenses to work as an assistant in his constituency in Dewsbury, Yorkshire.
"Mr Malik came under further pressure as some constituents launched a petition to try to have him deselected.
"Since becoming an MP in 2005, Mr Malik has claimed the maximum £66,827 expenses on his flat in Peckham, South London. It includes £2,600 for a home cinema system, £65 for a court summons for not paying council tax, £730 on a massage chair, £671 for a fireplace and £510 for a fitted wardrobe."
The Beeb's Latino hero has showed his true colours again (Telegraph):
Among the first to telephone to congratulate him (Ahmadinejad) was the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, a fellow scourge of the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8099408.stm
Beeb big up Krugman who is (a) a democrat and (b) loves socialism. Oh and gets it wrong on many occasions! Funny how they forgot to mention that when they were trying to show how Brown has saved us all. (Despite dropping us in it in the first place!)
I hope I am not linking to a link someone else may have made.
"BBC radio programme Costing the Earth was recently broadcast claiming that the Cartaret Islands were being submerged by rising sea levels. This claim just does not fit the evidence, however. While there is no doubt that the islands are suffering by inundations of sea water, the reason for this is because the islands are SINKING as they sit on top of a subduction zone. Sea level monitoring records on either side of the islands show clearly that there has been no rise in sea level."
http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2009/05/propaganda-and-deceit.html
Junior presenters revolt over plans to cut their pay by 40%
The BBC’s lower-paid stars are to ambush the Corporation’s top executives over plans to cut their pay by up to 40 per cent.
Junior presenters are said to be ‘furious’ that director-general Mark Thompson is asking them to take a pay cut while executives keep salaries of up to £500,000.
BBC, we practice what we preach.
Conflict of interest row as BBC news stars charge £5,000 a day to speak at NHS events.
George R @ 8:57 AM
That's exactly what I was talking about.
fewqwer @ 3:00 PM,
Sarah Montague is listed as a "freelancer"? What kind of legal dodge is that?
BBC (11 June):
"Three guilty of Kinsella murder".
(BBC 'England' page.)
'Sunday Times':
"Ben’s murder was not racist – just a matter of statistics"
by Rod Liddle.
[Extract]:
"Perhaps it will come as a vague consolation to the parents of Ben Kinsella that he was not murdered for racial reasons, but simply because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, as they say. Ben, aged 16, who was white, was stabbed to death by three black men near a nightclub in north London; there was no apparent motive for the murder.
"If you were a cynic you might argue that if a black kid had been stabbed to death by three white men in an otherwise motiveless attack then the community centre would already have been built by now and the grieving parents recognised in the honours lists.
"It is good that we are quick to become enraged by violent white racism, that it appals us and makes us examine our society, claw away in an attempt to discover those subterranean causes. But what of this, apparently, non-racist murder? Just as much brutal honesty is required to confront it, I think. Maybe more.
"The truth is, violent white-on-black crime is a rarity in Britain, by comparison – although white-on-Asian crime is rather less so. The overwhelming bulk of violent street crime in London is committed by young black men, and in numerous cases against white people, although one would not impute a racial motive;" (Rod Liddle.)
*****
How would the BBC report the murder of a black man by three white men, in comparison?
Good old BBC, dutifully reproducing press releases from the White House:
Obama outlines healthcare savings
All happy White House propaganda, never an opposing voice, never a questioning glance from one of the legion of US BBC correspondents.
Here's what the BBC doesn't want you to know about His plan to cut payments to doctors and drug companies, instead of slashing the bureaucratic waste:
Note to Medicaid Patients: The Doctor Won't See You
The BBC reproduces the President's pledge to halve the budget deficit he inherited from Bush. As usual, none of this is His fault, He has come among us to redeem us.
Here's what the BBC doesn't want you to know:
Seeing red: America's debt is Barack Obama's biggest weakness
Bad as the deficit was under Mr Bush, it will quadruple this year, from $459 billion in 2008 to $1.845 trillion (from 3.2% of GDP to 13.1%), according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Mr Obama vows to slash it in half within four years, but that will still leave it bigger than the deficits for which he once lashed Mr Bush. His aides hint that he will get tough when the time is right, but he is reluctant to break campaign promises of tax cuts for all but the rich just yet. The CBO reckons the deficit will still be running at more than $1 trillion a year in 2019.
That's right. Things will get worse in The Obamessianic Age, not better.
Of course, regarding this wonderful healthcare plane, once again it's not really His plan, but something he let the House Democrats create. No prizes for guessing how that's oging ot turn out:
House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes
This is why my fellow citizens are still protesting, and and protesting, and protesting all over the country.
But the BBC doesn't want you to know any of that. Not only must they spread His Word at all costs, but they don't want you to get any ideas about sorting out your own situation.
Contrary to the insults and lies the BBC fed you the one time they dared to report on one fraction of the story, we're not just barking in the dark.
But never mind. The BBC will continue to faithfully spread His Word, and you'll all be none the wiser. Any objection you might hear about will be from an extreme right-wing nut with no who hated the President anyway, with no reason or logic behind his position.
The lazy defender of the indefensible will probably say something about how it isn't the BBC's job to provide analysis of the nuances of US policy debates. But then, why is it okay for the official state broadcaster of the UK to act as a mouthpiece for a foreign leader?
Unnecessary reminder to BBC:
'BBC, ignore this report about some British Islamic jihadists killing British troops, and instead, keep telling us how egregious the BNP is':
'Mail' (14 June)
"Soldiers find 'Brummie' Afghan fighter they'd shot had Aston Villa tattoo"
[Extract]:
"Army top brass fear the Taliban is recruiting Brummie Muslims to fight in Afghanistan after a dead insurgent was found – with an Aston Villa FC tattoo.
"Military spies have also reported hearing Taliban fighters talking with distinctive Birmingham accents over the airwaves.
"A senior military source said: 'It's been well-known for some time among soldiers in Afghanistan that at least one Aston Villa fan was fighting for the Taliban.
"'A body of one of the men was found to have an AVFC tattoo on it.
'We've known for a long time that foreign fighters, many with thick Birmingham accents, have been recruited to fight against us for the Taliban.
"'Some of the linguistics specialists have picked up West Midland and Manchester accents too.'"
Look into any corner of the BBC's political coverage & it seems that you'll find bias.
The Welsh have a political programme called 'Dragon's Eye' (available nationwide on the BBC Parliament Channel, Sunday) & its host, Adrian Masters, conducted 2 interviews this week.
The first was a respectful one with potential Welsh first minister, Carwyn Jones (Labour). Lasting just over 6 minutes this interview contained only 3 interruptions (and had a moderate Bias Coefficient of 2.6).
The second was an aggressive one with Conservative assembly backbencher Jonathan Morgan. This lasted 4 minutes and contained 9 interruptions (and had a huge Bias Coefficient of 5.6).
The 'Politics Show: Scotland' shows a similar trend to its Welsh counterpart.
Here are the Bias Coefficients for this week's programme (the higher the figure, the tougher the interview):
Bill Aitken, Conservative 5.2
Kenny MacAskill, SNP 3.5
Wendy Alexander, Labour 2.3
Richard Baker, Labour 1.3
Poor Mr Aitken spoke for less than 3 minutes and was interrupted by the presenter, Glenn Campbell, 5 times.
In contrast useless former Scottish Labour leader, wee Dougie's sister Wendy, was interrupted the same number of times in an interview that lasted just over 8 minutes.
Seems a little unfair!
There were no Lib Dems on this programme.
These bias coefficients are a great innovation. Can anyone think of a way of publicising this idea, spreading the word. A league table of presenter bias could be produced and monthly prizes awarded…
BBC: "From 1 July people will be told how much time and how much money MPs get from second jobs….The plan has been seen as an attempt to embarrass the Conservatives – it means all MPs have to register more details of their outside earning"
So, stealing lying and cheating claiming phoney expenses tax-free, will be balanced by information on income from earning and working which is taxed. Second jobs will be compared with second homes. Oh McBride has gone has he? No doubt Kevin Maguire will have the full story for weeks a la Telegraph.
Scum. Labours promised end to spin? No, just a foot on the accelerator.
Like liar Gordon Brown announcing proposed Conservative expenditure cuts, while he is "investing". So spending money you haven't got in things that have no return is "investment?" Where did he learn that, dear "Prudence"?
The subtle skewing of news continues. Examine these stories:
A government plan to boost electric cars: “The car industry as a whole welcomed the plan.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8001254.stm
A smoking ban by the government: “Several areas of the action plan, welcomed by anti-smoking group Ash Scotland, will need to be taken forward with support from the UK Government.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7412509.stm
However here’s a Conservative plan announced yesterday: “Conservative proposals to reform Sats tests would be a "huge step backwards" for school accountability, Schools Minister Vernon Coaker has said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8099705.stm
In each story of Labour plans a positive spin is given. But the Conservatives plan is slammed – and by whom? A Labour Minister! That’s fair, then.
The BBC has been playing up one of Netanyahu's conditions for Palestinian statehood i.e. disarmament but obscuring the second i.e. recognition of Israel as the Jewish state. It's there in the coverage but given nowhere near the prominence.
I can't understand why.
Interesting blog article about the BBC reporting of thousands of Climate protesters in Australia:
"BBC And Climate: News Before Things Happen?"
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/bbc-and-climate-news-before-things-happen/
Conclusion:
"In summary, BBC’s Phil Mercer’s “news” article has likely been pre-packaged with an “informed guess” using activists’ own estimates made long before any demonstration had taken place."
BBC report:
"EU's Solana meets Hezbollah in Beirut"
[Extract]:
"Hezbollah is regarded by the United States as a terrorist group.
"The EU has previously rejected public contacts with Hezbollah, which also controls Lebanon's most powerful military force.
"But Mr Solana said: 'Hezbollah is part of political life in Lebanon and is represented in the Lebanese parliament.
"Mr Hajj Hassan described the meeting with Mr Solana as a 'goodwill gesture from the European Union towards Hezbollah.'
"He said it was an attempt by the EU to 'get to know' Hezbollah.
"Britain said earlier this year it favoured re-establishing links with Hezbollah's political wing."
SO, the EU and the sycophantic British Labour government, pump up their friendship with Islamic jihad Hezbollah, as part of the EU's ongoing Eurabia project.
Incidentally, will the EU/Labour apply their pro- Hezbollah line to the BNP too?:
Are the EU,Labour (and the BBC)to give preferential treatment to Hezbollah, relative to the treatment given to the BNP? Or will there be an annoucement on these lines?:
(HYPOTHETICAL):
" Mr Solana said: 'The BNP is part of political life in the EU and is represented in the European parliament."
"Britain said earlier this year it favoured re-establishing links with BNP's political wing."
Deegee,
I think Barry has been played, and played well by Benji.
Benji realises that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state AND disarm…so when selling the idea to his hard right support he probably told them "we have been in this game for neigh on 20 years, do you really think anything is going to change in the next 4 years before we get a friendly republican president back in the White House?".
So now the ball is back in Barry's court. Will be support Israel and demand Palestinians disarm and recognise Israel as a Jewish state or will he continue to actively work against the security of Israel?
Mailman
This all just shows how stupid – as well as inaccurate historically – Obama's Cairo speech was. Several times in the past week I have heard people on the BBC say it was an epic speech. Yes it was – epically long, pusillanimous and leading nowhere.
So much for Obama's "smart diplomacy". He might even be worse than Carter.
Careful John, you cimmitting heresy there! 🙂
Mailman
Interesting article on the labour governments relentless attack on Christian religious beliefs;
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000563.shtml
Of course this is all part of Labours larger plan isnt it. Remove the christian identity but do nothing about islamic terrorism within our own borders.
Mailman
This link is to a useful summary of 30 years history of Iran under the Mullahs. They have presided over a regime that is evil to its own people – and they pose an ever-increasing international danger.
THAT is the folly of Obama's Cairo speech and his policies of appeasement. He and Hillary Clinton should be shouting to the world that the Iranian election was a fraud – they are too spineless to even do that.
http://www.tinyurl.com/lob6wk
or
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKelley/2009/06/12/the_mullahs_iran_enemy_number_1
Jeremy Vine. What a cock. He summarizes the attitude at the BBC in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8100135.stm
To quote Jeremy from the article:
"Duran Duran's most famous line: "Her name is Rio and she dances on the sand," seemed to translate as: "I've made a lot of cash under Thatcher and now I'm going to splash it out on a bird whose bikini is falling off."
The BBC is not only faithfully relaying White House press releases to the British public, but now gives advance statements about speeches He hasn't given yet.
Obama to lobby doctors on reforms
In his speech to the AMA, President Obama will make his case for "a health insurance exchange where private plans compete with a public option that drives down costs and expands choice," a senior administration official was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying
The vaunted BBC has stooped to the level of of copying from Reuters just to pad out what is essentially a White House press release.
The rest of the piece is just an abridged version of yesterday's OBC (Obamessiah Broadcasting Corporation) press release.
They even include the same grossly misleading figures about how much the US spends on health care, yet "15% have no medical cover".
This is so close to just being a lie it's pathetic. The amount we spend on health care is on private care, for both businesses and individuals. Anyone without private insurance gets free medical care provided by the government, funded by the taxpayer. So to present that 15% as somehow being left uncovered even though we're spending all that other money is basically BS.
Either the Beeboids really don't understand that, or they do and they deliberately lie to support both the idea of socialized health care and – perhaps even more importantly – to support their beloved Obamessiah.
Film company films. Why is this a story?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/8097083.stm
BBC Editors' Blog "Stop the Blocking" has loads of Blocked posts
You couldn't make it up
Of course, the above is lost on the BBC.
Matt Frei's latest "Americana" broadcast is as biased as the first installment.
Frei covers two big issues. First is the possibly looming bankruptcy and bailout of the state of California. He mocks the "Aaahnold" accent, and the fact that the Governor is currently struggling. Of course, this could be due to a possible bias against Austrians and not Republicans. In any case, Matt Frei never mocks Democrats, as his broadcast record will show.
He has on two women from California to discuss the economic situation. One is an LA Times columnist and radio host, the other is a Leftoid academic from USC. They both approach the issue from the Left, one of them from the Far Left. The columnist is a bit more reasonable, understanding that the state legislature has been screwed for years.
The more extreme academic explained that California is divided into two camps: affluent, Conservative white people in one segment and poor minorities in the other. Yes, this is the kind of profound sociological insight being taught at US universities these days. The tragic victims here, she says, are those poor, less educated minorities who rely on the front line public services that will of course be the first and only thing to go. The overall point is gloom and doom. Cuts in public services are inevitable, yes, but according to these two it will be only front line services on which the poor minorities desperately need. Even the more sensible woman says, "People will die!" Does that sound familiar to anyone?
She says that the only way any real action will be taken to save the state is when those rich white people "who fund through taxes – in their own perspective – for services that that other California needs" feel the pinch. So it's only blinkered opinion that their tax dollars pay for public services? Frei Boy leaves that unchallenged, of course – that's why she's on the show in the first place.
Then it's off to Iowa. It's one of three states whose legislature has legalized gay marriage. Why, there are even people there who want to cash in on the gay wedding industry. Frei points out that The Obamessiah had his first election campaign victory there, but does not mention that He has taken positions against gay marriage, as that wouldn't fit the Narrative.
Frei informs us that happy, multicultural Iowa was disturbed last year when a kosher meat-packing plant was busted for hiring a bunch of illegal immigrants. Notice that the Narrative here isn't about legal versus illegal. No, Frei Boy portrays this as a happy melting pot being disrupted by anti-multicultural forces. This is a false premise, and the same one used by the far Left in the US and the BBC management who changed their editorial policy to replace "immigrant" with "migrant", and to sweep the "illegal" bit under the rug. This denies the very essence of the issue and re-defines it on their terms. Does that Narrative sound familiar to anyone?
It gets worse from there, but I have to split this into two comments. The rest follows below:
Gosh, apparently losing one third of a small town's workforce can be devastating. Today the lovely people of this small Iowa town held a ceremony to remember these poor victims. First vox pops is an illegal Guatemalan woman speaking in Spanish about how the nasty Feds broke up her family and made her fear for her children because her husband was working illegally and brought them here illegally.
Once again this twists the issue on its head. The focus exclusively on the harm that nasty anti-ILLEGAL-immigration policies have on poor families. Nobody ever mentions that the real harm might have been done by the father placing his family in an illegal situation in the first place. Yes, they were breaking the law, the Beeboid in Iowa, David Willis allows, but the advocate he speaks to basically says that the US citizens aren't rushing in to take those jobs, so we need the illegals. Does that sound familiar? They had no choice but to come here illegally, she says, and we did them wrong.
Now we hear about how the town itself is falling apart due to the nasty crackdown on illegal immigration. Never mind that the company is at fault for breaking the law. It's the fault of the law and nasty white people.
Naturally, when our intrepid junior Beeboid in Iowa finds a woman who is against illegal immigration – "They took our jobs!" – he challenges her at every turn, while he let the advocate speak with no questions asked.
After this, Matt Frei has another pro-illegal immigration advocate on the phone, who says that everybody in Iowa was sympathetic towards the illegal workers.
Frei asks her if, because Iowa is mostly white, does that make them more open, or more against immigration. It's a racialist question. If anyone guessed that her response would be that it's mostly that stupid white people are afraid that all these brown-skinned people would come in and overwhelm their culture, move to the head of the class.
Then Frei leads his guest through an explanation of how Iowa is actually the most progressive state in the country, and has always been "on the cutting edge" of Liberalism, even lying about Iowa being the first state to ban slavery.
Rhode Island abolished slavery in 1774. Oh, wait. Since that's before the Declaration of Independence, it doesn't count. Vermont is the first after 1776 to abolish slavery – in 1777. Iowa became a state in 1846 as a free state. It never had slavery to abolish. No lie is too big or too small when it comes to promoting the BBC Narrative, eh, Matt? Don't trust the BBC on US issues.
Next it's on to the racialist Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sotomayor. It's a puff piece: she'll be the first Hispanic, first diabetic, and third woman.
Frei ends his broadcast with a fluff piece about Judge Sotomayor and Nancy Drew.
It's all vomit-inducing and somewhat dishonest.