New week dawns, new open thread opens!
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate April 25, 2024 at 3:17 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Well done to the new Slovakian Government which the BBC absolutely hates for abolishing the national broadcaster RTVS for political...
- JohnC April 25, 2024 at 2:30 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Seven teens with alleged 'extremist ideology' arrested in Sydney raids https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68887448 WTF is going on in ...
- JohnC April 25, 2024 at 1:59 am on Midweek 24th April 2024The BBC would call that high-spirited and vibrant multiculturalism. We have to wait until their own middle-class neighbourhoods get infested...
- JohnC April 25, 2024 at 1:57 am on Midweek 24th April 2024And I will guarantee you that none of those will be accusing BAME of racism against whites. They've even changed...
- Lucy Pevensey April 24, 2024 at 11:59 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024https://twitter.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1783235207719448909
- tomo April 24, 2024 at 11:49 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Do they share a kitchen + toilet with the Hope Not Hate gang?
- tomo April 24, 2024 at 11:47 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Local Green + Labour councillors go after Israeli Elbit company in Bristol.... A soft write up by a fellow traveller...
- Lucy Pevensey April 24, 2024 at 11:25 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1783053802033332486
- StewGreen April 24, 2024 at 9:42 pm on Midweek 24th April 2024Bylines Times is a crank conspiracy website for Guardianland people It's biased as hell I looked up their latest YouTube...
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
who’s the pay master of this big weekend we’ve been putting up with in north wales. helicopters used as taxi’s, planes chartered for no-bodies to fly in and spend ten minutes on stage trying to sing(cheryl cole was the worse by far). Hundreds of people in high vis tops dooing nowt and getting paid. Bet you don’t here about the 5 stabbings and the fleet of ambulances ferrying in and out.
Hi all,
I’ve noticed that, since the election and the forming of the new coalition government, the voice of David Cameron seems to have been somewhat absent from Radio 4 programming. News reports summarise what he has said, but I don’t recall hearing a single broadcast of his actual voice.
In the meantime Nick Clegg has been broadcast quite frequently (not surprising since he is the new Deputy PM) and a few other members of the government. I’ve also heard Alistair Darling interviewed about the Euro crisis, and even an old clip of Gordon Brown ponderously cracking a joke as an example of political humour.
I’ve checked with my husband, who has been listening to the radio more often than me, and he is of the same opinion.
Am I imagining this? It would be interesting to hear from people who watch the TV news as well, since we have opted out of the TV licensing scheme.
Thanks!
rachel — I’ll take your word. Though as the election is over I’ve taken to blanking out politics totally!
Quite right , Rachel, anyone only getting their news from the BBC would think Nick Clegg is PM !
Nick Clegg certainly thinks he’s PM. And so does Cameron, by the reported passivity!
Everytime I see a picture of them standing together, I imagine they are holding hands below frame.
Maybe we should bring back Gordon “macho” Brown ? But, my God they are all such wimpos !
On Toady, today, I heard a discussion about the MMR debate, and the likelihood that Professor Wakefield was likely to be struck off for his idea (and paper) that the MMR triple-jab may lead to autism, because he was apparently “unable to provide any evidence”.
In parallel, we have a man-made climate change debate, where a number of “scientists” have produced dubious (and often fraudulent)papers and flaunt dangerous ideas the we are causing the planet to warm, and that CO2 is a dangerous gas, without a shred of evidence, and they are lauded, and politicians hang on their every word, whilst detractors are stamped into the ground.
What’s that all about, then? One rule for one, and another for the rest. It makes me sick.
Unfortunately it is all to easy to find Beeb bias. During the election the Beeb was forever pointing that Tories needed a 7% lead just to break even with Labour due to boundaries. The Labour supporting journalist , during a discussion about proposed boundary changes, said it was sour grapes from the Tories, Sopel the interviewer remained silent after the accusations. Again the bias is also in their silence.
Might the BBC suggest, in the absence of money, what various things they hold dear are supposed to exist upon?
I just ask, because my twitter feed seems to be alive with various ‘reporters’ getting their knickers in a twist that their pet quango is being cut and all their mates are facing a human tragedy of no more ski hols on bank holidays.
So Aunty, instead of giving airspace to the fiscal deadbeats who caused this all to chime in with the public service chorus of critique, just what do you suggest?
Think we may have been rumbled. Heard on Radio 4, Broadcasting House yesterday morning…’there are people who dislike this programme but still go on listening to dislike it still further’ could they mean us? I stuck it until it became the Diane Abbott appeciation society.
It is an interesting point. Esentially I like the idea of an advert free public broadaster briging quality and depth and the sort of things that probably would not be possible for commercial broadcasters to do. I still want to listen to Radio 4. But i want an intelligent balance of opinions.
I thnk many B-BBC regulars are motivated not by a hatred of the BBC but of what it has become – bloated, biased, dumb and an unfair competitor.
Another problem is the fact that the BBC is the official state broadcaster, with a special relationship with the public which spans generations. The BBC has a far deeper connection to and influence on the public than any other media organization could ever hope to have. This makes their bias more damaging than the rest. Never mind the international reputation they’re able to trade on.
An ad-free public broadcaster is nice to have, but at what cost?
It needn’t have the cost it’s having today in terms of its bias. This situation only comes about throught the apathy and inertia of the public and affected groups and individuals.
It’s good to be able to let off steam here about how biased the BBC is, but it will take a lot, lot more than letting off steam to put it right. It needs a campaigning body with a subscription membership, donations and a paid spokesman. .. Not exactly on the horizon. .,,
BBC follows Obama in omitting reference to JIHAD nature of the killing of DANIEL PEARL:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8688498.stm
For political corrective, see ‘JIHADWATCH’:-
[Extract]:-
“Pamela Geller put it succinctly: ‘Pearl was beheaded because of Islamic anti-semitism and violent jihadi doctrine. Freedom of the press had nothing to do with it.’ And the incomparable Melanie Phillips has more: ‘What Daniel Pearl’s decapitation means to Barack Obama,’ from The Spectator, May 22:
‘Even given Obama’s ever more terrifying and lethal performance in office, his comments about the jihadi murder of Daniel Pearl, and in front of Daniel’s bereaved family, are simply astounding.'”
“Even given Obama’s ever more terrifying and lethal performance in office, his comments about the jihadi murder of Daniel Pearl, and in front of Daniel’s bereaved family, are simply astounding”
The BBC also forgot to tell you that the President refused to take questions from the press afterwards. A free press is meaningless if those in power won’t grant access.
Yet more evidence that the BBC is a mouthpiece for certain people in power, I guess.
Just heard that mong David Blanchflower (Nu Liebour economist twat) on News 24, the dopey Emily Titless didn’t point out he’s a lefty and that most of the time he was on the MPC he was poncing around in America (where he still is)
What is it with these lefties? He was going on about MORE public spending and MORE printing of money? Are all lefties just total mongs?
Beat me to it! And more succintly, dammit.
More lies – again – about taking £6 billion pounds out of the economy. Emily Maitlis was just now talking to David Blanchflower(?), a British economics talking head from Dartmouth, and he just told the lie that not making the NI increase is removing £6 billion from the economy, and this is going to cause a double-dip reception. This guy was on a couple times before the election giving the same viewpoint, so no surprise there. I never saw the BBC have on an outside expert giving the opposite opinion.
He’s going on and on about the same tired old Labour line that the public sector is the best way to make growth, and only the Tory cuts will cause job losses. He thinks that stimulating the public sector is the only way to go, because that’s the only way to employ people right now. He’s getting more and more outraged and agitated. As usual, nobody wants to discuss the fact that this is not sustainable. Maitlis is certainly unable to grasp this concept. It’s simple math, but über-Keynsians never get it.
Blanchflower complains that banks aren’t lending enough like they’re supposed to. Has nobody learned the lesson that taking risks on lending money to people who might not pay it back is what caused this whole crisis in the first place? Housing bubble and mortgage defaults, anyone?
“Suppose we kill any shoots of growth that are starting to emerge,” moans Emily. BS. Public sector growth does not create wealth, does not increase tax revenue, and does not improve the private sector. Nobody remembers the damage done by Gordon Brown’s PFIs, apparently. Well, it never was really reported honestly by the BBC.
The same dishonest fearmongering Brown spouted at every campaign stop is now Gospel at the BBC, practically word for word. And no opposing viewpoints given a chance.
Okay, so just as I finish complaining about the “nasty Tory cuts” narrative, they show a clip of a former Shadow Cabinet minister saying that “it’s economically illiterate” to say that not doing the NI increase is removing £6 billion from the economy. At last a moment of clarity. Except is was only for a moment, and was preceded by the female Beeboid solemnly intoning that the cuts would kill 50,000 jobs.
And it was just a 30-second or so clip of the politician making a statement. No interview, no discussion, just a clip – in stark contrast to the lengthy bitch session Maitlis had with Branchflower, as well as the continuing “Labour: Tory cuts are bad” kind of stuff in the text crawl, and the fact that that the Labour message is basically the Narrative for the day.
I suppose defenders of the indefensible would see that as balance, though, since they did briefly allow an opposing viewpoint to peek through momentarily.
For defenders of the indefensible any conservative viewpoint on the BBC is right wing BBC bias.
we should all ask a certain Mr.J Hunt to kill the beeb,just email him,he might get the message
Any relation to Mike Hunt?
Here’s a lovely abuse of power and act of politically thuggery in The Obamessianic Age that the BBC will not report:
D.C. Metro Police Escorted SEIU Protesters to Bank of America Executive’s Home
The SEIU staged a protest against the BofA boss, and got the DC police to escort them. Problem is that the man lives outside of their jurisidiction, and the DC cops failed to inform the Montgomery County authorities about it. So nobody had legal authority to tell them to disperse.
Result: the exec wasn’t at home, so 500 union thugs terrorized his teenage son instead.
What was the protest about? The SEIU is having financial trouble and owes the Bank of America about $4 million. So the DC police escort a group with close ties to the President outside of their jurisdiction to terrorize a private citizen for personal reasons.
The SEIU is in so tight with the President of the US that He recently appointed their boss to His Deficit Reduction commission. The SEIU itself claims that no other organization did more for His election, and the SEIU boss was the first visitor to the White House afterward.
And here’s a video of The Obamessiah Himself at a campaign rally talking about the great work He did with them in Chicago, and then leading the SEIU chant.
This is the kind of President the BBC supports and for whom they promote domestic policies. But they won’t tell you what He’s really about.
Here’s yet another Tea Party-influenced election victory that the BBC doesn’t want you to know about:
GOP’s Djou wins Hawaii special election for Congress
Djou, a Republican, has just been elected to Congress from The Obamessiah’s hometwon district in Hawaii. This is the first time a Republican has won there in 20 years.
Djou’s own campaign proudly announced that the local Tea Party movement endorsed him. I guess those racists didn’t notice he’s Asian and not white.
Once again, this is not a sign that the President is doing well or moving from strength to strength domestically.
And where’s the BBC’s intrepid North America editor on all this? He’s babbling about how his beloved Obamessiah mustn’t appear too weak over the oil spill. He mentions that James Carville – the ultimate Clintonista – has criticized the President’s performance over the spill, and Mark Mardell leaps to His defense. He says that The Obamessiah’s hands are tied, really, what’s he supposed to do? He’s stuck relying on BP to clean up the mess.
What Mardell doesn’t want you to know is that The Obamessiah is the number one recipient of donations from BP. If this was Bush, he and the rest of them would be screaming from the rooftops about the coziness with Big Oil.
Your license fee hard at work, on behalf of a leader of a foreign country.
This guy truly is America’s Great Black Hope:-
http://allenwestforcongress.com/blog/washingtoons-what-is-at-stake/
Why don’t the BBC ever infiltrate the U.A.F., Communist flags and all in the particular manner below?. Is it because they’re odious reporters are part and parcel of that Trotsky union one wonders?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sh6xp/Young_British_and_Angry/
An interview with this nasty piece of work is rather alarming. He sounds like a Mugabe in waiting, a future psychopath, but let’s not alarm people before the world cup! The interpretation of the interview which can be heard here is much more than “radical” or “controversial” So he has radical views on race BBC – does that make him a racist? Can we say that, should we call him a black supremacist? Better not the world cup is just weeks away. Let’s just say he has “radical views”, oh yes and in this interview he calls the BBC “the imperialist BBC”.
Julius Malema defends his radical views
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10151548.stm
Oh yeah, this guy sounds one pogrom short of a genocide.
One thing Africa is never short of is socialist-addled thugs who want to turn their bit of land into Zimbabwe.
I bet he was accepted to attended a radical London polytechnic some point. He’d fit right in as a researcher on the Toady programme.
Malema is a racist and a thug, but he is a black racist so the BBC will love him.
Lets hope the World Cup is a disaster and see how the BBC report it.
Are you Scottish? You want England to lose?
I thought that this might raise a cynical eyebrow
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/BBCcuts
What BBC omits from its report on ‘Sex and the City 2’ film.
A.) BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10156235.stm
Contrast –
B.) ‘JIHADWATCH’ report:
‘Sex and the City 2 blasted as “anti-Muslim” for depicting Muslim society as “puritanical and misogynistic”‘
[Extract]:-
“When they’re bashing the moral laxity of the West, it’s OK to be puritanical. When Westerners notice that Islamic society is puritanical, it is an act of ‘Islamophobia.’ Nonetheless, Muslims are enraged yet again, this time because of this film’s depiction of Islamic society as ‘puritanical and misogynistic.’ And really, I must say I’m outraged as well. I mean, who would ever have thought to characterize Islamic society in such a way? The hijab, the niqab, the burqa, the chador — puritanical? Perish the thought! The wife-beating (cf. Qur’an 4:34), the polygamy (Qur’an 4:3), the genital mutilation, the honor killing — misogynistic? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?
“‘Sex And The City 2 Blasted As ‘Anti-Muslim,’ from SkyNews.”
Sex and the City. Crap. Islam. Crap.
Now I have 2 reasons never to watch that film.
Saw the BBC report on this a little while ago. Some Beeboid was at the red carpet at wherever the promotional event was, talking to stars, etc. Lo and behold, they did mention that there was a complaint in relation to part of the movie taking place in Muslim territory:
It’s not in New York, so is going against the essence of Sex in the City.
That’s it. Oh, and apparently Kim Catrall does not get her tits out in this one.
Listened to a bit of Scabby Logan tosser Bacon and Drive. Needless to say it was a Tory free zone (apart from ex drug addict Bacon calling Guido Fawkes a Tory blogger) all I heard were views from the left including the repugnant Harman.
Tell me did I miss something and did McFat twat get re-elected or something?
LOL. The above named Scabby Logan, Tosser Bacon, Drive and McFat Twat sound like something out of Dickens – a gang of thieves or East End villains, perhaps. 😀
You can always tell when the BBC have a plan. In this case bigging up Hattie Hatemenperson. Radio 5 were ‘informing me’ today that she did really well, so well even Guido Fawkes wet his knickers (well actually if you read his blog you get a different story, but hey Richard Bacon never lets the facts get in the way of a good BBC lie) then Huw Edwards on News 24 was trying to convince us that Hattie did really well today. Luckily hacks he was talking to didn’t seem to agree, that clearly upset Edwards.
All of the Tory/Lib Dem policies were viewed from the opposition point of view (can’t remember that when Liebour were in power).
Oh and Toenails, can anyone make sense of the shit he babbles out every evening?
Hatey doHarmtoman is the sort of sociopath the BBC loves.
Apparently radio 5 had an Adam Boulton moment today, I understand that Peter Oborne had a shouting match with Scabby Logan. did anyone hear it?
Yes, I just listened to it. It’s right here, starting at about 5 min. in. The discussion where Oborne shouts is around 9 min. in. Oborne’s comments before that about “the lifiting of the oppression and statism” of the Labour years did not sit well with Gabby, that’s for sure.
Actually, I think he misunderstood Logan’s class war comment about how only well-off parents will be getting these new independent schools, and was wrong about what he was yelling at her. She should be ashamed for wanting to keep the proles poor and stupid, just to block the evil rich from getting their way, but not for what Oborne thought she said.
But aside from that, it was absolutely clear that Logan was biased against the Tory policy on enabling these schools. She didn’t even try to hide it.
One doesn’t even need to infer anything from hearing the dripping venom and sneering in her voice – it would be clear from a transcript. After Oborne stepped on her class warfare, she switched to telling outright lies about how the program would work. 100% lies, simply because she doesn’t like it for misguided ideological reasons.
What a shock. Sheena shit bag Easton does the Tories over on immigration. apparently the evil Tories plan will stop Bangor (some shit hole in Wales) recruiting doctors from the Commonwealth. Really Sheena? How about training our own doctors? Thing is Sheena no one who comes to this Country wants to live in shitholes like Bangor and who can blame them? That’s why Scotland is half empty as well.
What people WANT to see Sheena you leftist lying mong is a stop to brain dead Muslim f**kwits from Pakistan who bring half the local village with them.
Ho Ho. For sustained dead-on hilarity, this is up there with the best of your bbbc posts!
(Though my bro went to Bangor U. There are worse places. Many in former mill towns in Yorks & Lancs currently housing aforementioned ex-residents of Pakistan villages.)
I was being a little ‘tongue in cheek’ but I wonder how long Sheena took to find somewhere where they ‘can’t find a doctor’? What have the NHS been doing for the last 13 years?
I was being a little ‘tongue in cheek’.
I guessed! Though you have to be cruel to be kind.
How about training our own doctors?
Indeed, but guess what: I read the other day about the health authorities
cutting doctor training places. Why? No doubt to save more of the budget to go on highly overpaid managers and chief executives. Simple, see?
What gets me about these Labourites and Beeboids screaming about immigration is that they always seem to consider it as a thing of itself in isolation from everything else. Only connect, as the man said. Connect the cutting of doctor training places with the cries of shortage of doctors in Bangor. Connect the cutting of doctor training places with the screams of “More immigrants! More! More! More! More immigrants needed now and ever more!” It might eventually dawn on them that they ought to reverse the cut in training places, train up a few and live with the government’s cap on immigration.
Yes and we end up with doctors who don’t even speak English.
Does this mean EU doctors don’t want to work in the UK ? If so, I wonder why !
On the other hand, it might not. I dont expect anything so logical and crucial for the survival of our country from Cameron. Not if the BBC might call him ‘racist’ about it.
BBC: its reporting of Islamic Jihad, and its reporting of critics of Islamic jihad.
Will BBC report Dutch MP, Geert Wilders’ forthcoming trial (in the Netherlands soon), involving his criticisms of Islam, as sympathetically as BBC reports ‘alleged’ Somali Islamic pirates?
BBC report:
“Trial of alleged Somali pirates opens in Netherlands”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/10151792.stm
I won’t reproduce further BBC political propaganda against Geert Wilders, such as that of Maitlis on BBC’s ‘Newsnight’ in March.
Instead, here are some items which the BBC censors on Geert Wilders:
Example 1:
“Anti-free speech proceedings against Geert Wilders to resume in October”
Presumably the BBC censors this because it is not interested in supporting the freedom of speech of a European MP against Islam. On the contrary.
AND –
the BBC is hypocritical about capitalism, supporting a state capitalist version, of which the BBC is a part, but appearing to oppose capitalism if it appearts to conflict with Beeboid ‘green’ principles – which Beeboids proclaim all the way in their taxis to catch their planes on publicly subsidised jaunts to 4-star hotels in Africa.
But when it comes to the BBC criticising the political pressure which some capitalist firms are putting on Geert Wilders, MP, the BBC is strangely silent.
“Is this why the Dutch are persecuting Geert Wilders?”
Again one is never quite sure on which side the BBC is. Mr Coke is getting quite a lot of respect from the BBC. Is he “a legitimate businessman, [who] enjoys the support of many impoverished Kingston residents who see him as a benefactor and have vowed to protect him at any cost.”? Well thats putting it nicely. A benefector- really? Or is he as the the US justice department accuses him of being “one of the world’s most dangerous drug barons.” A BBC choice here:
Benefector or drug baroin?
With the BBC, in the name of so called “objective broadcasting” its either /or. You can make up your minds! That is why we are there for you! According to the BBC “Mr Coke is said(sic) to lead a gang called the Shower Posse” Well, we can’t say for sure here at the BBC. And “Mr Coke faces a life sentence if convicted of the charges filed against him in New York.” But hey, what is New York law when its at home! He could also be a BENEFECTOR as we have stated.
Have you been affected by the unrest in Jamaica?
Do you look upon Mr Coke as a benefector? Send us an email. We at the BBC are always grateful. We really would like to see this drugs baron as a benefector- tell us some nice stories about him- please so we can publish them.
Jamaica drug raid toll reaches 27
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/latin_america/10156140.stm
Good news from the New York Times on the march of climate scepticism in Britain :
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html
Not the sort of report the BBC would carry ?
and in California there is a fight-back against green legislation that damages the economy :
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/25/ca-cap-and-trade-will-cost-jobs-economic-growth/
And now the Polar Bear test for Global Warming and by extension the answer to any critics who ask why none of the catastrophes predicted by the models are happening.
Polar bears face ‘tipping point’ due to climate change
The essence of the argument is that nothing much will happen until ‘bang’ a point is reached leading to rapid extinction. The advantage of the idea is that rather than extrapolating a trend, as indeed the famed ‘hockey stick’ purports to do, the new model extrapolates the lack of a trend in that direction. It is, of course, unnecessary to provide examples from history where something similar has occured.
Al Gore also used Polar Bears as an example but he had them drowning as the ice melts.
Sheena Easton went on another rant on the 10PM news about those evil Tories and their immigration caps. Do you know I can’t remember the last time I saw thousands of civil engineers lining up at Dover to enter the UK. However, I do see inbred halfwits with beards from Pakistan and other shit holes (Somalia for example) wanting to come here and either doss or set up crime or terrorist rings.
Why didn’t Sheena point out the pointless immigration, like tens of thousands of NON EU people I see in London handing out Golf sale flyers or free newspapers. Are these people really essential to the economy? That is what Cameron is trying to stop not highly skilled workers who make up only a tiny number of those who come here.
HAHAHAHA!!! Now Mark Mardell is concerned that the US President might not be thinking that the US should lead the world! Before the election, Mardell and the rest of the Obamessiah faithful at the BBC were dreaming of a world where the US was no longer the leader, just because Bush was in charge. Now that the ugly realities of Russia and Iran and North Korea are getting out of hand, Mardell wants to run back behind Uncle Sam’s apron.
More Islamic empire-building at the BBC?
British BBC licencepayers already pay for the BBC’s appointment of commissioning religious editor Muslim Aaqil Ahmed.
Whatever next?
The BBC’s chums at the ‘Guardian’ provide a propaganda platform for BBC insider to direct the way. (That’s how ‘democracy’ operates for the ‘multiculturalists’.)
“BBC News needs a religion editor, says Radio 4’s Roger Bolton”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/may/26/bbc-news-religion-roger-bolton
Also:
“Simon Mayo: the BBC is ‘at the forefront of the new atheism’ ”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/simon-mayo-bbc-is-at-forefront-of-new.html
Gordon Brown’s biographer, Robert Peston, is on the News Channel right now discussing the latest noise about Kraft and Cadburys. He says that Cadburys was always going to close that plant even before the buyout, and authorities now say that Kraft was wrong to say that they would be able to save those jobs.
What Peston forgot to mention was all those promises by Gordon Brown and Mandelson and Darling that they were going to do everything they could to save the Cadbury jobs. He has chosen to sweep that information under the rug (as he does on his blog so often) because his statement today means that Brown and Co. were actually lying the whole time about an effort to save jobs or even block the takeover. And RBS – 84% owned by the taxpayer because of Mr. Brown’s personal actions – funded the takeover. Peston forgot to mention that, too.
Instead of telling the full truth, Gordon Brown’s biographer placed full blame on Kraft and shifted all responsibility away from Mr. Brown and Labour.
Laura Kuenssberg right now on the News Channel gleefully trying to make a big deal about a Tory split and backbencher mutiny against Cameron over the 1922 noise. Funny how there was never a BBC fuss about a Labour split with the Blairite and Brownite factions always struggling for power.
Everything is about non existent splits, the BBC doesn’t report policy. The BBC are crap.
I see the BBCs idea of unbiased reporting is to mention a policy from the new government and have someone on to rubbish it. Just heard Peter Allen discussing the new policy of acadamies “Won’t this lead to a 2 tier system” says Mr Allen to a person who does not agree with the policy. Is taking the same side of an argument as the interviewee balanced?
Then on Radio 4 the same policy is mentioned followed by all the critisism – No one actually knows what the policy is in detail because no one bothers to ask anyone who favours it. I wonder if Mr Gove knows what his friends at the BBC are up to?
Also on the policy of minimum pricing for alcohol – why do the government think it is right? Well no one knows as the BBC only want the opinions of people who oppose it.
I probably would appose it to, but I want to hear both sides and make my mind up.
The BBCs stock answer to bias is that balance is spread througout a period of time. It does not have to have both sides of the debate at the same time. This is rubbish. Every prime time radio broadcast is totally one sided. When do they acheive balance? Is the other side put out at 2am when no one is listening? Because I never seem to hear a Tory defending their policies when I listen to the BBC.
Very amusing to hear the Beeboids fretting over these new security issues regarding Facebook. After a full report, and then a quick chat in the studio with some privacy advocate, the Beeboid presenters engaged in a moment of casual banter about it. Sophie said that she had closed her account, and then the other female said that she closed her account as well, and found the whole thing “quite creepy”.
This is full-on personal bias invading a story. We all know that literally thousands of Beeboids are heavy Facebook users, so much so that the BBC used license fee money to train them all how to use it. Now with this privacy issue, Beeboids are stating on air their personal connections to the story. No matter what side one is on, this is personal bias invading journalism: a complete break with impartiality. They’re so wrapped up in themselves they can’t even remain impartial on a simple, non-political story like this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/7768463/Graham-Brady-elected-chairman-of-Conservative-1922-Committee.html
¡YAE!
My goodness a conservative in the Tory party – what next?
Something to be lamented. For me by far the best analysis of Beeb bias around:
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/05/closure-notice.html
Semi-Conservative pundit Bill Kristol is on Hardtalk right now. The introduction mentioned the “right-wing conservative” Tea Parties might be damaging “their Republican allies”.
Right there is an indication of how the BBC misunderstands and misrepresents the Tea Party movement. The majority of elections the movement has affected have been about replacing the
Jonathan Charles challenged Kristol’s statement that The Obamessiah is having trouble with the public because He’s not centrist enough by saying that He “is more centrist than many Republicans these days.” What a joke. After an exchange, Kristol has to correct him and say that independent voters just might vote for Republicans because they’re not as far right as Charles keeps alleging.
Funny how there’s not supposed to be a real BBC agenda of any kind, no memo handed down from on high, no official line on all the issues, but without exception, Charles’ questions have come from the exact same perspective as all BBC reporting on both The Obamessiah and Republicans and the Tea Party movement.
Now he just referred to “Tea Party candidates, or extreme candidates”. Fortunately, Kristol is doing well holding is own, and correcting Charles at every turn. But this is too indicative of the political bias the BBC brings to these things. It’s across the spectrum of their broadcasting, and is damaging public discourse.
Tea Party issues don’t play well with the publc, eh, BBC? Lie.
Highlights are here on the Hardtalk site. I haven’t checked to see if it includes the bit where Charles said that the Tea Party movement was sending a “whites only” message.
BBC follows Obams line, and attempts to dismiss the real threat from Islam.
BBC report:
[Excerpt] –
“He [Mr Brennan, Obama’s security adviser] stressed that the US was at war not with Islam but ‘al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates’.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10169144.stm
‘JIHADWATCH’ analysis is quite different, and is, of course, ignored by BBC:-
“‘Radical Islam’ is a flawed term, as those who use it tend to assume the existence of a form of Islam that does not teach warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation under Islamic law, but otherwise this unsigned editorial is spot-on.
“Find out the roots of Obama’s denial and obfuscation in The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America. Pre-order here.
“‘EDITORIAL: Obama’s invisible Islam: Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is,’ from the Washington Times.”
“Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous”
I’m sorry, but we’re not at war with Islam, full stop. That’s what Bin Laden and his fellow mass murderers wanted, and that’s what too many Muslims think now. But we are not.
The US is not at war with the handful of Muslims who live in my neighborhood and run the bodega next to the subway entrance, or the one down the corner where I get my beer. We’re not at war with Muslim cab drivers who hang out at Curry In A Hurry on Lexington, or the ones who run the halal food carts on 5th Ave. We are at war with their co-religionists, and no mistake. I have no problem calling Islamic Jihad what it is, and it’s wrong for the President (and the BBC, while we’re at it) to remove the religion from the discussion, as it confuses the issue and doesn’t address the root cause. But we’re at war with the caveman version, the pre-Reformation Islam, if you like.
I totally agree that there is a growing danger of the Islamification of the West. I have no problem acknowledging that, as you may have seen from my contributions to Everyone Draw Mohammed Day. That was about religious freedom: the freedom of non-Muslims to do things that are against the laws of Islam, which needs to be differentiated from “offending” Muslims. I see the Mohammed images as standing up against the same kind of Islamification that leads to the Scottish NHS advising non-Muslim workers to refrain from eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan. This is a violation of freedom of religion, caused by undue deference to Islam. It’s madness to say that it’s an offense for someone not to follow the rules of a religion (outside of a private home or house of worship) to which they do not belong.
But that’s not the same thing as what’s going on in Afghanistan and Iraq or what happened on 9/11 and 7/7.
Too many Muslims don’t understand the difference. That’s a problem which needs to be addressed, but it is not the same thing at all as the war against Al Qaeda and the larger idea of Islamic jihad. Too many jihadis turn to this insane mindset because they see everything the US does as being “against Islam”. The Bush Administration tried early on to make that distinction, but gave up and let the more extreme viewpoints take over the conversation.
I realize that this will cause many people here to yell at me again, telling me how stupid I am for not realizing the dangers and evils of Islam. I have always maintained here that the problem really lies with the cavemen mentality of too many Muslims, and the religion is a vehicle for that caveman mentality. But the caveman mentality existed among Arabs long before Mohammed was even a twinkle in his uncircumcised father’s eye. There’s an abundance of this same caveman mentality in Africa and in South America and in other places. None of that has anything to do with Islam. It’s a pre-existing condition which has unfortunately molded Islam in many places. Islam worldwide needs to go through a Reformation, and more Muslims need to get out of the cave and join the modern world.
The more Mohammedans understand that the war on Islamo-nutters is not a war against all of Islam, full stop, the less their wayward youth will be tempted into murdering their neighbors.
The West is not at war with Islam, but it seems that Islam is at war with the West.
‘JIHADWATCH’:-a Hugh Fitzgerald article (2007)-
“Fitzgerald: They needn’t worry overmuch”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/fitzgerald-they-neednt-worry-overmuch.html#more
On Obama’s (and BBC’s) profound misunderstanding of ISLAMIC JIHAD:
“Obama’s counterterror chief: jihad is ‘legitimate tenet of Islam'”
I see what he’s trying to say. It’s actually not so far off from my comments about the need to separate caveman Islam from the ones who live in my neighborhood and are not dangerous and don’t want to kill me. But it does come across as rather wishy-washy and not the challenge to so-called “moderate Muslims” to stand up against it already that we so desperately need.
Link to above, and critique of Obama re-Islamic Jihad:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/obamas-counterterror-chief-jihad-is-legitimate-tenet-of-islam.html
I know that. That’s what I was talking about when I said this above:
Too many Muslims don’t understand the difference. That’s a problem which needs to be addressed, but it is not the same thing at all as the war against Al Qaeda and the larger idea of Islamic jihad. Too many jihadis turn to this insane mindset because they see everything the US does as being “against Islam”.
In general, the West’s political ‘leaders’ (and liberal intellengentsia, including BBC ‘multiculturalists’) do not have a sound understanding of Islam based on Islam’s violence imperial history (continuing), and the violent anti-infidel tenets and practices of its core doctrine.
There is a dangerous misguided utopian presumption among the West’s ‘leaders’ that Islam is reformable, after 1400 years, which is based not on evidence, but on wishful thinking.
Agreed we are not at war with Islam per se, disagreed Muslims genuinely think we are. It’s just a propaganda game to put us psychologically on the back foot.
I’m not aware that the Bush Administration ever ceased to differentiate between Islam and Al Qa’eda. The truth is the Bush administration was a model of diplomacy in this regard, to a fault. Obama takes this fault and widens it. And lest there be confusion, I think there’s plenty of room for diplomatic hypocrisy in our relations with Islam, its necessary, but Bush took it too far I think and Obama, well …
BBC’s Evan Davis on ‘Today’ (afer 8:10 am local time, BBC i-Player) must have been ‘interviewing’ a Conservative Prime Minister, judging by the many and prolonged interruptions.
Davis showed his political colours by referring to David Cameron’s stance towards the Eurozone as being only that of a “bystander”. Obviously, the BBC political line is to abolish what remains of UK national sovereignty, and to get Britain into the disastrous Eurozone.
Davis also called Cameron’s allies in the EU “anti-semites”. Same old hoary BBC Narrative from their EU election coverage. I bet there are more people with serious anti-Jew sentiment among the Labour-allied French and Italians and Spanish than there are in the Eastern European groups Davis was talking about.
And on the TODAY programme to!
I tuned into the BBC’s radio programme on the book ‘The Art of War’ last night. Turned out to be a beeboid scam to give IRA bottom feeder an open platform to spew propaganda. Only BBC and others of the pro-terrorist / Marxist / anti-British bent would consider IRA’s sordiid criminal murdering and brutatity a war. Sums up Beeboid mentality.
Taody – aparantly reassess invalidty benefits is “contraversal” (Beeboid description) but the pro-terrorist Amnesty International is a relaiable source of objective comment. Coul not make it up.
BBC licencepayers: paying for the profligate BBC’s World Cup:
“As if the money-no-object BBC army of 292 personnel going to the World Cup is not enough, Radio 1Xtra DJ Trevor Nelson has gone out in advance for a 5 Live documentary finding out what South Africans think about the tournament. ITV are covering the event with 160 people.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1281734/Charles-Sale-Gloves-jobs-Robert-Greens-firm.html#ixzz0p8KBDUfA
There’s no such thing as too much coverage of the World Cup. My only gripe is we’ve got that dreadful Alan Hansen instead of Jimmy Hill.
BBC’s Richard Black continues his pro-‘Greenpeace’* propaganda (*EU subsidises ‘Greenpeace’).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/europe_debates_climate_ambitio.html
Alternative view to that of BBC’s self-appointed ‘environmental’ lobbyists/ luddites; a view rarely hear on BBC:
* “J’Accuse”
(by Godfrey Bloom, MEP)
http://blog.godfreybloommep.co.uk/blog/48-jaccuse-greenpeace–
BBC celebrating the wonderful portrayals of strong, healthy women in the new Sex in the City movie. They mention that there are some complaints about the part of the film set in Morocco: some people are apparently unhappy about the “Menopause in the Desert” action, because New York City is the essence of the show, and so not as good if they’re not there.
No mention at all of the complaints that certain scenes are offensive to Muslims. It’s in the HuffingtonPost, so we know the Beeboids know about this. Funny how the BBC is eager to report every little thing that offends Muslims, except when it comes to something they like.
Yet another BBC News brief presenting a negative perspective towards Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. Apparently a few police chiefs in other states are worried that they’ll have to stop turning a blind eye to the illegals they come across in their daily work. As usual, there is no alternate viewpoint on offer, nothing in defense of the other side.
I have yet to see one single, solitary BBC report presenting the AZ point of view without balancing viewpoints from critics. Come see the bias inherent in the system.
The encouraging thing is that the Arizona dispute is pushing Obama’s ratings even further down the swanee.
Heard much from the BBC about Obama’s ratings continuing to plummet, even after the “triumph” of ObamaCare ? Thought not.
To hear the BBC tell it, He’s moving from strength to strength, any and all criticisms unfair, racist, or just from people who are too far to the right to take seriously.
All is well in The Obamessianic Age.
Predictable political propaganda fro BBC ‘Newsnight’ blogs include:
1.) negative Israel on Jersusalem.
BBC subtext: aren’t Hamas and Fatah Islamic jihadists who want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth wonderful?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/
2.) negative Tories on welfare.
BBC subtext: the BBC’s wonderful Labour government would have carried on with spend, spend, spend.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/05/thursday_27_may_2010.html
BBC re- JERUSALEM.
The BBC is persistent in its anti-Israel, pro-Islamic jihadist political bias.
Here’s one the BBC did 4 months ago:
“Prime time BBC documentary on Jerusalem: an anatomy of bias and distortion”
(by Robin Shepherd)
http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/prime-time-bbc-documentary-on-jerusalem-an-anatomy-of-bias-and-distortion/
Anybody see A grumpy guide to the 80s
Left wing media millionairs moaning about people making money.
Attacks on Thatcher and Regan with no mention of winning the old war.
The impartial BBC: ever the Obama loyalist, ever the Bush critic.
BBC’s Paul Reynolds manages to avoid the words ‘appeasement’ and ‘dhimmitude’ in describing Obama’s foreign policy.
BBC’s Reynolds describes Bush’s foreign policy response to 9/11 attack on America of 9/11 as one of ‘pre-emption’!
“Obama modifies Bush doctrine of pre-emption”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10178193.stm
Not a book for BBC’s devoted supporters of Obama, not a book to be fairly reviewed on BBC:
Geller-Spencer book on Obama: “Sheer brilliance! The ultimate patriot’s handbook”