It really IS unbelievable. I refer to the 24/7 hate shown by the BBC towards Murdoch. For those with a strong stomach why not give this a listen? Obviously John Humphyrs would like to see James Murdoch follow Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton. Further, it is also evident the BBC would like to see Murdoch disinvest of his entire UK print operation. I then turned on BBC1 and who was being interviewed on the topic but John “Mr Ethics” Prescott. Naturally he was in full cry for more NI blood. On Radio, on TV and in-print, the BBC/Guardian media complex will not be satisfied with anything less than the destruction of TI and I sense Murdoch realises the gravity of the situation hence the exodus of senior executives. It’s curious how disinterested the BBC is in allegations that OTHER newspapers have engaged in identical practices, almost as if the narrative is set in stone and not open to examination. People talk about the “fear” politicians and others have of Murdoch. I suggest that is as NOTHING compared to the fear they have of the State Broadcaster.

Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to THE 2 MINUTE HATE

  1. Grant says:

    Will the BBC now support a campaign to bring back capital punishment ?
    No-one quite does hate the way Lefties do it.


  2. john says:

    Take a look at todays Guardian. Polly Toynbee has moved on from News International and is calling for a campaign to destroy the Daily Mail.

    As for the BBC, and apologies if this has already been posted, earlier this week James Delingpole summed up the BBC monopoly to perfection:

    It seems genuinely not to have occurred to most of British people now working themselves into a lather of almost Death-of-Princess-Diana-like hysteria over the evils of the Murdoch press that they are duped as the liberal-left’s useful idiots.
    If only they were capable of realizing it, they would understand that over the last decades, the BBC has done infinitely more damage to Britain – economically, socially, politically – than anything the yellow journalism of Rupert Murdoch has ever achieved. By setting the parameters of the political debate, the BBC has been responsible for Britain’s cultural surrender to Islamism and “multiculturalism”; for its submission as a vassal to the creaking, moribund European Socialist Superstate; for the current Coalition’s inability either to lower taxes or rein in government spending; for the proliferation of “rights” and dependency culture and the creation of a feckless underclass trained to believe it is government’s job to take care of its every need; for the removal of empiricism, hard science and skepticism in the debate on “global warming”.
    Thanks to the BBC, the people of Britain are poorer, more highly taxed and regulated, less able to control their own political destiny and considerably less free.



  3. David vance says:

    Yes, I find that listening to the entire programme massively dispiriting as it is a sustained two hours of left wing bias masquerading as news. It is an appalling programme dressed up in the clothes of respectability.


  4. hippiepooter says:

    Hi DV, I dont think the neutral observer would detect bias (might suspect it) in that Humphrys incest interview with Steve Hewlett, but Humphrys watchers like you and I will construe an agenda at play.  
    Harrumphrys had a tad unseemly eagerness to push the idea that Murdo is looking weak, bearly restraining himself from going into full-on propaganda mode as he did to help New Labour get elected in ’97 to gain momentum for the downfall of Murdoch.  
    I was a regular listener to TODAY before I migrated to 5Live as a political refugee.  It’s difficult to assess the state of TODAY bias without that continuum that I had, but I know that over the good few years that continuum lasted, the patent bias of Humph and Nacht was literally jaw-dropping.  There’s no doubt about the subversive left agenda of this programme.


  5. Carti says:

    The BBC seems to have decided that the time is ripe to try to finish Murdoch, and the unwarranted emphasis on this story is driven almost entirely by them. The assault on NI is prolonged, overt, exaggerated, self-interested, non-objective and outrageous. Its listeners are beginning to recognise this but the but the BBC, as is now usual, cares nothing for them. It seems to regard itself not just as the state broadcaster but as the moral conscience of the state itself, and like all dogmatic left-wing authority is more than willing to silence dissenting and rival voices, no matter what guff it pumps out about ‘balance’ and no matter what the cost to diversity of the expression of opinion. I was once (a LONG time ago) a genuine supporter of the BBC. How I hate its very guts now. This is a war and I really hope the BBC lose.


    • hippiepooter says:

      I still am a supporter of the BBC – that’s why I want to see the subversives rooted out.  There’s now so many and they’re so entrenched, that if you uproot them the whole edifice might come tumbling down.

      Great point made by DV, fear of NI is as of nothing compared to fear of the BBC.  We’ve had various media voices exposing the power game the BBC is playing, but so far not one MP.  We desperately need a new party, and there’s not a scintilla of one forming on the horizon.  Mel – round up a possee!


  6. George R says:

    Not from BBC-NUJ archives:

    Gordon Brown’s ‘fear’ of Rupert Murdoch-

    “From the archives: When Gordon loved Rupert”


  7. JohnofEnfield says:

    I have found the global media firestorms over the BP Gulf Oil spill and the Phone Hacking scandal at the NoW absolutely fascintating. In both situations powerfull enemies of large global companies have almost brought them to their knees.

    Obama’s treatment of BRITISH PETROLEUM was, in my opinion, way outside the law and way outside his remit as a holder of the supreme office in the USA. The US executive got in the way of the recovery program, they tried to use the escrow account to their own ends and politicised the issue to the great loss of the US oil industry in particular and the US people in general. Out of sheer vindictiveness.
    The issue hasn’t played out yet, but I am absolutely certain that Obama and the US will continue to suffer great losses because this campaign, now and for a very long time into the future.

    I detect many parallels with the current Murdoch situation. The BBC’s camapaign has been so virulent and so incredibly self serving that I cannot imagine that there won’t be severe repercussions on the BBC and the people of UK. There is no doubt that a great wrong has been done. There is also no doubt that the technique of Phone Hacking is so simple that it has been done by many many others (Why were  the Mobile Phone companies so lax?).

    Will we bring out rules and laws that will criminalise EVERYBODY – much in the same way that the extension of other rules and laws  was carried out under the last 13 years of Labour? Will the popular press fold under this regulation? Will we succeed in suppressing free speech on the Internet? Will we become a state run by a socialist oligarchy (with John Prescott as chief enforcer) where everyone is subject to detailed regulation – except of course the said Prescott and others such as Baroness Scotland?

    Or will the increasing BBC monopoly come under fire? 

    I look forward to the law of unintended consequences reaping havoc in its own time.


  8. George R says:


    “John Humphrys gives up on farming after ‘amateur’ efforts”


    ‘John Humphrys gives up on broadcasting after amateur efforts’.


  9. George R says:

    For BBC-NUJ investigative journalists (if there are any):

    “Which media moguls did Brown entertain at Chequers?”


  10. cjhartnett says:

    Am hopeful that Rupert still has the stomach to see these popinjays out!
    I know that he`s old and could do without the assisted dying agenda of the BBC/MSM-but really hope that he sticks it to them…signs aren`t too good as yet!
    Melanie Phillips blog puts it all so well. You cant give the craven likes of Vaz, Prescott, Bryant any comfort that their ooze, grease, lube or drawer liners have any hold over a man who saw out the print unions and got Brenda Dean her peerage or whatever.
    While Bryant was playing vicars, Murdoch was saving our press from the fetid left liberal smarm that we`re in danger of seeing today. Whilst Vaz was coining and creaming all he could schmooze from the State-us in effect-Murdoch was creating a template Stateside that may yet set us free from this poll tax on tellies that is the licence fee.
    We need Fox more than ever-and I hope they can graft a backbone onto Rupert and team soon. Those old diaries ought to help too.
    In any event we have seen enough of the BBC/MSM in full cry…and there`ll be a backlash…be nice to have Rupert to consult!


  11. George R says:

    ‘Autonomous Mind’:


    “So, she has finally bitten the bullet and resigned. Rebekah Brooks’ long standing career with News International is over.  With the way The Guardian and the BBC have been pursuing Brooks and the Murdoch boys one might be forgiven for assuming a personal antagonism exists between them.  But not everything is as it seems to those of us outside the bubble.”

    Is there no end to The Guardian’s self serving hypocrisy?


    • Robert Similar says:

      One of my claims to fame is that I once spent a good hour in Rebekah Wade’s company.
      I was then working on a popular TV show (sworn to secrecy on so manty levels) and she was editor of the NOTW.
      The exchanges between us were very much cat and mouse and at the end of our time together she didn’y=t leave with any stories and I didn’t feel compromised.
      I do know that in all that time she was courteous, professional and charming and I just do not buy into the blood thirsty call for her head to roll whatsoever.
      BBC news are a disgrace in the matter.


  12. Millie Tant says:

    Something that may be of interest:

    I just stumbled across this fascinating archive of material about the BBC and Rupert Murdoch while looking for information about the TV Licence.

    It was posted in a blog by Adam Curtis who makes documentaries for the Beeboid Corporation:

    Now, Adam Curtis is no fan of Murdoch’s of course. That’s a given and his opinions and his selections of material, not to mention the title of the piece, will reflect that, but I see on scanning quickly through, among many interesting bits and pieces of history and quotes from characters long forgotten, are a David Dimbleby interview with the young Murdoch and his wife, and at the end, a piece about Woodrow Wyatt which echoes eerily down the years in the light of recent howls of rage at Murdoch from certain politicians. 


    • sue says:

      That was an interesting find. It takes quite a bit of digesting. I’ll have to have another go at it later.
      (Adam Curtis was also responsible for ‘The Power of Nightnares’)


      • Millie Tant says:

        Yes, I’ll have to go back to it as well.

        Strangely enough, perhaps, I had never heard of Adam Curtis until fairly recently when channel surfing during the ad breaks from a programme I was watching. I came across something that was immediately arresting and which turned out to be the final part of a trilogy of films by Adam Curtis. I forget what it was called, maybe something to do with Loving the Machine or the Loving Machine. I was intrigued enough after that to read a couple of reviews and some online discussion about the programmes.

        One thing that annoyed me at the time was that I was unable to find information about the music used in the film. It wasn’t listed in the end credits on iPlayer or in the programme information or in Adam Curtis’s blog. I don’t know why the Beeboid Corporation doesn’t incliude that kind of information as standard practice. Anyway, that was that…

        And today I stumbled across him once again.


        • sue says:

          I confess I never watched the Power of Nightmares, (or, in fact Nightnares) but I’m told by several who did that it was a convincingly reassuring rationalisation of the theory that Islamic terrorism was all in our heads. A figment of our imagination.  “The rise of the politics of fear” (It was before 7/7. )
          This reminds me of Ady who used to comment here. Every time someone mentioned the threat of Islamic extremism, he’s come up with a sarky comment containing the word ‘tewwowist .’
          I reckon it was watching The Power of Nightmares wot done it.

          In the Murdoch article Mr. Curtis uses his considerable skill and throroughness to demonise poor old Rupert rather subtly whilst pretending he’s doing no such thing. He nearly gets away with it, but then he goes and spoils it all by adding:
          “As a balanced member of the BBC – I leave it to you to decide” by which of course, (apart from the oxymoron) he doth protest too much, methinks.
          I’m no particular fan of the Murdoch press, but they do carry articles in support of Israel, which, for me, goes a long way in their favour, but the more the BBC demonises him, or anyone else for that matter, the less I dislike him. (or them) My enemy’s enemy, maybe. 

          Doesn’t Christine Keeler look peculiar, when speaking? I’ve only ever seen still photographs of her before.


          • Millie Tant says:

            Yes, he used that word “balance” at least twice in that article.  It takes more than that, though, to get past us.  He is a well known political polemicist and has said of his experimental documentary film and multimedia techniques that he was seeking a new way to do political journalism. He has talked about the BBC news archives where they just keep everything from a particular month and clearly he enjoys going through them and finding unrelated bits and pieces that he then uses in interesting ways. His use of music to accompany the footage from the past is very powerful too. That programme I first came across was called All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.


  13. cjhartnett says:

    The last few weeks have seen the usual slew of global warming Eurozone stories-which would normally have been stuffed down our throats so we`d be fattened for Christmas!
    Since ,however; the media worrywarts have only spoken about whether Rebekah Brooks should still have a job or not…or whether Cameron rode side saddle on his pony rides in Oxfordshire with Coulson or not…we can now safely relax and drop the BBCs worry index to “negligible”.
    The Euro is buggered but we`re not…global warming is bullshit…and Labour are forever unelectable even with the useless Tories bed blocking any progress.
    This was the News this Week-save your licence fee for Ruperts pension provision!


  14. D B says:

    The Centre for American Progress is a Soros-funded lefty pressure group with significant influence in the Obama administration.  
    Here’s how Radio Five Live’s Anna Foster introduced an interview with one of its spokesmen on Weekend Breakfast this morning (approx 18:30 in): “I’ve been speaking to Josh Droner who is from the Centre for American Progress which develops new policy ideas in the States…”  
    “which develops new policy ideas” – can you imagine a BBC journalist describing a right of centre organisation such as the Heritage Foundation in a similar neutral way? Not bloody likely!  
    Mr Dorner kind of gave the game away during the interview when he said: “We’ve been fighting a war against Fox for a while.”  
    Not unlike the BBC, then.  
    [Incidentally the interview with Dorner was the second item devoted to Murdoch in the opening 20 minutes of the programme. Only the golf saved listeners from non-stop coverage of hackgate. For all I know they carried on in the same vein for 3 hours, but I swtiched off at this point.]


  15. London Calling says:

    BBC: PM’s Murdoch press links defended

    The BBC really really think this is an opportunity to bring down Cameron. Wouldn’t that be choice? Cameron pathetically sucked up to “our wonderful BBC”. Wouldn’t you like to see him choke on his own stupidity?


  16. Demon1001 says:

    The BBC is now in a particular position that they have to go after Murdoch and finish him off completely or else they are in trouble.  If Murdoch survives, even seriously wounded as now, he will work to bring down the BBC and other hate-organs.  Even if he doesn’t destroy them he could largely emasculate them and that is the fear that drives their ciurrent hysteria directed against him.

    They weren’t worried about what Murdoch was up to in 2002 and 2006 because he supported the same side.  It was only when he changed sides that they turned on him.


  17. As I See It says:

    Murdoch Bad, BBC Good….

    I’ve noticed (and have already posted) how the BBC are going to focus on the ‘East Africa famine’ as they pause for breath on the ‘Murdoch scandal’.

    It soon becomes obvious that the Beeb are hopelessly agenda-driven as The Food Programme goes for ….. guess what?

    Is it just me who finds it a step too naf the way such a show can segue so easily from thoughts of Agas and Le Creuset on eweek to drought in Somalia the next?

    Well that’s a contortion leftists do every day I guess.

    The UN get  20 minutes of free advocacy for their point of view on this issue without balance or question.

    Moral highground – tick.
    A Coalition policy (foreign aid) that happens to be approved by the left – tick.
    We’re not obsessed with Murdoch – tick
    We are oh so very different from the tabloid gutter press – tick


    • Millie Tant says:

      Tick, indeed. Every bit of self-indulgence has to be laced with a streak of worthiness to make it more palatable. So it is essential to skip from the love of Aga to concern for the drought – all the more so if the drought happens to be in Africa or India, rather than say, America or Australia.