I’ve been away for the better part of this week, hence lack of posts, but here is an overdue NEW one of these and more posts later!

Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to OPEN THREAD

  1. Martin says:

    Radio 5 is a real hoot this morning.


    • Wayne Xenocrates says:

      It is not just the (so called) intellectual programs, Radio 2 new has now become a full blown and unashamed on the hour every hour Labour Party broadcast.  Mr Miliband says this and Mr Miliband says the other and Cameron (no Mr for David Cameron) is defending his controversial policy on everything. 
      How can they the (Anti-British Broadcasting Co.) be allowed to go on like this?  Where is balance, where is responsibility and when will Mr Cameron wake up and do something?  Do we have to start setting fire to ourselves in Parliament Square in order for people to wake up and see that the country is being brainwashed?


      • wild says:

        “Do we have to start setting fire to ourselves in Parliament Square”

        The Conservative Party think that the pro-Labour BBC is too powerful to challenge. But the BBC cannot get any more pro-Labour than they already are (this side of public ridicule) and so the Conservatives should call their bluff and refuse to appear on any BBC programme. They should then outline a vision of broadcasting plurality, in which the public will have freedom of choice.

        The Leftist establishment will of course scream blue murder (just as they scream blue murder about the importance of being in the European Union) but the public will respect the Conservative Party for having the balls to say what everybody knows to be true; that the output of the BBC is made by, and for, middle class Leftists, who not only despise their audience, but are keen to leech off them as well.

        If the British people were asked if they wanted plurality rather that central planning in broadcasting I think that the BBC would get a shock.

        The fact that the BBC will do anything in their power to prevent the British public being put in a position where they can make that decision is not the least reason why it should take place as soon as possible.

        It would be a British Revolution. The greatest blow to the power of the establishment since the printing press. Cardinal Mandelson would weep.


        • Teddy Bear says:

          ‘ …and so the Conservatives should call their bluff and refuse to appear on any BBC programme.’
          To do so would demonstrate that they are actually scared to tackle the BBC, which they’re not likely to do. Since it is only the government that has the power to remove the licence fee and cut the BBC loose altogether, and they are too fearful to attempt it, then ‘rock’ and ‘hard place’ for the society come to mind. 

          For sure the BBC realise this, which is why their obvious bias is more and more evident, and they flout their charter without concern.


      • Henry says:

        Yes I saw what was happening to Radio 2 news, after the euro summit last December.

        We got lots of “Clegg said this”, about half a minute of William Hague defending the PM, then more of the Libdems, and Labour, then a very silly news item concerning a Tory MP who was in the same party as someone who decided to turn up in a nazi uniform – this item was given more time than William Hague’s quote before it.

        So it was Lib Dems, (William Hague for 30 seconds), more Lib Dems, Labour, and finally the implication that conservatives are nazis…

        It’s strange, as though the people working on the news bulletins have given up on this “impartiality” busines, because they think the issues are just too important. Which is ok if you work for the Guardian, but…


  2. Deborah says:

    Yesterday 18th Jan I listened to Women’s Hour with a long discussion of how wonderful it was in Tahrir Square last year during the demonstrations.  Less than 1/2 later was a programme ‘Songs for Tahrir’ telling me the same thing.  How marvellous it was for the women of Egypt, etc etc.  No mention of the Muslim Brotherhood and the only mention of the killing of Christians was brief mention of the difficulties for Coptics.


  3. Umbongo says:

    There was a lot of play on Today and Radio 4 News about the “plastic rock” used in 2006 to spy on Russia.  Quite frankly, who cares?  This is a piece of very old and tediously predictable information (ie there was a plastic rock!) of little interest to anybody.  
    However – and by no coincidence at all – tonight the BBC airs the first in its series “Russia and the West”.  In other words,  the “plastic rock” crapola is not news (in any common sense meaning of the word) but is actually a commercial for a BBC TV series.  This isn’t strictly bias although the exclusion of genuine news could be understood as a species of bias.  However, it’s clearly and simply product placement of a particularly crude type.  
    The BBC has rules concerning product placement in its programmes.  Given the definition of product placement in the editorial policy guidlines  
    Product placement is the inclusion for a commercial purpose of a reference (in vision or audio) to a product, service or trade mark within a programme in return for payment or other valuable consideration.  
    it could be interpreted that unwarranted publicity for one BBC programme given in another BBC programme contravenes the BBC’s own rules particularly since the definition of “commercial purpose” where the BBC is concerned is somewhat fuzzy.  Whatever: the “plastic rock” non-story certainly contravenes the spirit of the editorial guidelines as well as demonstrating the BBC’s willingness to include any old rubbish as “news” if it suits the BBC’s purposes.  Would, for instance, the BBC have bigged up a similar non-story (and included it in its main news) on the back of a new series on “Russia and the West” on Sky?  No, I don’t think so either.


    • cjhartnett says:

      What`s that you say?
      Tony Blair LIED to us?…and the BBC aren`t up in arms at this flagrant abuse of the trust we all put in the Great Helmsman?


  4. cjhartnett says:

    Has Winifred Robinson gone rogue up in Salford then?
    Todays “You And Yours” tells me how I can self scan a bottle of champagne, but only be charged for the price of a watermelon(it weighs something similar ,you know…well Winifred does anyway!)
    Her hapless stammering interviewer from academe rather warns her not do it, but Winifred has clearly got the Salford spirit and tells us all about the scam…sorry, scan!
    I guess she thinks Tescos deserve it to be stuck to them.
    Those BBC staffrooms might need a police trawl to prevent any further tips and incitements to commit a crime.
    How would anyone but a privileged Beeboid know how to nick champagne and pretend it`s only fruit?…did Worrall Thompson help or has Winnie worked it out by herself?
    “Children of the Revolution”…what a good rebellion dearie!


  5. Barry says:

    Salford is importing champagne now? The locals, hardly any of whom work at the BBC, must be so pleased.


    • Louis Robinson says:

      Perhaps the people of Salford will now have a chance to compare avocado and mushy peas as the former will be imported from the south via the BBC staff cafe (canteen)


    • Natsman says:

      I think they’re stocking up with champers for the next election, and another labour win, like they won the last one (well, at least the BBC think they did…)


  6. Wayne Xenocrates says:

    This morning I signed the ‘Abolish the TV licence fee by 2013’ petition from a link on this forum.  I then had a confirmation by email, so I had a look through the other BBC related petitions and there were dozens of them.   The first thing that is noticeable is that many are along the same line and so overlapping and therefore fragmenting the cause.  Co-ordination is therefore vital if we are to be taken seriously.


    Anyway, at the time of looking there were 3,626 votes on the above petition. 

    On the ‘Keep Formula 1 Free To Air in the UK’ there are 39,952 votes.  Ten times as many! 

    Hey ho.


    • Natsman says:

      I suppose that’s only to be expected – the British public appear only to be interested in sports, Eastenders, X-lycomedancingfactor, and other drivel.  Something important, like “do you want to continue funding the marxist broadcasting corporation?”, or “is the world heating (or cooling) uncontrollably, and do you want the government to take your money to stop it” are only of passing interest.


  7. El Paulo says:

    ‘Difficulties for the Copts’ makes it sound like their having a particular “allowance” witheld or something!

    By the way, did anyone hear the Naked Scientist programme on 5Live a few weeks ago? Another example of bizarre science reporting, IMO. In answering a caller enquiry about how the parasitic plant Mistletoe evolved, the host ended by saying that it ‘thought’ about becoming parasitic. Then, when introducing a feature about reading minds, he stated that ‘thoughts are nothing more than (…) nerve cells firing off in a certain sequence’. Which is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical (and indeed a biased) one.


  8. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Only had the BBC News Channel on for fifteen minutes, and I’m already bored with this talk of “moral/responsible capitalism” drivel. Instead of asking, “What the hell does that even mean,” all the Beeboids can do is ask, “How do we achieve it?” As if this undefined bromide is the correct idea and we just need to get on with it.  This is journalism?


  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Some Beeboid outside the Peacocks offices just now, getting a quick vox pops from some newly laid-off employee to give you “a snapshot” of the redudancies made at the retail chain. Who is the example of economic crisis, you ask?

    The “director of learning”.


  10. Jeremy Clarke says:

    What is a bad capitalist? Is it a company that loses £1 million every week by making a crap product that no one buys?

    That’s The Guardian buggered, then.

    As Gordon Ramsay would say: shut it down. πŸ™‚


    • Reed says:

      …but they’re such caring people – it’s the newspaper with a social conscience and therefore good for the public, as they never know what’s good for them. It should probably receive public money, it’s really that worthy of being ‘uniquely funded’.

      (in addition to the money from all those public sector job ads)


  11. My Site (click to edit) says:

    At least Newsnight has mainatined its firm grasp of what the nation’s priorities should be…


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      So a Marxist talks to Cameron about a march towards Statism, followed by another Left-wing Beeboid talking to another Marxist. You’d never guess that the new political editor came from the Guardian, eh?  Your license fee hard at work indeed.


      • wild says:

        No wonder the viewing figures for BBC Newsnight are heading down to the circulation figures of the (loss making) Guardian newspaper.


        • My Site (click to edit) says:

          Whilst that may explain why each essentially only sources or refers to the other, I am unclear on how, exactly, either can be deemed to represent the UK public as they, and their senior management appear to feel… and indeed take pains to point out. A lot.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      PS: I’m enjoying this new BBC trend of labeling Left-wing talking heads. I wonder what prompted it, and how long it will last?


  12. David Preiser (USA) says:

    BBC News Channel just now quoting a local Des Moines, Iowa paper saying that in fact Rick Santorum won the Republican Caucus instead of Romney. Funny how they leave out the important bit: the Iowa Republican Caucus counts this as a tie, and will split the delegate votes 50/50 between the candidates. So nothing has changed since two weeks ago, and this is a non-story.  It’s just that they’ve finally finished the count, after some precincts were a bit messed up. In practical terms, however: yawn.

    Unless, of course, you’re a Beeboid foreigner looking down on us from on high, chortling over our “bizarre” system. Then I can see how you might think this is worth a mention on a domestic Britsh news service. The mad coverage of the second-most important election in human history is definitely under way.


  13. Martin says:

    Lefty Bacon just complemented his producer for playing some Billy Bragg shit on some story about Red Ed.

    So far today Bacon has slagged off Tories, Sarah Palin (again) most Republicans and then owned up to being a public schoolboy.


    • jarwill101 says:

        I’m beginning to wonder just how much Beeboid Marching Powder Bacon hoovered up his nose during his early ‘career’. Obviously enough to enter a Permanent Imbecilic State.


    • Jonathan S says:

      Richard Bacon is a dickhead, but i suppose his parents are proud of him


  14. Louis Robinson says:

    There’s an ABC interview about to be aired tonight. In it Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife (#2) claims he wanted her to share him with Clarista – his present wife. Who does Gingrich think he is? Prince Charles?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Gingrich is way, way too much like Bill Clinton. I’d love to see him as VP, though. It would be hilarious, yet effective.


  15. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Is Rick Perry’s drop-out speech really worth full air time on the News Channel? Is that value for the license fee and vital info the British public needs?


    • hippiepooter says:

      24hr rolling news, yeah, I’d say so.  His endorsement of Gingrich is definitely newsworthy.


  16. noggin says:

    any chance of another el beeb gitmo “shocking truth” special to explain this contradiction πŸ™‚
    V.Drearybyshire might be at the airport, does she fancy another jolly?”  so she could er … “gitmo” airmiles πŸ™   (sorry)
    French judge seeks Guantanamo access over ‘torture’    
    E. Fontaine (AFP) A French judge has requested access to Guantanamo to probe claims by three Frenchmen that they were tortured at the notorious jail which US President Barack Obama once promised to close”.    

     jeez! in that ahem …  torture hellpit, where coincidently

    Al Qaeda mag got into Gitmo cell,” by R.Lardner Associated Press, Jan 18 …    
    (yep! from the tv lounge, next to the remote, under the samosas πŸ™‚ )


  17. noggin says:

    Muslim armies were conquering more Christian land and increasingly terrorizing and persecuting Christians? Or that the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim had recently desecrated and destroyed a number of important churches—such as the Church of St. Mark in Egypt and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem—and decreed several, even more oppressive than usual, decrees against Christians and Jews? , and brutal retribution for those who even  attempted a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.    
    It is in this backdrop that Pope Urban called for the Crusade.    
    THE CRUSADES IN CONTEXT By Dr. Paul Stenhouse.   
    With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. as theu were in imminent danger of complete subdugation/possible annihllation.

    The Real History of the Crusades

    That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defence   
    after that little light reading, can anyone explain this????
    crusades by tom (asswipe) assbridge    
    apparently history?? by apparently a historian ???    
    if you think his “R Bacon” advert was appalling πŸ˜€     
    you ain t seen nothin  
    look if a fictional depiction, turns up on el beeb 2, to me unwatchable,  (as i don t appreciate intelligence insults) .
    But, the old mohamhead  cult might, even though they don t need anymore conspiracy theories).    

    But it is that, fiction, and biased agenda lead nonsense


    • dave s says:

      What was interesting was the narrator’s insistence that 11th centiry Europe was an age of unquestioning faith a thesis that makes sense. What he did not seem to realise is that today the Islamic world appears to be just the same. Christendom has greatly changed in the last 1000 years but has Islam? I doubt if he will make the obvious comparison.


      • noggin says:

         “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, that erasure was forgotten, and the lie became truth”.

        “Just after the event: that was what counted — concrete, unmistakable evidence of an act of falsification.”


    • RGH says:

      Glad you linked to the Madden article.

      A necessary reminder that main stream scholarship is not entirely impressed by the agenda driven popularisation of the crusades by the current crop of the liberal left.

      History should not be a political football… the ideal world…as it seeks to identify bias and falsehood in being ‘true to the past’.

      Of course, that is more easily said then done. Historians exist in a social context and to stand outside the zeitgeist requires insight and objectivity.

      readers of this site instinctively suspect the BBC treatment of the medieval crusades phenomenon and suspect that the ‘history’ is being influenced by an agenda….perhaps unconscious or influenced by a romaticist desire to criticise ones society by contrasting it with the ‘noble savage’.

      This suspicion is justified.

      I studied the crusades in the 1970’s….before Islam really figured in our world view. In many ways the influence was Runciman…a storyteller with a strong feeling for Byzantium….and the relations with the Latin West.  The image of the violent barbarian crusader contrasted with the urbane Byzantine marked a whole generation of historians.

      Runciman’s work was flawed. It was written over 60 years ago.

      But the image of the crusader he painted has survived only, because of current concerns, the Byzantine…urbane and liberal …has been replaced by the liberal left as the Arab….urbane and liberal. ie a victim.

      In reality, the crusades were forgotten in the Muslim world. No folk memory. Events like the total destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols, which devasted the Muslim Caliphate, are readily recalled in stories and legends. The Latin, or Frankish Crusades are not. In fact, the impression among scholars was that Islam had won.

      The rediscovery occured in the late C19th. The west was omnipresent. The Ottoman caliphate collapsed in the fires of WW1. Nascent Arab nationalism looked for reasons for the backwardness and futility of their efforts.

      The obvious, but ahistorical choice, was to demonise the infidel…and the crusade myth was re-born in the Arab collective conciousness.

      BBC style ‘histories’ just reconfirm this myth.


  18. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC has a timely online report about Bank of Americ returning to profit, after a really crap 2011. Other banks are performing differently, this may or may not be a sign of an improving economy, yada yada.

    Important line in the context of today’s BBC obsession with “a fairer capitalism, in which everyone should share the success”, and the scowling at Fred Goodwin’s knighthood:

    The lender has been hit by lingering concerns about bad mortgage loans on its books in the wake of the 2008 sub-prime crisis when it was bailed out by the US government.

    Censored by the BBC: B of A paid it all back more than two years ago.

    This a hugely important point, because the BBC and the far-Left always talk about bank bailouts as if money was gifted to them for free while the rest of us are made to suffer. It’s a completely false narrative, yet has become common parlance. 10 out of 10 people you ask on the street will think this. Yet it was a loan, which has been repaid. A risky one, yes, and we may not like how all the money was used. But it was not a gift, not at all like demanding that the Government redistribute wealth more fairly.  The BBC exacerbates this notion all too often, and it’s misleading and borderline dishonest when they mention that B of A got bailed out but fail to mention that it was a loan, long since repaid in full.

    I wonder if the Marxist economics geniuses at the BBC are even aware of this? I’m sure Peston is, but he doesn’t care how the BBC reports this stuff, as he sings from the same hymnsheet.


  19. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Mr. Black best watch his back.

    SusannaRustin Susanna Rustin excellent, worrying piece in Irish Times. RT @neildemause: media ignoring climate change. @think_or_swim
    I don’t think this young lady leaves a single box unticked.


  20. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Now, now, chlidren..

    BBCNewsnight BBC Newsnight David Cameron told @paulmasonnews that he doesn’t watch #Newsnight. Strange, it used to be a staple his child rearing
    Maybe the PM was thinking of the ‘news’ value now of a programme that has as an economics editor a person in the form of Mr. Mason, who seems unable to divorce his personal loathing of anything outside his tribal comfort zone from what an in-theory professional, objective journalist should manage.
    Whilst also not constantly hurting the country that his employers bear in their name, too, for petty reasons.
    Having a raving left wing, biased activist shaping economic reporting on the national broadcaster seems pretty strange, too.
    Especially when I am compelled to co-fund his salary to do so.


    • jarwill101 says:

        Ah, Comrade Mason, ‘Humbert Humbert’ to Penny Red’s ‘Lolita’. An ‘adult’ some think is revelling in his second revolutionary youth, not realising he never grew out of his first ludicrous love affair with all things Left: however imbecilic. An ‘adult’, who only last August yearned to run once more, wild & free, through the London streets with the boys of summer, his beloved ‘political trailblazers’ – or, to the grown-ups, a mob of vicious, hateful, spiteful, greedy looters, who richly deserved to bump into 2 Para. Ah, such insight, such nuanced opinion, from the economics guru who has masterminded Newsnight’s descent into utter, laughable,  irrelevance. I’m not surprised Cameron doesn’t watch it. It can be lonely sitting on your own.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        Newsnight’s descent into utter, laughable,  irrelevance.’

        I have asked Newsnight and will ask the BBC for an explanation for this, which seems little more than a petulant pretty playground taunt. Not really for the national broadcaster, or a progamme ‘representing’ (its full viewership may not share the politucal affliations of the producers, ediotrs and presenters) 0.5% of the UK public to be indulging in.

        Also, looking at what they rushed to the archives to bring out as a gotcha, the PM sounds like he has said that he uses it to ‘entertain a 3-month old into drowsiness, which, frankly, for a tanking, credibility-challenged ‘current affairs’/news’ show to highlight is.. at least, not bottling it. Still foolhardy, perhaps.


  21. George R says:

    Remembering Hrant DINK killing,

     in TURKEY.

    Here are two reports:


     -(from 2007) is a non-INBBC report which relevantly refers to ‘Muslims’ and ‘Non-Muslims’.


    -from 2012, is INBBC report which censors out words ‘Muslims’ and

    ‘non-Muslims’ –

    “Hrant Dink: Istanbul march as verdict anger continues”


    • George R says:

      And all three main UK political parties, plus INBBC-Guardian axis, campaign with Brussels for entry of 80 million Muslim Turks to be admitted into E.U.


  22. Nick Chambers says:

    I’m far from being a prude, however, I don’t really want to watch programmes called ‘Is Oral Sex Safe?’ Like Channel 4, BBC 3’s programmes are not really about sex education, but rather an excuse to show some flesh (preferably young). The left-wing is obsessed with sex education, even though its teaching seems to be counterproductive, especially in Britain.


    • matthew rowe says:

      Yes I have to say B-BBC seems to have got stuck in the finding dirty words in the dictionary phase of adolescence when it means the word ‘sex’  like there is anything they can teach the world ?
      Me I much prefer finding my own way and then not wanting to waggle it in everyone’s face !


  23. As I See It says:

    A word on two on the BBC’s new Crusades series.

    Many moons ago, as luck would have it, I studied this period as part of my history A Level.

    On watching the show I was struck by Dr Asbridge’s insistence that the First Crusade (1095) could not have been launched as a response to Muslim conquests, since Jerusalem had fallen ‘some hundreds of years before’.

    European Christian agression?

    No mention then of the Battle of Manzikert (1071) at which the Turks had defeated and captured the Byzantine Emperor.

    The fallout from Manzikert was almost disastrous for the empire, resulting in civil conflicts and an economic crisis that severely weakened the empire’s ability to adequately defend its borders. This led to the mass movement of Turks into central Anatolia (yep the people we know as modern Turks did not originate in modern Turkey); by 1080 an area of 30,000 square miles (78,000 km2) had been lost to the empire. Their choice in establishing their capital in Nicaea in 1077 could possibly be explained by a desire to see if the Empire’s struggles could present new opportunities.

    Now, Dr Asbridge, with the Muslim Turks camped just opposite Constantinople, what would Christian Europe have to worry about?


    • dave s says:

      The Beeboid would have known this . The need to portray Muslim conquests as non conquests and Christian responses as aggression overides the facts. The facts are now only what the liberals permit to be facts. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth.


      • Demon1001 says:

        Eerily similar to their reporting of the modern Middle East:

        Israel is attacked, but that doesn’t matter.  Israel responds and that is naked aggression.  In both cases the Muslims attack first; but the BBC sees that, both historically and modern day, as justified.  Everybody else is evil for daring to defend themselves from these attacks.


      • noggin says:

        aggressive muslim turks intent on conquest? right at the door? the usual el beeb/history lesson? … exactly the same response same as arab spring, as terrorism, etc etc etc
          ……. what????  could go wrong? ……

        not factual in history, not factual in news, not factual in reporting
        not factual in documentary etc.

         “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, that erasure was forgotten, and the lie became truth”.  
        “Just after the event: that was what counted — concrete, unmistakable evidence of an act of falsification.


  24. cjhartnett says:

    Thanks to the previous links put up by people here, that gave us proper historical context.
    This Asbridge conveniently fell into every elephant trap that I`d been warned of.
    1. That Pope Urban only saw the Crusades as a way to unite the divided Christians of “Catholic” and “Orthodox”.
    2. That the crime of clearing Christians out of their holy city of Jerusalem had happened hundreds of years before-so why else would Urban squauk than to upset the fait accomli that was Muslim pacification?
    3. That Islam had created fine multikulti conditions for assorted Christians and Jews who lived under Sharia Law….oh, there weren`t many fo them of course…wonder why?

    In short, usual hatchet job with blunt scissors and mittens…this is what passes for BBC history thesa days.
    Still…Qutada might give them another couple of days when the BBC leave their slippers at the door of his mosque.
    They have long left their senses,brains , consciences and discernment well away from any risk of upsetting the umma-which is why they`re so useless.
    Al Jazeera are cheaper and far more credible than the scumbag BBC.


  25. Martin says:

    Paul Mason has a boner on again on Newsnight.


  26. Foxgoose says:

    Yes – we’re spoiled  for choice tonight!

    SWP/NUJ Comrade Mason masturbating over the “end of capitalism” on Newsnight and, for a complete change, Caroline Lucas and Germaine Greer joining in with the BBC’s handpicked “Red Army Audience Display Team” over on BBC 1.

    Will capitalism even survice the next hour?


  27. Martin says:

    So let’s get this right Dotun Oloko started his investigation into the operations of the investment company in Nigeria back in 2009. Here’s a quote

    In February 2009, Mr Oloko, using a pseudonym and requesting confidentiality, wrote to former international development secretary, Douglas Alexander outlining his concerns that an African focused private equity firm, Emerging Capital Partners which has received British tax payers cash from CDC, might be linked to possible corruption in Nigeria. An allegation ECP denies.

    So this goes back to that useless jock Wee Doogie Alexander, yet Newsnight makes NO reference to Labour being in power, just the current Minister who of course is a nasty Tory.

    The BBC even get Caroline Lucas to comment as obviously they couldn’t get a Labour MP as Labour were in power when this kicked off.

    Another quote

    International development secretary, Andrew Mitchell yesterday launched a departmental review into his department’s corruption whistleblower procedures. He said: ‘This happened under the last Government but it is vital that whistleblowers should be able to report their concerns with impunity… While I am confident DfID acted in good faith to protect his identity, this should not have happened. We apologise unreservedly and are very sorry for any distress caused.

    Yet more lies and bias from the BBC, why didn’t they speak to wee Doogie?


  28. Umbongo says:

    The Court of Appeal has found that police “kettling” anti-G20 loonies was legal.  In response BBC1 London News gives some parasite lawyer from “Climate Camp” a minute to rant against the police: and from the police? Not a word!  Similarly, Southwark residents don’t like Thames Water’s plans for a super-sewer on the South Bank. BBC1 London News gave them a couple of minutes to complain about the 7-year disruption – featuring luvvie (and lefty) Patrick Stewart – while letting Thames Water gabble a 5 second response.

    I have sympathy with the Southwark residents but where was the BBC London News (and Olympic-nutter reporter Adrian Warner) when the London 2012 crowd threw out the small local (business and residential) community to build the white elephants of the future?  I’ll tell you.  They were drooling over the “triumph” of getting the Olympics, giving endless favourable (and fawning) publicity to Tessa Jowell and Cuddly Mayor Ken and and telling us that the budget was sound at under £ 1 billion (. . then £2 billion . . £4 billion and now £10 billion).  The BBC, at its impartial disinterested best enabled the classic “breaking eggs to make omelettes” justification through unchallenged so that the businesses and homes of the “little people” who stood in the way of Coe’s wet dream could be cleared.


  29. Martin says:

    Now we have a Labour MP on to talk about Fred Goodwin’s Knighthood, but have the BBC forgotten just WHICH party gave him the Knighthood?

    Of course they have, get a Tory MP on and the first thing he’d point out is WHO knighted him.

    Why do we have that Bengamin halfwit on?

    I bet if Paxman were offered a gong he’d take it.


  30. pounce_uk says:

    So yesterday for some strange reason I put the telly on in the morning. Don’t ask why I just did and I came across this program:
    Wanted down under
    Well this one was about the Hussien family from blackburn and I caught it as they were visiting an aquarium in Sydney. Anyway the talk came around if they wanted to stay or return to the Uk. Now she explained that as good muslims she wanted to bring up her children as muslims and she knew from her own experiances that she couldn’t get that in Australia but she could in…the Uk. In fact from what I saw that snippet was more a party political broadcast for Islam in the Uk than a travel show. Listen to the women speak at the 30 min mark for a couple minutes:


    • Peter Parker says:

      Yeah – can you imagine a similar BBC program featuring a Christian or Jewish family. No? Me neither.


  31. Dez says:

    Yeah – only on BiasedBBC can one episode out of one hundred and seventeen episodes of “Wanted Down Under” be used as evidence of a pro-muslim anti-christian/jewish bias. (!)


    • Evil Tory says:

      Danny Baker is that you?


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      only on … can one episode out of one hundred and seventeen … be used as evidence’

      For A BBCphilic cherry vulture to raise the subject of highlighting the % of instances of anything, given the ongoing modus operandi deployed on this blog is… good value.

      In the spirit of two wrongs, one might also ask what % of transgression the great and good at the BBC indulge when giving those they like a pass, or those they don’t the fully monty of outrage du jour from Breakfast sofa to Newsnight ‘panel’.

      Well worth highlighting agian, tx.


  32. Evil Tory says:

    <img src=”” alt=”Chris Mason”/> ChrisMasonBBC Chris Mason Owen Jones, Tessa Dunlop and David Quo join @tonylivesey and I on @bbc5live shortly to discuss #bbcqt. Join in: 0500 909 693, text 85058.
    Not sure who David Quo is, buts that a pretty one sided debate


  33. john says:

    Smile please and say cheesy !
    The BBC’s Kim Gittleson takes great pleasure in reporting the demise of another iconic American company, this time Kodak.
    The Gitt’ asks “the real question for those who are left may not be how to survive, but when to die.”
    Well Kim, US households are not forced to pay a $200 annual tax for owning a Kodak camera, whether they use it or not.
    It maybe because the lens is well left of centre, or just plain crap.
    So it’s lucky that your “real” question does not apply to your employers isn’t it ?


  34. Martin says:

    So we find out that 375,000 foreign scroungers are claiming benefits.


    How does the BBC react? Well Radio 5 is ‘suspicious’ of the Government motives.


    Funny how the BBC is only ‘suspicious’ with Tory Governments in power.


    Remember how my mate Sheena used to lap up Gordon Brown statistics as FACT and NEVER bothered about the political motive? Even when it turned into pure embarrassment for him.


    Or 5 bellies Smith rounding up Tory MP’s for arrest because of them getting hold of information that made Labour look bad, nothing ‘suspicious’ from the BBC then.


    • noggin says:

      mart, you ll be pleased to know your fave 5live “prog”
      with “young” nicky “ows about that, ows about that” cambbell
      is going to take all those scroungers to task πŸ˜€


      • noggin says:

        as an addition, theres been discussion about eastern europe, about poles, czechs, etc in fact quite open, that is until we have a pakistani caller, whoops!… surprise surprise, now we re talking about offence, yep now we re talking about racism, old NC practically wetting his pants with joy.
         …………… OFF SWITCH


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Funny how the BBC is only ‘suspicious’ with Tory Governments in power. ‘

      While suspicion is valid in any news gathering role, it is best not to articulate that outside the edit suite until the facts are known and checked.

      Otherwise is rather smacks of a smear knee jerk punt based on bias.

      Just sayin’.

      It will be interesting how Newsnight spins it. Especially guest wise. Maybe Paul Mason could also be be recalled to offer his further ‘views’ on the government elected by the people he thinks he represents, but have no say in swallowing and paying for his tribal partiality from our most trusted national treasure. 


      • cjhartnett says:

        Same with the crime figures.
        We here know that they`re lies and have been for years-yet Labour were able to “celebrate” the perpetual decreases in crime for thirteen years.
        Yet the 10 O Clock News gave us some woman who`d been threatened with a knife in her bedroom…telling us that the crime figures “don`t give us the whole story”.
        None of that equivocation and doom in regard of anything that Blunkett or Reid chose to leave in their kitty litter tray of Wood Lane throughout the last Golden Age of Peace and Prosperity, under luvvly Labor!


    • cjhartnett says:

      Only 2% shouted Humphrys over the long-suffering Chris Grayling!
      That Grayling patiently tried to say that there were still lots of data to gather…”ah, but it`s 2% and a failure” parrotted Humph.
      Do the BBC ever run maths workshops for their 2nd home toffs?…even a podcast of “More or Less” might do the job…that is, if they`ll be brave enough to mention this abuse of figures.


  35. DJ says:

    According to the Today program, this whole internet protest thing is driven by a bunch of crazed libertarians who want to be able to steal everyone else’s copyright material.

    Needless to say, the words ‘First Amendment’ didn’t pass anyone’s lips and we never got an explanation why that whole ‘due process’ thing should apply to terrorists but not to people allegedly ripping off ‘Tranformers 3: Revenge of the Scriptwriters’


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The First Amendment has nothing to do with distributing copyrighted material without compensating the owners, no matter how many adolescents and wealthy internet moguls claim it does.

      What this is actually about is the Government attempting a massive power grab in which they can have a federal judge rubber-stamp every frivolous complaint churned out by Hollywood and the RIAA and the New York Times and Rupert Murdoch, forcing a website to shut down without any actual due process of law. The way the law is written now, the judge doesn’t have to consider the merit of the complaint, like they do with other issues. No court proceedings, no trail, no defense: the complaint itself shuts down the website.

      The biggest problem of all is that SOPA will set the ugliest of precedents for the Government to be able to shut down any website they want based on any complaint. They’d be able to shut down this blog, for example, if the President decided that this was political speech which violated election campaign rules. No chance to prove innocence in court before sentence is carried out. They just shut it down, and we’d have to go through an expensive, lengthy legal process to even try to get it back.

      The US judicial system relies heavily on precedent, and this would be a seriously bad one to set.

      MegaUpload, on the other hand, made hundreds of millions in fees from people trafficking in illegal material. It’s no different from them getting busted for helping people sell bootleg DVDs on a street corner. They took way too long to respond to copyright complaints and take down violating material, and were basically a big target.


  36. cjhartnett says:

    Heard Humphrys ruminating on this one briefly this morning.
    He seems to think of himself as a writer (and in danger of being pirated by association).
    Wouldn`t it be great if all the magisterial talent who haul themselves out of bed to keep the nation thinking “appropriately” decided to stop the two jobs and devote themselves to the muse.
    All that fiction that they read out on a daily basis might come into its own, now.
    Isn`t Humph due his trip out to Athens to check the olives…there must be SOME follow up on the Greek crisis due, now we`re due a cold snap?


  37. My Site (click to edit) says:

    JackofKent David Allen Green Need help on #Leveson – can people please send me urls of particular posts which have been especially good at exposing bad journalism.
    One is tempted to send him , but given his beat I suspect that’s not where he is looking.


  38. Biodegradable says:

    I’m stunned, truly stunned!

    Israel arrests senior Palestinian Aziz Dweik

    The report begins with the usual reluctance to use the “T” word, and true to form even attempts to legitimise the terrorist:

    A senior Palestinian politician and member of the militant group Hamas has been arrested by the Israeli army in the West Bank.

    Aziz Dweik, speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), was arrested at an army checkpoint, his chief of staff told AFP news agency.

    There’s more glorifying the terrorist and demonising Israel for having the cheek to arrest him, for example:

    The BBC’s Wyre Davies in Jerusalem says Aziz Dweik has remained an influential figure in Palestinian political circles.

    Many will see his arrest as a provocative act and further proof than Israel is pursuing a policy of restricting the movements of senior Palestinian figures, he adds.

    (Who are these “many”?)

    The arrest comes amid rising tensions between Israel and Gaza. On Wednesday Israeli aircraft attacked targets in Gaza and troops struck targets near the border fence between Gaza and Israel.

    Of course the “tension” is all Israel’s fault because there’s no mention of what those “targets” were and why they were “attacked” and “struck”.

    All par for the course so far. So imagine my surprise when I got to the final paragraph:

    Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and EU, due to its refusal to renounce violence and recognise Israel. Under the group’s charter, Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel.

    I’m stunned I tell you, stunned!


  39. As I See It says:

    I’ve nothing against the man personally, but am glad to see Beeboid Alan Johnston (ex temporary Gaza hostage) has found a comfortable birth in Italy from which safe european home he has been reporting on the latest Euro shipwreck.

    While he’s out there perhaps he might post a follow up report on ‘Vittorio Arrigoni…. the first foreigner kidnapped in Gaza since BBC journalist Alan Johnston was abducted in 2007…by Salafist radicals, an Islamist movement that considers Hamas as too moderate.’

    ‘Hamas interior ministry said he had died soon after being abducted.
    Ministry spokesman Ehab al-Ghussein said he was killed “in an awful way”.

    Perhaps the Beeb think it’s best to forgive and forget?


  40. Henry says:

    Just an old quickie. Was thinking of getting a DVD of the excellent BBC drama “Boys from the Blackstuff” out of the library to watch at home (I need cheerinh up πŸ™‚ )

    The blurb on the back of the DVD said: “TV’s most eloquent response to Thatcher’s Britain”.

    Yeah, TV’s most eloquent response to…something or other. Perhaps to Callahan’s Britain, seeing as how the whole thing was conceived and written in 1978.

    Or maybe it was the end of a certain working-class culture Bleasdale had in mind. He may or may not be concerned about the way the drama was seen, but it’s a useful fact to note. 

    But the BBC did the packaging, so it was Thatcher’s name (as the great evil, by implication) that went on the back of the DVD


  41. Biodegradable says:

    Something I meant to comment on yesterday.

    We’ll all remember the furor about alleged Mossad agents using fake passports? Well it seems OK when its British agents doing it:

    Inside story of the UK’s secret mission to beat Gaddafi


    In planning this operation, SIS chose to use a highly sensitive arm of the special forces, E Squadron, in order to look after its people. Six members of E Squadron, which is recruited from all three Tier 1 units (SAS, SBS and Special Reconnaissance Regiment) duly boarded the Chinook to “mind” the intelligence people.

    They were equipped with a variety of weapons and secure communications gear. In keeping with E Squadron’s sensitive role, they were in plain clothes or black jumpsuits (accounts vary), and carried a variety of passports.


    • Umbongo says:

      I’m not sure of the level of BBC approval in this case.  Maybe, reporting on an item of news in a more or less straightforward way is a signal that the BBC has no party line on that particular item and is therefore happy, in respect of that item, to provide unskewed, unpoliticised information to their customers.  Nevertheless, analogously to the the BBC’s Prime Minister-in-exile, Miliband, in his description of “good” and “bad” capitalists, the BBC has “good” Arabs and “bad” ones.  
      Consequently, using false passports against “good” Arabs (which at the BBC includes anyone belonging to Hamas) particularly by anyone connected to Israel must be condemned, while using false passports against “bad” Arabs (which includes anyone connected to the Gaddafi regime – but only since the beginning of the Arab “Spring”) may be, sort of, kosher.  I suspect, however, that were the holders of a variety of passports in this case members of Mossad, the wickedness of being on the side of Israel would trump any wickedness attaching to Gaddafi and the BBC’s outrage would, in consequence, be manifest.  BTW using false British passports by Moslem apologists for terrorism – particularly if such apologists can be described, falsely or otherwise, as “Britons” or “British residents” – is certainly OK with the BBC.  
      This particular element of BBC bias is one of the many (predictable) consequences of strict adherence to the Narrative.  Have some pity Biodegradable, they can’t help themselves.


    • Henry says:

      fairly standard, I think. But I’m not sure they count as fake passports, just that you might er..have several instead of one πŸ™‚ 


      • Biodegradable says:

        I apologise for my choice of the word “fake” in reference to the passports. Umbongo more correctly calls them “false”.

        Even if all that “variety of passports” used by the British agents were British, and not of some foreign country, which I doubt, it stands to reason that they were false.

        How many British passports do you hold?


  42. Umbongo says:

    As you say, in an exercise well down to the usual standard of BBC journalism, Rory Cellan-Jones (the BBC’s “expert” on technology) made a total balls-up of explaining the issues concerning the internet protest “black-outs”.  Yes, a small part – a very small part – of the protest was down to some “libetarians” who believe (perhaps) that “copyright is theft”.  The major concern is the way the proposed legislation would deal with allegations of (let alone actual) copyright infringement and the effects on the internet.  What a crock!  Anyone whose sole knowledge of this issue was restricted to the crapola vomited on Today would not have the faintest idea what the real fuss is about.  This is the reality of the BBC’s mission to “explain”: on many serious concerns, not only does the BBC not know, it cares less that it doesn’t know and displays its very ignorance as a badge of faux-impartiality.
    BTW Rory is fire-proof and will never suffer for his blatant incompetent and lazy journalism.  Why?  His wife (Diana Coyle) is vice-chairman of the BBC Trust and – completely impartially – early last year became adviser to the then Labour shadow business secretary.   What a cosy world it is at the BBC and in the senior reaches of the political class!  Moreover, the BBC – the tax-funded spokesman for that class and, particularly, for the incompetents, liars and parasites who form a large part of it – has the nerve to point a finger at those in the commercial world who are “rewarded for failure”.


  43. noggin says:

    hot from the
    tried to tell you, (mohs – war is deceit), department,  
    no el beeb link yet
    Washington Post

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Friday that France is suspending its training programs for Afghan troops after the killings In one of the worst incidents, a veteran Afghan military pilot opened fire at Kabul airport 

    Nicolas Sarkozy France suspends Afghan troop training programme after killing of four French French troops today on Friday in eastern Afghanistan10 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan in 24 hours…/ALeqM5jJmwMOIruBqahczHKADfp1XZ_Guw..


  44. D B says:

    It’s often pointed out on on this blog how much the BBC loves Giles Fraser for his lefty political views. Earlier this month he made one of his many regular BBC appearances, this time on Newsnight. Here are some tweets about it:

    @SaraAfshar Sara Afshar
    Giles Fraser is great #newsnight
    4 Jan via Twitter for iPhone

    @jossgarman Joss Garman
    Very impressive @giles_fraser on #newsnight talking #occupylsx
    4 Jan via web

    @SaraAfshar Sara Afshar
    @jossgarman I actually cheered at one point
    4 Jan via Twitter for iPhone

    “I actually cheered at one point”. That’s Sara Afshar – “Producer, BBC Newsnight.” (The other tweet is from some environmental campaigner).

    Seriously, are there ANY news producers at the BBC who aren’t lefties?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      She’s got the get-out-of-bias-free disclaimer, I see. Still waiting for a defender of the indefensible to show us one single tweet from a Beeboid espousing non-Left views.


      • D B says:

        The first editorial policy meeting at the new BBC North complex was about Twitter. Popular too, it seems:

        @Rhiroberts Rhian Roberts
        First BBC Editorial Policy meeting @BBCNorth yesterday; huge turnout, standing room only. Did twitter – who’s right and who’s wrong and why
        18 Jan via web

        According to one attendee the Beeb is still not sure how to deal with it:

        @darrylmorris Darryl Morris
        Talked twitter in a BBC editorial meeting. Still a very grey area – 5 years on and nobody is really sure how to handle it. Interesting tho.

        This person (an assistant producer at  BBC Knowledge and Learning) mentions case studies:

        @isntit Helen Purves
        At an Editorial Policy meeting about Twitter. Very interesting to hear what people have to say. The case studies are fascinating.

        I wonder if they discussed any of the stuff we’ve highlighted.


        • My Site (click to edit) says:

          ‘I wonder if they discussed any of the stuff we’ve highlighted.’

          Might explain why those involving complaints pointing out twitter-based rmapant bias seem to have gone very, very, quiet as they still attempt to get a handle on not lying, misdirecting or punting out personal propaganda.

          They are evidently still trying to get into their pretty, if empty little heads what is right, wrong, grey, fascinating or.. and here’s a thought, unprofessional and highly partial.

          If they can’t ‘get’ it after 5 years, I doubt they ever will.


          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            During his legendary appearance at the BBC CoJ, Mardell stated that Twitter was considered to be outside the BBC rules. This was met with approval by Simon Wilson and fellow Beeboids. The rule is that only with official BBC sanction can a Beeboid put the logo on and tweet in his/her capacity as a Beeboid. But as long as they put the “opinions my own” disclaimer in, they’re not required to get approval, and they can say whatever they like. So long as there’s not too much outcry, of course.

            While I can understand that it’s silly to prevent a BBC employee from having a personal Twitter account, it’s also BS to allow them to put their BBC job on there and claim their behavior doesn’t reflect on their capacity as BBC employees. It should be very simple: if it’s personal, don’t list your employer, and don’t tweet about your BBC articles or otherwise use your personal account to promote your job.

            The fact that the BBC still can’t work this out is evidence of an intellectual failure, not to mention rank dishonesty.


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        ‘show us one single tweet’

        Cherry Vulture Caution!

        There may be something in the archive from a Clarkson or Neil, so there’ll be scores of them on weekend O/T just to give us another opportunity to point out that one summer swallow does not atone for the vast flocks of carrion they seem to be unware of as they rummage in the bloated corpse of Aunty’s cred and rotting ‘trust’.


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Oh larks, this numptie is what shapes the Newsnight production?

      So much explained; so little still excused.

      Producer, BBC Newsnight. Tweeting in a personal capacity. Unable to resist plugging the job spec. to boost the slef-esteeem, mind.

      Daft bint.


      • D B says:

        Yeah but what do all these lefty news producers do apart from help choose the guests, do the background research, write news copy etc… it’s not as if they have any influence.


    • Henry says:

      short answer, no!

      Twitter is chock-full of lefties linking to demented Guardian articles and saying “So true…”, and being retweeted by their supporters.


  45. George R says:

    “Al Jazeera presenter says that calling station ‘Bin Laden TV’ was like calling BBC ‘IRA TV’”


    The Islamic broadcaster, Al Jazeera, which employs many ex-Beeboid useful idiots in London, did have an understanding with Al Qaeda to broadcast Bin Laden’s jihad propagandas videos; and INBBC had an agreement with Islamic Al Jazeera to use these videos.

    Like Al Jazeera, INBBC supports Hamas and opposes Israel.

    On the IRA, don’t Beeboids treat Adams and Mc Guinness as good guys?


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      “Al Jazeera presenter says that calling station ‘Bin Laden TV’ was like calling BBC ‘IRA TV’”

      Indeed. Given historical record, that might not be the best analogy to go for if it was aiming at empathy.


  46. David Preiser (USA) says:

    What’s the most popular video clip on the BBC right now? You’ll never guess:


  47. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Mark Mardell has a new crush: Ron Paul. This is the second time now he’s waxed enthusiastically over Paul and his followers. The youth element particularly excites him.

    But notice that, while the supposed main message is that Paul’s followers like his anti-government message, and talk of “freedom”, and disillusionment with politics, the thing that really inspires the followers is his isolationist position, which is what makes him the favorite of the anti-war crowd. The talk of spending cuts is a fig leaf for many people.

    Most of his followers confuse the anti-big government message with a desire for Occupy/student-style “democracy”. Many of his followers also conflate his anti-corproate influence message with their own desire for a world without corporations. You can tell Mardell does the same thing, as in his report from a Paul rally in Iowa, he said that, except for the talk of spending cuts, Paul sounds like a nice Left-wing candidate.

    Left unspoken: Paul’s anti-abortion stance, and his anti-Israel stance.

    What’s really funny is that all these media talking heads Mardell hangs out with think that Paul would be a danger to the Republicans if he runs on his own. But if you scratch the surface of most Paul followers, it seems pretty clear that if Paul runs as a third-party candidate, he’ll take more votes away from The Obamessiah than from a Republican.


  48. George R says:

    Do we have to keep paying for someone like BBC-NUJ’s Mr Brook to fly out to, and propagandise for, a small (predominantly lefitist) film festival in Utah?

    (Video clip.)


  49. Martin says:

    Has anyone else seen Guido’s blog today? He has a piece on Amelia Hill (she of the phone hacking saga) and an allegation she’s been having a relationship with a Met Police plod.

    Now you might remember I posted on here a while back that Amelia Hill was very evasive when asked by Anna Botting on Sky News if she were paying Police for information and I asked here why the BBC were not asking where the Guardian was getting it’s inside information from (such as Andy Coulson’s arrest).

    One of the questions I asked is why would a copper risk his career to leak information to the Guardian if he’s not being paid? Perhaps the Guardian had something on him or perhaps there were ‘other reasons’

    The fact the BBC have NOT reported Hill’s alleged relationship with a Met plod is incredible, can you imagine if a hack from say the Sun were banging a plod?

    Despite Amelia Hill, his crime reporter, beinginvestigated over her rather inappropriate relationship with a police officer, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger thought it fit to have an undisclosed meeting with Hogan Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner yesterday. We’re making this public today because the Guardian was very tight-lipped about it when Guido put it to them yesterday and refused to confirm or deny the meeting happened. We have now double confirmed it via our unofficial and official sources in the Metropolitan Police.

    To me this is just incredible, what with Leveson and all, I really can’t believe this has been kept quiet, I’m wondering if Guido had it leaked to him by another paper?

    Shouldn’t the BBC be asking questions?


    • D B says:

      “Shouldn’t the BBC be asking questions?”

      I think BBC News (especially Newsnight) is simply too close to the Guardian to ask tough questions.


  50. John Anderson says:

    Two days ago BBC Radio 4 news headlines mentioned a couple of times that Newt Gingrich had had to answer a question at a Republican debate “moderated” by CNN about stuff his former wife had said – which ABC had sought out.  How was this US incident worthy of a headline in the UK ?

    Yes,  Newt Gingrich’s riposte had hit the headlines in the US.  But the BBC did not say why,  and the sound clip deliberately cut the huge applause his reply received.  He said it was disgraceful for the CNN moderator to make this the first question at the debate,  as if it was more important than all the issues America faces.  There was a storm of applause.  The CNN questioner proceeded to push,  and Gingrich continued to slap down CNN and the media generally – to continuing huge applause.  

    The real news was the scorn so many people feel towards the media.  Another senior CNN journalist faced down the CNN moderator on this,  on air,  a day later.

    Double standards again – where was the muckraking (sorry – due-diligence scrutiny) on Democrat John Edwards who was having a love-child DURING his run at the Presidential nomination ?   Where was the muckraking on the multiple instances of Obama having a racist preacher and close links with acknowledged urban terrorists and various crooks in Chicago ?  When did the media ever explain what on earth a “community organiser” does ?

    Gingrich may well win in the South Carolina primary today – or do well enough to stay in the race as now the only strong non-Romney candidate.  We can expect the BBC to follow every nuance of the attacks on him – or on Romney – by leftie media in the US.