Here we go folks, Monday morning arrives and time for a new general Open Thread to detail your observations of BBC bias. The floor is yours..
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Up2snuff April 20, 2024 at 8:17 am on Weekend 20th April 2024BBC WEB-SITE Watch #1 - is Jezbo Thoughtful in drag? Jeremy Bowen has penned this article on the BBC web-site:...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 8:05 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Cross country running at school was enough for me in 1977, especially in the woods halfway through after someone produced...
- Thoughtful April 20, 2024 at 7:59 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Son't blame me Fed I know your views, but I didn't start this, Broadcasting did with his flaming. He didn't...
- Doublethinker April 20, 2024 at 7:50 am on Weekend 20th April 2024I have a problem with making anything that I post on this site about the current state of BBC reporting...
- Zephir April 20, 2024 at 7:26 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Fosacari, If you crossed the finishing line after a 26 mile run alongside a one legged man on crutches, I...
- Fedup2 April 20, 2024 at 7:23 am on Weekend 20th April 2024Thoughtful- as you might read - you are not winning friends by your repeated view about a non BBC subject...
- Thoughtful April 20, 2024 at 7:20 am on Weekend 20th April 2024So, unable to answer the question - the usual aggressive ignorant bigotry! Despite the fact I have made it clear...
- Fedup2 April 20, 2024 at 7:20 am on Weekend 20th April 2024At the end of the last thread - Friday night - I re published the apology from the emirs ‘...
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
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/05/bbc-guns-constables-and-lenny-harper.html
After last week with Tim Donovan, thought I would check on him in this Sunday Politics. Lammy was the leftoid being promoted. Lammy claims Ken got more than 1M votes, no challenge, Boris is going to carry on with the DLR which Ken started, no challenge. When Lammy is not being asked a question but puts on a frown, quick change of shot onto him (happened at least twice). This never happened to the other two when Lammy is answering.
A favoured BBC modus operandi is to take up some otherwise obscure left-wing comment, to trumpet that comment as if it were news and then once their ball is rolling the BBC will yak on and on about it. This process alerts left-wing fellow travellers to new slogans and talking points and launches a new cause.
A couple of days ago I noticed that the BBC were discussing some whining about the use of the word Empire – as in OBE. I posted here that the only recent occasions on which I had actually heard the E word were when the Beeb or their mates were moaning about Murdoch media interests.
Now this morning I turn on Radio 5 and Dame of the Realm Nicky Campbell is hosting a full blown debate on the use of the word.
In real political news I note there are calls for Prime Minister David Cameron to concentrate on fixing the economy and to forget the distracting irrelevancies – such as Gay Marriage and House of Lords reform.
Now I wonder who has been pushing these distracting minor issues? I wonder what media Empire has been forcing such ideas on our politicians? What media interests are the politicians trying to please? Who has been exerting the undue influence?
Leveson 2 should look at the BBC.
good comment mate.
I wonder if the BBC will be informing the public about the Queens Royal Commonwealth Realms during the Diamond Jubilee. The British Empire became the British Commonwealth and then became the Royal Commonwealth. It comprises of 16 realms with a total of 100 territories, with the Queen being sovereign over more than one sixth of the worlds land surface, making the Queen sovereign over more land than any other head of state in the 21st Century. So the Royal Commonwealth (British Empire) is the biggest Empire in the 21st Century.
And so it should be. The Commonwealth is a voluntary society – Britain expedited the granting of freedom to huge chunks of the world in in the 1940s through to the 1960s. The most peaceful dismantling of an “Empire” there has ever been, something we should be really proud of.
A lot of people in those territories would rather the Brits came back, to stop the political and financial corruption they have had for 50 years now, , to try to run things properly. But that cuts against the grain of BBC groupthink – all British history is bad.
I bet if you asked anyone in Cuba, for example – would they rather have a Commie dictatorship or benign British rule, they’d opt for the Brits.
And so would a lot of people in Argentina.
The price of aid from the US during WW2?
Good point. A little understood aim of the US in WW2 was to use it as an opportunity to dismantle the British Empire – well, apart from the bits they fancied for their own foreign bases. One of the Dimblebys wrote at length on it in a book on the ‘special relationship’, I think (though I’m not sure that featured in the title).
If I remember rightly, the Americans had intended to liberate Hong Kong, then hand it over directly to the Chinese government- luckily the British fleet got there first.
Well, there is one US state with a union jack flag in the canton.
Hawaii; which was never British anyway as far as I am aware.
Owyhee.
Never British but as with most nice places had a lot of early British influence …that remains.
When Boris was elected as Mayor by 3% the margin was ‘narrow’ according to the BBC but every BBC report I’ve been subjected to today uses the word ‘decisive’ for Hollande’s election even though, if my arithmetic serves me correctly, the socialist dreamer was elected with a similar margin.
BBC: China and international censorship on World Press Freedom Day http://bbc.in/IEMUiC
Irony of this closing at 25 comments as they spin off message not lost.
Yes-can see the trend, and then the gyroscope that is the BBC suddenly veering off and away from any further comments.
Only 25 comments allowed before it closed….maybe Craig or someone like me or you could begin to count when and where “Comment is Free” turns into “Comment is best restricted because you buggers won`t tolerate our horseshit”.
If this one gets 25 comments-I`d guess that no reporting from Luton on Saturday would be closed down after 20!
Maybe we need to get betting on the expected results!
The moddings and closings are a hoot when on blogs about free speech and censorship especially.
But their solution seems to be to shut them all down anyway and move to twitter (where they can block anything) or FaceBook (which is for 12 year olds).
This is just the interactive face of their censorship efforts.
More here are sharing their experiences with complaints, and the picture is ugly.
I just fired off four ‘reminders’ to my Director chum at ECU where he or subordinates have issued ‘we are right because we are right’ attempts which I have rejected, along with asking where the logging numbers are as it all smacks of trying to pretend complaints don’t exist to fool some cherry-cheeked hooray berk at OFCOM or the Ministry of Fun & Games that they are listening and all the people still trust them more than their parents… honest.gov. And they have research they conducted with the Graun and LSE to ‘prove’ it.
The BBC censors must have given up after being bogged down with work.
Funny. I like how the BBC acts as if they have a right to broadcast anywhere in the world, and any government who doesn’t like their journalistic imperialism is an oppressor. They’re only looking out for everyone’s human rights, eh?
The Chinese get free BBC broadcasting at your expense, while you have to pay for the privilege, whether you watch or listen to it or not. A very comfortable arrangement.
and you are mostly blocked from commenting on BBC output
Mandelson – being interviewed on Today – confirmed that he believed (subject to a cartload of reservations) that we should enter the euro. He was not asked the simple questions why? what’s in it for us? He was also not asked – no ex-EU employee is ever asked – if the terms of his pension preclude giving a non-communitaire opinion/response to any EU related discussion. Again, the BBC adopts the Chomsky-identified restriction of the terms of a “debate” to preclude any genuine discussion of the real issue.
Mandelson..LORD Mandelson to you, you oik!…was similarly previewed last week on Channel 4 News with suitable anal greasing by Jon Snow.
Mandelson was placed nicely in front of Oxfords dreaming spires, him being an intellectual an` all…and I don`t need to listen to the God-forsaken Toady Tin Trumpets to know that Snows script for obsequies was taken by courier in leathers over to the BBC for todays performance….highlighed pens and all.
Mandelson, Prescott…even Austin Mitchell for heavens sake…is there ANY Labour old condoms not being examined for their potency…such great men need a platform, and the BBC continue to build these to order from the Left Bank.
I remain hopeful that we will yet see them turned into gallows…and the BBC hangs itself with Aunties old stockings.
Freak Show-Creep Show?…you the viewers decide!
Only the BBC would ask for Mandelsons views on Europe, and not where his mortgage and faked passports have got to…urgh!
The Euro is the means to the political end – the EUSSR (Islamic version). Why would the BBC challenge that?
More good news in for the BBC grinners, Socialism is on the rise.
AS the new SOCIALIST president of France takes up his position in the (Elysee) PALACE.
Err; I thought socialism meant equality for all? Does that mean everyone in France can now live in a palace too?
No; so let me get this straight, as soon as a socialist gets to win an election he stops being a socialist?
Phew; that’s OK then.
So; just to be clear, a socialist is only a socialist when they have no power.
Clever thing this democracy stuff. You know just for a minute I was worried.
Perhaps someone should tell the grinners at the BBC. It’s all smoke and mirrors. There is no such thing as a socialist and if any country should know it is… wait for it… Great Britain. And I have absolute total complete utter outright unequivocal conclusive undeniable concrete irrefutable evidence for it. It is called Tony Blair.
Dunno about that. He inflicted socialism on the people (tax/borrow/spend, big state, bloated welfare system, class war, mass immigration, massive debt etc) whilst ensuring he himself (and Cruella and the kids, of course) would be comfortably insulated against its effects.
The BBC are understandably concerned about the rise of the far right Golden Dawn party Greece (and have written this article about them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17898561).
However, should the BBC not be equally concerned that the KKE communist party in Greece won 8.5% of the votes in yesterday’s election? Communism and fascism can be equally brutal and oppressive…
Jeff
The same thing here is the bBC promoting the “Fight against Fascism”, aka the Socialist Workers Party aka Trotskyists.
Never mind the Commies and Anarchists that’ve been setting fire to buildings, policemen etc. most weeks for the past few years, or the 100 million or so people that their ideology has killed world wide. They’ll just send Paul Mason out there to sit in a bar with them and listen to their concerns.
I don’t know anything about the Golden Dawn party, but I’d be interested to know what causes them to be referred to as rightwing. If their policies are examined, they can only be either – more socialist/fascist plans or a rejection of socialist/fascist plans, in which case they are just normal people who want to regain some power over their own lives. The term rightwing means nothing to me.
In the 70s, Oswald Mosley the leader of the British Union of Fascists was very angry about the BBC calling him a right wing extremist as he always insisted that he was a man of the left. He was a Fabian and a former Labour Government Minister who left the Labour party to found a new party of the left.
New Labour should have been re-named the Golden Rain Party. I for one have never felt so p****d on in all my life.
Had the pest control people around the other day to make my property Capita proof. They’ve done a wonderful job.
http://order-order.com/2012/05/07/new-statesman-declining-into-irrelevance/
I continue to wonder therefore, who their ever pervasive spokespersons are speaking for when given near daily slots on the BBC.
Mr. Hasan, Ms. Penny etc, do not really represent my views at all, I’m afraid, and I am at a loss as to why my money is being used to give them a platform to tell me how I should think.
Yep, and we’re still no closer to getting sales figures for alleged monster-hit ‘Chavs’ by BBC-certified Voice of Da Yoof Owen Jones.
Nice tweet from the Express’s Patrick O’Flynn (@oflynnexpress):
The cultural-political hegemony of the BBC means any bid to adopt popular policies continues to be defined as a “lurch to the right”.Discuss
just ask Lammy about Poor BABY P and ask him about his involvement (Or Lack Of It)>That should wipe the smug smile off his face……..
“So much for BBC cuts! Norton’s pay soars 40% as he makes more than £2m in presenter fees”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140598/So-BBC-cuts-Nortons-pay-soars-40-makes-2m-presenter-fees.html#ixzz1uBZ0ZJsZ
Handy how Norton’s company gets to make The Graham Norton Show.
I would be the last person to suggest that this is a sweetheart deal so that a large part of Norton’s fee comes not under ‘salary’ but buried away somewhere under ‘production costs’.
Of course his salary is buried away in any case but the BBC may as well plan against that fateful day when it has to release the fees paid to ‘top talent’.
The Norton Show is of course utter utter crap.
For weasel-lovers everywhere, here’s some fancy footwork from the BBC Complaints department, which I promised Guest Who (some time back) that I’d share.
1. 24/1/12 MY COMPLAINT
I wish to complain about what seems to me to be a failure to point out relevant background information on a sensitive political issue.
On last night’s ‘Newsnight’, reporter David Grossman mentioned a report from the Resolution Foundation think tank about the plight of ‘The Squeezed Middle’, the Ed Miliband phrase used by Mr. Grossman.
The ‘talking head’ who appeared from the Resolution Foundation was Gavin Kelly. What David Grossman didn’t mention is that he was Gordon Brown’s Deputy Chief of Staff as prime minister, having previously worked in Tony Blair’s Policy Unit.
That Resolution Foundation is the sort of think tank the BBC likes to call “independent”. How ‘independent’ is it? Many of its senior figures have links to the Labour Party and Ed Miliband has made policy launches at this think-tank.
Shouldn’t this important piece of background information have been included in the ‘Newsnight’ report, whether said by the reporter or included in the caption introducing the speaker?
13/2/12 REPLY FROM THE BBC
Thanks for contacting us about ‘Newsnight’ broadcast on 23 January.
I understand you felt the programme should have included background information about Gavin Kelly as, by failing to do so, you feel viewers were given the impression that he’s from an independent organisation.
Gavin Kelly appeared as a spokesman for the Resolution Foundation and made a brief comment on a report the organisation had issued that day. He didn’t make a party political point, but spoke of the choices facing all political leaders.
There’s often not room in a news report of this kind to give background details of contributors. Our report was balanced and gave a wide range of views.
(Unfortunately I failed to transcribe exactly what Gavin Kelly said and there’s no link to this ‘Newsnight’ report, but the gist of the story can be found on this BBC Online plug for Gavin Kelly’s report in which he makes what I reckon to be a party political point about tax credits:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16670888)
‘some fancy footwork from the BBC Complaints department’
😉
They do like their Clintonian semantics do they not, all preceded by that ‘butter wouldn’t melt’ intro that ‘they understand…’.
‘There’s often not room in a news report of this kind to give background details of contributors’
Which is the a/v version of the ‘truth won’t fit BS’ I am being served, sixteen to the dozen, about ‘rigged for mobile screens’ headlines that almost exclusively serve a tribal agenda.
Utter horsesh*t. They know it. We know it. The powers that let them choose to pretend they don’t.
If it was a view from a 3rd party not in sync with BBC narrative, you will be told their entire family history first, including that ‘sources say’ a distant relative may once have thought have having their kid’s birthday party in a building that Genghis Khan would have lived in had he managed to get this far.
There’s often not room in a news report of this kind to give background details of contributors.
What a joke. We’re not looking for his full bio. “Gavin Kelly of The Resolution Foundation and formerly Gordon Brown’s Deputy Chief of Staff” would do. How much room does that take up?
Now had the illustrious members of the Resolution Foundation been strongly connected to the Tory party, might the BBC have found the time to squeeze ‘right-leaning’ into its millisecond-timed introduction?
2. 15/1/12 MY COMPLAINT
Unfortunately, I’ve not got my original complaint, but it was based on Paul Mason on ‘Newsnight’ back in January saying that “The world’s leading rating agency says austerity is failing” when, as David P. pointed out on B-BBC at the time, S&P had done not such thing. I think I also wrote this in my complaint: “Paul Mason went on in his report to quote out of context the paragraph that mentions austerity from the statement [which I quoted in full] and editorialise by shoving the word ‘damningly’ in front of it.” I ended with some point about Paul Mason seeming to be pushing an anti-austerity agenda.
14/2/12 REPLY FROM THE BBC
Thanks for contacting us about ‘Newsnight’ shown on 13 January.
We apologise for the delay in replying. We realise that our correspondents appreciate a quick response and I’m sorry that you had to wait on this occasion.
We understand you were unhappy with Paul Mason’s report as you felt it was inaccurate.
Paul Mason’s report on the Eurozone financial crisis was wide-ranging and time constraints meant that he could only give a summary of the Standard and Poor’s report. He did quote two significant sections, saying first that December’s agreement had not produced a breakthrough of sufficient size and scope to fully address the Eurozone’s financial problems. He then moved on to say: “A reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating”. The word “damningly” was Paul’s own judgement as ‘Newsnight’s’ Economics Editor. The story was heavily condensed into headline form for the programme’s opening. The use of the phrase “Austerity is failing” was intended merely to give a brief glimpse of an item which would be more fully explained a few minutes later.
However, we note the points you make and we are including your comments on our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback that we compile each day and it’s made available to Editors and their teams, as well as to programme commissioners, channel executives and senior management.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.
(All of which doesn’t alter the fact that Mason misrepresented the S&P report).
‘Paul Mason on ‘Newsnight’ back in January saying that “The world’s leading rating agency says austerity is failing” when, as David P. pointed out on B-BBC at the time, S&P had done not such thing.’
In short, deliberate inaccuracy.
This time they trot out the ‘we’re so busy’ template.
Who cares? We all are. And the notion this trite, insincere intro gets around they blew another of their own daft targets is for them to deal with, not you.
And in fact they go on to try and cite ‘time constraints’ as an excuse. It is not. If it can not be said within time accurately… do not try and do so, especially if the rush seems always to err on the side of a tribal point.
The rest is further waffle, and I think the ‘audience log’ is code for ‘we won’t tell anyone further up the chain and close this one out so it doesn’t make the monthly stats’.
Again.. utter BS.
And Mr. Mason is a rich seam, also getting an entire squad devoted to him with nonsensical interference attempts.
I am almost at Trust level now having refused to accept ‘Paul’s judgement’ as sound and in need of moving on from when he referred to the UK PM’s decision on the EU/ro as ‘the UK throwing its toys out of the pram’, when most in the UK were clearly behind this.
Mr. Mason no more ‘speaks for the nation’ than fly in the air, and his kapo clear-up crew in Complaints need to be aware that ‘Paul being Paul’ is not acceptable when he is paid by the people he is deliberately misleading.
I have also noticed the deliberate delaying by the BBC in responding to complaints making it very difficult for the member of the public to remember exactly the context and so the esteemed broadcaster can embroider its memory of the truth.
‘..making it very difficult for the member of the public to remember exactly the context ..
There’s also the not so small matter of stealth edits to evolve the story, especially retroactive ones that then fall off iPlayer so the only folk who can see it are the OFCOM/NaughtieMarr Mr. Barraclough’s to Aunty’s ever-so-innocent Fletcher in the edit suite.
I am sure some complaints have foundered because what was being complained about ‘changed’ in the interim.
By way of ‘balance’, I just had a CDR burned and sent of the Dateline London exchange by the ECU Director who is determined I will concede ‘they have got it about right’, which I sadly seem unable to do when the point I am actually making (why invite four anti-Brits – inc. one anti Tory/military Brit from the Indy – on to ‘discuss’ the Falklands rhetoric ramping by Kirchner) he refuses to address, claiming it is outside his remit, whilst refusing to say whose remit it is.
Despite all this, unlike LTL and Jeff (I’m guessing), I still teeter this side of elevation to an expedited norty step for some reason.
Deborah
I have said here many times that the BBC complaints system is purpose-designed to obstruct complainants.
If you set out to create a complaints system that was obscure, that allowed interminable delays, that never in the replies gave you the text of your original complaint, that spun you all manner of gobble-de-gook and always came to the conclusion that you were wrong and the BBC was “balanced” – you would end up with exactly what we have.
The BBC complaints system is a travesty.
3. 31/1/12 MY COMPLAINT
Why did the ‘Panorama’ report on Lord Ashcroft use such a partisan figure as Kevin Maguire of the Mirror as one of its main talking heads? His closeness to Labour is not a secret but no mention of this was made by the reporter.
Another talking head, Prem Sikka, was described by Declan Lawn as an “expert” and simply labelled as a “Professor of Accountancy”. This suggests he’s an authority and a disinterested academic. Why didn’t the reporter mention that Prof. Sikka is also a far-Left ‘Guardian’ columnist and long-term critic of Lord Ashcroft.
The other expert was Nicholas Shaxson, merely described by Panorama as a “financial journalist”. Mr. Shaxson is not just a “financial journalist”. He’s also a campaigner with the left-wing Tax Justice Network. Surely it was wrong for the programme not to have mentioned this highly relevant piece of background information?
Declan Lawn said towards the end of the programme that the new evidence might be “very useful to the Independent” in their libel case against Lord Ashcroft. How does it look for a BBC programme to be seen to be helping an anti-Conservative newspaper (Independent), with the assistance of writers from two other anti-Conservative newspapers (Mirror, Guardian)? Doesn’t this compromise BBC impartiality?
I feel that the programme left a lot to be desired in terms of being straight about the background of its ‘experts’ and gave the impression of being biased against the Conservative Party.
22/2/12 REPLY FROM THE BBC
Thank you for taking the time to contact us about ‘Secrets of the Tory Billionaire: Panorama’ broadcast on the 30 January.
Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.
We understand you felt the programme was unbalanced.
We forwarded your complaint to the programme team and they explained in relation to your concerns about how Kevin McGuire was presented on the programme that:
“Mr McGuire’s potential political orientation was made clear. He was captioned as political editor at the Mirror, a paper well known for its left leaning sympathies. After an extensive search, that included approaching leading Conservative commentators, Mr McGuire was the only political journalist with any substantial knowledge of Lord Ashcroft who was prepared to talk about him for our programme.”
In relation to Professor Prem Sikka they explained:
“Professor Sikka is a professor of accountancy at the University of Essex who regularly writes and appears in the media (not only The Guardian). He is also one of the few individuals to have looked into Lord Ashcroft’s corporate affairs and thus is in a position to comment with authority on Lord Ashcroft’s offshore arrangements and their transparency. The script made clear that he had examined Lord Ashcroft’s offshore corporate structures. He is also entitled to comment personally on our evidence that Lord Ashcroft has misled the City, the Lords and the public.”
With regards to Nicholas Shaxson they explained:
“Mr Shaxson is a journalist and leading expert on tax havens, as well as an Associate Fellow of Chatham House (the Royal Institute of African Affairs in London). Mr Shaxson was interviewed as a tax haven expert and not about tax avoidance or as a representative of the Tax Justice Network.”
With regards to your final point about the Independent libel case they explained:
“The statement that the new evidence might be of use to The Independent newspaper in its libel case with Lord Ashcroft is self evidently a statement of fact given the circumstances surrounding the legal action.”
We’d like to assure you that we’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all programme makers and presenters, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thank you again for contacting us with your views.
(Hmm, OK, so Kevin Maguire was all they could get and every audience member will automatically know his links to the Labour Party? I don’t think so.
No problem with the use of a Marxist ‘accountant’ who has, as the BBC itself admits, been looking into Ashcroft’s affairs for some time – for some strange reason? Hmm.
Not worth mentioning that “leading expert” Mr. Shaxson is also a member of a left-wing campaign group on tax issues & that it’s supposed to be just fine and jim dandy for the BBC to present him as a disinterested expert? I don’t think so.)
Mr McGuire was the only political journalist with any substantial knowledge of Lord Ashcroft who was prepared to talk about him for our programme.”
Well, you have nailed the two-faced logic on this, and the other two already.
Though I read more into this in objectivity terms, namely that they have a very limited gene pool (h/t: Ms Boaden) to choose from and reckon they can get away with pretending they couldn’t find anyone other than their tame, one-degree-of-separation proxy attack dogs if they pop onto the roof and whisper ‘any other views?’ in the vague direction of Fleet Street.
‘Beware of the Leopard’ weaseling at its finest.
Tx for 3 great shares.
I will return the compliment when I get my next batch back, but for some reason they seem a bit stalled at ECU to Trust level as the ‘we are comfy in our belief that we are right’ meme hits the kind of wall that facts and links and screen grabs can ruin Director grade days with.
But they do soldier on regardless. Must be tricky looking in a mirror earning money to do that knowing what a shoddy stack of cards one is perched upon.
You mistake was in calling Prof. Sikka “a far-Left ‘Guardian’ columnist“.
Everyone knows that “far” can only be used at the BBC when talking about those with a right-wing viewpoint.
That’s true.
There’s an example of that in the BBC’s respective descriptions of the far-Left Syriza and the far-Right Golden Dawn in Greece.
Syriza – a coalition of communists and anti-capitalist types – is merely “radical” or “left-wing”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17980954
In fact, if you search the BBC News website using the terms ‘far-Left’ and ‘far-Right’ you get these results (excluding the Sport sections!):
Far-Right, 2,471 results
Far-Left, 178 results
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=far-right
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=far-left
That’s about 14 times more uses of ‘far-Right’ than ‘far-Left’ – despite there being lots of ‘far-Left’ people out there!
Love how the BBC reporter, Matthew Price, talking to John Humphrys on ‘Today’ this morning, called SYRIZA a “coalition of left-leaning parties”. No, it’s a coalition of far-Left parties. Nothing “leaning” about them, they’ve leaned ALL the way already.
In fact, if you search the BBC News website using the terms ‘far-Left’ and ‘far-Right’ you get these results (excluding the Sport sections!):
Far-Right, 2,471 results
Far-Left, 178 results
Nice bit of research Craig! 🙂 It would be interesting to get the BBC’s reponse to those stats. I’d ask them myself, but they are no longer considering complaints from me (long story!).
Jeff
They know what they’re up to and their excuses get more and more contrived. Shameful (or is it shameless?).
Expect the false dichotomy that is ‘austerity vs growth’ to become a BBC meme.
Starting no doubt with Nikki ‘Mike Smash’ Campbell on tuesday morning with ‘The Big Question.
“Bon Jovi – great bunch of guys, and great mates of mine”
The “growth” has already begun…in the portfolios of those who bet against the Euro:
Euro declines on French and Greek election results
Poor performances by pro-bailout parties in Greece and the victory of Francois Hollande in France, who wants to focus more on growth, have cast doubt on European austerity plans.
The euro fell as low as $1.295, its lowest since January, and dropped to three-year lows against the pound.
Who could have imagined?
I too have had a reply to my complaint, thus:
My Complaint:
“BBC Radio 2 news at 9am this morning led with Boris Johnson’s election, followed by a comment by Diane Abbott. I was puzzled; what was the news value of her comment? Why her comment rather than any other? I can understand its being included in a wider discussion, in say another politics type program, but in a 2 minute news report? In what sense is her comment newsworthy?”
BBC reply:
Reference CAS-1437693-NWHGS8
Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC Radio 2’s news bulletins.
We understand you felt the morning bulletin shouldn’t have been followed by a comment from Diane Abbott.
We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds.
This may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with but which individuals may be fully entitled to hold in the context of legitimate debate.
It is also not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on this subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. We don’t seek to denigrate any view, or to promote any view. We seek rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.
Please be assured we’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns.
Kind Regards
Robert Regan
BBC Complaints
So, as I expected, fobbed off. But the reply doesn’t address my complaint. Why is ANY comment appropriate in a 2 minute News Bulletin? Comment isn’t (in itself) news. Surely all we want from a 2 minute news report is facts; the place for commentary is elsewhere. Or am I missing something?
C&P boilerplate form letter. They don’t have to actually see that views are balanced over time as long as they keep repeating this. It’s almost impossible to prove they don’t without massive tracking.
‘We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds.’
Aside from the insincere ‘we care very much/now we’re filing it’ cookie cutter top & tail which makes this 100% longer, they are going to struggle with this one.
Besides ignoring your point on why any comment is required, the question of why, out of the politico/media infirmament gobsosphere the hypocritical race-hustlerette in Chief was the only one on speed dial or already in the green room remains still pertinent.
If you only ask one set of folk, you will only get one set of views, but I have a sneaking suspicion they knew that already.
As to trust…. it is earned BBC, not inherited.
And while there may be some lingering credibility from the good old days in some areas, in news and ‘analysis’ of near any subject, from science to history, you have flushed that well away.
The bit you highlight shows just how totally full of it they are. Of course they make an editorial judgement on every single contributor. How else can they ensure a balance of views over time? How stupid do they think people are?
“We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes”
They don’t need to. Most of the contributors seem to be selected on the basis that they will say the right thing to further the required narrative.
The only ‘growth’ the socialists are interested in is that of the public sector..and around we go…
Dear Sir
I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms of the depiction of a white woman in the BBC radio soap “The Archers” (Amy, the daughter of a Vicar no less) of being an easy lay. This is racial and sexual stereotyping of the worst possible kind.
Yours
Disgusted Tunbridge Wells
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140585/Race-row-hits-Archers-accused-stereotyping-new-black-character-womaniser.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Well, she’s not been portrayed as an easy lay, and she’s not white. But apart from that, spot on.
boring bastard/\/\/\/\
Scott – Sometimes in forums wry humour can come across online as cutting sarcasm, in the absence of body language, intonation, etc.
Assuming you aren’t trying to be offensive, it might be a good idea to make your positive intentions clearer in future, with a smiley. 🙂
Jeff
BBC Q & A on their website about austerity. Reading this you get the impression that the BBC is being anti-austerity by referring mainly to pro-stimulus pro-spending economic, and making a cheap dig/suggestion that the opposite to austerity means hurting the rich. Seeing as the current government is pursuing an austerity program, this can hardly be construed as a neutral argument.
Read the first
Q&A: End of austerity?
Are anti-austerity protesters about to see a new dawn?
Continue reading the main story
France votes
As it happened
How Hollande won
The view from Berlin
Profile: Francois Hollande
Socialist Francois Hollande has won France’s presidential election, having promised to renegotiate a deal on government debt in eurozone member countries to try to promote growth.
Mr Hollande believes the EU must refocus its efforts from austerity to growth.
“Europe is watching us, austerity can no longer be the only option,” he says.
But is it possible to end austerity in Europe?
What is austerity?
Government austerity measures include higher taxes and spending cuts. The aim is to reduce a country’s deficit – the amount it spends every year over and above what it earns.
Following the financial crisis, government debt levels – that is, the sum of all borrowing – rose sharply. With companies, in particular financial institutions, making less money during the ensuing recession, tax revenues fell. Governments were also accused of having spent too much during “the good times” and then came under pressure to spend more on rescuing banks, battered in the wake of the credit crunch.
There was widespread agreement amongst leaders and international institutions that introducing austerity measures was the best way to tackle the debt crisis. It was said that markets would “punish” any countries not doing enough to slash their deficits by making it even more expensive for these cash-strapped countries to borrow.
What is the problem with austerity?
Austerity measures are hugely unpopular with the public, as they typically result in cuts to public services, higher retirement ages and reduced public sector wages and pensions.
Another criticism is that austerity stifles growth. “Austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues,” the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s said when it downgraded France and other eurozone countries earlier this year.
Mr Hollande is not alone in believing that focusing on growth assistance is much more important. Many economists share that view, including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz.
Some point to the US, which has chosen not to cut spending as far and as fast. But while the US’s economy has grown faster than say, the UK’s, its economic growth rate is nevertheless slowing and unemployment is still high, leading others to argue that the US’s approach has not necessarily been more successful.
What are the alternatives?
Some have argued from the beginning of the crisis that austerity was not inevitable.
Some say that spending should be targeted at boosting growth. For others it is a question of how savings are made.
Olli Rehn, the EU’s commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, says Europe needs to get the balance right between cutting debt and stimulating growth.
“Fiscal consolidation, while necessary, [needs to be] done in a growth-friendly and differentiated way, in order to strike a balance between necessary fiscal consolidation and concerns for growth,” he says.
What does Mr Hollande propose instead?
He campaigned to renegotiate the EU fiscal pact, in which countries signed up to strict budget limits, to put more emphasis on growth.
To stimulate growth in France he has pledged to create 150,000 new jobs. He also said he would introduce two new higher tax rates, implement a new financial transaction tax and increase capital gains taxes on banks.
However, some say that this may just be a different kind of austerity – hitting the rich with higher taxes.
Is it possible to renegotiate the fiscal pact?
The EU’s fiscal pact has been signed by 25 of the 27 EU states, and is now in the process of being ratified in individual countries. It aims to make governments more disciplined about their finances, and is intended to convince the markets that government finances won’t be allowed to get out of hand again.
It will be interesting to see how Mr Hollande’s pledge to renegotiate the pact, to focus more on growth, plays out.
BBC World Service’s economics editor Andrew Walker says that a few weeks ago that looked like it might upset Europe’s laboriously agreed plans. But there are now signs of a wider shift of emphasis in the eurozone – more on growth, less on austerity – meaning Mr Hollande could probably be accommodated.
But Pippa Malgrem, president of Principalis Asset Management, says newly elected leaders who wish to move away from austerity will be constrained – by decisions made by their predecessors, as well as by “economic facts”. These countries are still required to make debt payments and therefore have to tighten their belts, she says.
Germany has categorically ruled out renegotiating the existing EU pact, but seems open to the idea of a separate agreement to create growth and greater competitiveness.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has stressed that growth does not have to be achieved by spending more, but can also be achieved through structural reforms to improve competitiveness “and spending better the money that we have”.
What about in Greece? Could the bailout fail?
The future of Greece is once again in doubt following the weekend’s election, where no party won more than 20% of the vote.
The centre-right New Democracy party will try to form an austerity-supporting pro-European coalition government. But the anti-bailout party Syriza will also try to form an alternative coalition government.
If the latter succeeds and rejects the austerity measures already agreed to reduce the country’s deficit in exchange for international support, its would leave its bailout in jeopardy.
The rest of the eurozone and the International Monetary Fund would have to decide if the bailout would continue. If not, Greece could conceivably end up leaving the euro.
economists*
I like how they show the US as being an example of Ed Balls’ strategy. Are we supposed to forget about that half-assed spending cut agreement nobody liked very much? That only happened because Congress couldn’t agree to cut more.
And that sure wasn’t what the President had originally wanted. Even Mark Mardell was upset that the President was forced off His spending spree. I have audio of him saying that. If anything, the US hasn’t cut spending and cleared out regulations enough to get sustainable growth going.
And who is doing “austerity alone” again? I forget.
Who?
We all know it’s the EU, but the glorifying of Hollande’s “decisive” victory for growth notwithstanding, the BBC has made no attempt to discuss the real reasons behind the suicidal austerity in Europe. They are making out as if the socialist candidate’s victory is one on left vs. evil ‘austerity’ right, when it is really a victory of the people vs. the EU.
What they’ve been doing hardly counts as real austerity “alone”.
What all E.U’s political class, inc Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, TUC, ‘Guardian’, BBC-NUJ campaign for:
“ALL MIGRANTS TO GET A BRITISH PENSION”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/318555/All-migrants-to-get-a-British-pension
I notice how Turkey’s step by step accession into the EU has finally been documented by the media. Don’t expect the BBC to report this either. The Turkey deal has already been agreed by the EU Commission:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0152:FIN:EN:PDF
Not only will this give 75 million Turks access to our welfare system, it will also give them unrestricted immigration rights. Turkey has a massive crime problem (especially heroin and people trafficking), and is also becoming increasingly Islamist; oppressing Christians, being belligerent against Cyprus and Israel, adopting Sharia to a larger extent. Turkey also fails to recognise Hinduism and Buddhism as religions in it’s constitution.
Polls repeatedly show that the majority of Turks want accession so they can migrate to the Western European countries. This is tantamount to treason.
And no less a personage as Daniel ‘gravy’ Hannan is quite happy with this, are you?
Approved by “call me Dave” too.
think about it and f**ing weep
what a knob
An interesting comparison between the BBC’s support for the defence in the 9/11 trial and the verson presented in Fox News. Love the technique of using the defence statement as the news headline.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17975317
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/06/attorney-in-hijab-defends-call-for-other-women-at-11-hearing-to-wear/
Well, it does sum up the report nicely. It also explains Colin Paterson’s “gosh!”. Just like I suspected, the Beeboids think this trial is unfair and so are reaking out about the death penalty being a possibility for these victims of torture and US imperialist warmongering violation of their human rights.
This article could easily pass for an SWP/Al Jazeera one. What a disgrace. The only subheading in it is “torture”. It’s obvious whose side the Al-Beebs are on.
Sopel on the News Channel just opened his coverage by saying that growth is “back in fashion” in Europe now. Counting their Socialist chickens before they hatch, I see. The political ideology of the Beeboids is plain for all to see in this reporting when they talk about growth as a done deal.
They’re doing more than just reporting the words of the new Socialist president here. It’s one thing to say that the French think they’ll get growth, but it’s another thing entirely to say that growth will happen now.
reminds me of Owen Glendower in Shakespeare
“I can summon spirits from the vasty deep.
But will they come ? I know not”
It’s another reminder that for the left, intentions are all that matter, whilst the eventual results will be blamed on someone else.
Here’s what the BBC class as “research” into Global Warming these days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792
You can’t make it up.
‘You can’t make it up.’
They, of course can, and given half the chance, will.
‘Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.’
I saw ‘could’ and ‘researchers’, in that first para and knew that Mr. Shuckman’s empire of science tripe was alive, well, and but a Press Release away from its latest hole dig.
I’ve often thought it would be a good idea to have a tab on this blog specially devoted to BBC complaints and their replies.
What do you think A.S.E. and everyone?
Gets my vote (been suggesting it for a while now).
When folk share their actual exchanges I see just how limited the mindset one is dealing with actually is. And a often a shared front can be much more powerful by being united.
I recall reading David P’s feedback on Stuart Hughes’s twitterfall and it certainly helped me fire a mighty shot across the bows of the first ‘we got it about right’ attempted dismissal from the first level drones there to try and knock it away. Better yet, the facts I had were enough to make the ECU Director go ‘gulp’ not only at the complaint but also what was being attempted to sideline it away from the formal log.
They can get long (mainly because the BBC shoves in so much waffle to try and obscure that they are not answering the core question), but I love reading every soggy, sorry spadeful they dig themselves deeper with as polite, reasoned licence fee payers merely indulge in a bit of ‘questions being asked’ and ‘holding the powerful to account’ of their own.
And they do not like it. Not one little bit.
As I just shared, despite ‘cranking up’ (David P will smile) fair volume, and more than LTL, I remain unbanned for now.
One reason may be that I avoid tricky areas of subjectivity and interpretation that allows it to founder on ‘we’ll agree to disagree, then’ basis.
The other is that I do not share names or personal details. No idea why that would matter, but they do seem to feel that strays into ‘bad faith’ territory, and as it doesn’t affect the quality of the transcript I see no issue in leaving it out. I doubt they are real folk anyway, like the Bisto family.
Finally, I always add a little tag to that ‘by replying you agree to what we want’ disclaimer they add at the end, saying.. ‘No, I don’t’.
Good idea Sue!
Some sterling work has been done on this, but I`m normally seeing through a red mist as I write here, so do not get the whole picture.
The likes of LunchTime Loather and regular correspondents on here are real heroes…like Heather Brooke, they`ll burrow away and niggle the BBC until the whole termites nest comes crashing down on them.
God Bless them-I just don`t have the patience for that!
Yes, an excellent idea Sue.
Agreed it’s a good idea. It will make it all that much easier to spotlight the BS in their “we don’t make editorial judgements about our contributors” line of defense.
Yes please! It would act as a useful reference point.
INBBC:
-‘how can we best extend our anti-British political propaganda globally?
-By promninently taking up the allegations of a few Malaysians against some British people, dating back to 1948.
At the same time, we at INBBC will not criticise the deeply repressive impact of Islamic sharia in presentday Malaysia.’
1.)INBBC:
“Malayan ‘massacre’ families seek UK inquiry”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17980481
2.) ‘Jihadwatch’ on presentday Malaysia and repressive Islamic sharia:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=malaysia&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
Next week’s BBC-NUJ anti-British propaganda?:
‘Japanese and Germans demand reparations from British for massacres 1940-45’.
The owner of a local Malaysian restaurant was telling me a fellow Malay phoned one night to book a table but asked first if halal meat was used. When the answer was no, he berated the owner (a Malay descended from Chinese) to the point where he felt quite threatened. Good to know heartwarming, inclusive muliticulti thrives in other parts of the world, too.
The BBC Advertising and Propaganda Department is pleased to announce that to date we have now played the clip by Robert Peston and Andrew Neil asking, “How has this incompetent coalition government got it so wrong?”, over 1,000 times. This is wholly in accordance with our programming standards as laid out by our friends in the Labour Party. We can also assure you that the two Eds who run the Labour Party fully support our impartial Advertising and Propaganda Department in their aims.
We would also like to point out that we do not agree with evil right wing sceptics that such advertising and propaganda had the slightest effect on the recent council elections in Britain.
Rest assured that we will continue to uphold these highest standards in future.
The BBC Advertising and Propaganda Department.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ps. Due to the recent wonderful successes of the beautiful socialist candidates in the English, French and Greek elections the management will shortly be changing the name of the department to The Socialist BBC Advertising and Propaganda Department. We feel this will get the balance about right.
Pps. It’s been a tough week in Paris this week darlings. I had to stay up till 3am celebrating and drinking Champagne after Monsieur Hollande’s win, but never mind, you should have tasted the foie gras this week. Out of this world and all paid for by the British peasants.
Is BBC-NUJ reporting this?:-
“Facing the death penalty, the pregnant Briton caught smuggling £3.2 million of heroin in Pakistan”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140528/Facing-death-penalty-pregnant-Briton-caught-smuggling-3-2-million-heroin-Pakistan.html#ixzz1uCzbn5Ns
Where is Gareth Pierce, Clive Stafford Smith, Shami, Mansfield and Robertson when you need them then?
Any chance of the EU refusing to sanction the sending of sharp stones or pre-stretched rope to these barbarians then…or is it only the USA and its lethal injections paraphernalia we`re to bother ourselves with?
Cue fearless anti death penalty types outside the Pakistani Embassy then tomorrow?…course not!
Maybe Cherie Booth will leave a wreath-result!
According to BBC coverage, one would think that it’s only the USA that has the death penalty.
A joke question:
-Will Islam Not BBC (INBBC) give as much prominence to Robert SPENCER’s critique of Islam, as it gives to Richard Dawkins’ critique of Christianity?
“Did Muhammad exist? The Blaze interviews Robert Spencer”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/did-muhammad-exist-the-blaze-interviews-robert-spencer.html
i quite expect tomorrow’s Labour Party Political Broadcast lite (aka The One Show) to be French themed
Thanks for the footnotes, Jeff. I guess I have to learn to be more “bloggy”. I’m a slow learner.
By the way, radio – being radio – is colourblind, an inconvenience for the politically-correct for whom race is everything. (Together with class).
Remember when Usha was introduced in the Archers and had such a posh English accent that she had to keep saying she was “Asian” to identify the character’s origins.
Me? I would have left Nicholas’ character colourless till later in the storyline – keeping a character’s back story hidden till later in the run is a good soap trick. (See EastEnders) In radio’s case, bringing his race in later would have been a great trick to play on the racists.
Also wasn’t Brian (white) was also a womaniser?
And what about Walter Gabriel?
Sorry, slap wrists, no irony allowed.
PS Some of my best friends are Archers.
CORRECTION: Some of my best friends WERE Archers
I prefer Pimm’s meself …
Well, Marsten’s actually. Or Old Peculiar as the Mrs calls me …
Oh, my goodness, a woman at a Romney rally today asked him if the President should be tried for treason. No reason was given, but I can think of a couple. Romney dodged it, but MSNBC (I’m being forced to watch it right now) and the Left are already screaming bloody murder about it. You can expect the UK bureau of the White House Press Office to leap into action any minute now.
The Beeb are gushing about Syriza, Greece’s ‘radical left’ party – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17980954
They are indeed.
And the whole lot of ’em had nothing to do with Greece’s current plight. Not a feckless tax-avoider amongst ’em. No siree.
How the bBC continues spreading the message that defending the English is a racist hate crime.
Councillor suspends herself after EDL Twitter comment
The above story which the bBC is currently showcasing as the most important story on its English webpage is about how the lovies have expressed outrage over how a tory councillor stated that “but nobody else except the EDL stick up for the English.”
So while the ethical latte drinking wankers screech “how could she?” What I want to know is where was the same faux outrage when this member of parliament wrote this in a letter the other week:
“I, George Galloway, hold Pakistan’s highest civil awards….What has the labour candidate ever done for Bradford, never mind Pakistan and Kashmir?
Different sides of the same stick, or can only Non-Muslims be accused of racism at the bBC?
The bBC, the traitors in our Midst.
Well the BBC don’t believe in the English. To admit there is an English people is to question the now meaningless identity of “British” that they are trying to encourage. “British” has now become more of a legal identity, whereby you can follow any cultural values, support any national team, and still be “British”. Galloway is just the vilest of creatures.
I wasn’t aware that the EDL was a banned organisation. Another reminder that freedom of speech is on it’s death bed in this increasingly rancid country.
to get a job at the BBC, is there a multiple choice question ‘Are you a cunt?’ Yes or No
You’re forgetting c***s have a use!
The bBC, its passion for the environment and half the story.
Factory closed by empowered Egyptians
Local activists are also using new-found freedoms in Egypt to fight for better economic and environmental conditions. In the port city of Damietta, they have closed down a fertiliser factory which they say was poisoning their air and water.
So, the bBC reports how people power closed down a factory which they say was poisoning the neighbourhood. And here is what the bBC forgot to mention:
Damietta’s controversial MOPCO factory found environmentally safe: Committee
A fact-finding committee assigned to investigate the environmental hazards of the MOPCO fertilizer factory in the Egyptian city of Damietta concluded Wednesday that the factory is environmentally safe, state news agency MENA reported. The MOPCO factory was at the heart of controversy in last November as resumption of the project galvanised local activists in Damietta and led to violent clashes between protesters and security forces.Egypt’s ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) consequently ordered a halt to the construction of a controversial fertilizer factory in the northern Damietta governorate’s Ras El-Bar district.The committee, which was commissioned by the syndicate of scientific professions, explained that all the gas emissions from the factory are not dangerous.
Osama Aboul Enein, the syndicate’s secretary, said that the white smoke the factory emits, which some locals thought was toxic, is nothing but water vapour resulting from the water used for cooling. Aboul Enein added that fertilizer manufacturing takes place in a closed circle inside the factory with no leakage of any toxic chemicals.
The story of MOPCO began in 2006, when Canadian fertilizer company Agrium signed a deal with the Egyptian government to build a factory for the manufacture of ammonia-based fertilizers in Ras El-Bar, a middle-class coastal area close to the Damietta seaport.
The above story is taken from an Arabic newsite from Jan this year. But for some strange reason the bBC didn’t mention any of it. Instead it waxes lyrical about people power.
The bBC, its passion for the environment and half the story.
Hello
Are you guys aware that a BBC news presenter Martine Croxall also works for a greeny outfit called green.tv? They pump out lefty stuff about climate change.
Here’s a link to her contribution.
Be very interesting to see how impartial she is next time she’s reporting or questioning someone about ‘climate change’. Don’t you think this makes her unreliable when covering stories about climate change?
green.tv seems to be very pro climate change propaganda.
Someone suggested some time ago that we should be keeping a list of Beeboids and their verified links to other organisations.
Is this being done and is it a good idea?
‘Be very interesting to see how impartial she is next time she’s reporting or questioning someone about ‘climate change’. That’s just wishful thinking of any Beeboid, I’m afraid, but excellent research. She’s just part of the leftie network, so little wonder she got the job.
Just for the info, has anybody heard from the bBC how a protest by 100s of Muslims in Germany saw 22 policemen injured with 2 stabbed.
No!
I wonder why?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/muslim-far-right-clashes-leave-29-police-hurt-1-2279037?
Supplementary:
“Bonn, Germany: Police: ‘We no longer accepted the provocations from Pro NRW by ending the event sooner than planned.’ Hundreds of Muslims organised armed attack via Facebook. ”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/bonn-germany-police-we-no-longer-accepted-the-provocations-from-pro-nrw-by-ending-the-event-sooner-t.html
So they call themselves Salafists? Sounds like they’re integrating nicely. Bet they love a good bratwurst with their weissbeer.
Muslim far Right????? The Muslim extremists are hand in glove with the left and have no belief in the freedoms that the genuinely right-of-centre believe. More tarring “undesirables” with the “right-wing” label!
BEEBOIDS:- do not read this –
you will be apoplectic –
“British passport holders should at least take first place in airport queues.
First place for British passports ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9244101/British-passport-holders-should-at-least-take-first-place-in-airport-queues.html
Top story on the bBCs
AllahMiddle Eastern News web page:Israeli PM Netanyahu calls for early general electionIsrael’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said he wants the country’s general election to be held on 4 September, more than a year early
That story was posted on the 7th of May at 1034am. (Don’t know if that refers to GMT or Mecca time)
And here is what is currently doing the rounds around the world about the above:
Israeli media reports early Tuesday indicate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reached an agreement with the Kadima opposition party for a unity government, canceling an early election.There was no immediate comment from official sources on the decision that was reported at about 02:00 A.M. local time.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israeli-leader-proposes-early-elections-sept-16295716?#.T6hj8zKRiSo
Yes the newsagency which can bring you news reports from besieged Gaza, darkest Pakistan and deepest Afghanistan within minutes when a terrorist suffers a splinter in his finger, can’t bring the news from any western country when the story doesn’t warrant their attention. You know like the Islamic riots yesterday:
http://the-eyeontheworld.blogspot.co.uk/
A Tale of Two Socialists…
A time to remember the good old days and to celebrate the hope of their return…
—————————
“There was a real sense of elation and a sense that Mitterrand’s win would bring in a different political culture and that France would become a more tolerant place. He abolished the death penalty and there was an anti-racism movement gaining momentum. There was a feeling France was entering the modern age and bringing to an end the era of De Gaulle.”
—————————
…and of the two defeated righties (boo-hiss)…
—————————
Valery Giscard d’Estaing left the Elysee Palace after one term. Like Sarkozy, he was elected on a platform of reform but by the end widely seen as reactionary.
Nicolas Sarkozy was also a one-term president, described as the most unpopular in history, criticised for an extravagant lifestyle, and perceived to be out of touch.
—————————–
Bitchy! For a president that was supposedly ‘the most unpopular in history’ he didn’t lose by a partiularly large margin, especially if we cross-reference to the BBC’s description of Boris Johnson’s win in London.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17936867
‘Perceived to be out of touch’. They are so used to acting as an echo chamber for Labour’s mantras against the Tories they have now become a part of their lexicon, regardless of which country they are commenting on. See also ‘posh boys’, ‘plan B’, ‘plan for growth’, ‘too far too fast’ etc.
Today’s “haven’t you f*ckers got anything better to do” story…
POLICE chiefs have banned IT staff from using the word blacklist over fears it is RACIST.
The computer term whitelist — used to denote a list of acceptable contacts — has also been outlawed.
In an email, Scotland Yard warned staff the words were no longer “appropriate”.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4301441/Police-chiefs-ban-the-word-blacklist-over-fears-that-it-is-racist.html
Can we also ban the use of…
“bent copper” – homophobic
“man’s inhumanity to man” – sexist
“taxman” – sexist
“dark matter” – racist
“black hole” – racist, sexually suggestive
…over to you – let’s hobble our language and stiffle communication for no sensible purpose whatsoever…
Clearly senior cops have no IT knowledge. This terminology arises from the 1930’s hollywood films. White hats are good guys and black hats are the baddies. Hence the terminology for spammers and crackers being black hats and on a black list.
We shall be so busy stuttering to find the correct, non-racist, non-homophobic, non-heightist, non-disablist, non-sexist words we’ll soon disappear up our own arseholes. Bugger, that’s homophobic. Damn, that’s homophobic too. Can’t cope with this, off for a lie down…
Apologies if someone has already covered this.
For Facebook users:
Fighting anti-Israel Bias at the BBC
Today continued its role as the broadcasting arm of Labour by interviewing Livingstone (who, don’t forget, according to the BBC only just lost his struggle with Boris) to discuss where Labour goes from here. Naughtie and Ken had a civilised discussion how Labour can capitalise (?) on its stunning victory last week. These two members of the party (OK Naughtie isn’t signed up but he might as well be) deluged the airwaves with a paean of praise for Miliband and a “thank goodness” for the left’s triumph in France.
Earlier Stephanie Flanders had been brought on to “discuss” with that other economist Evan Davis, where Europe goes from here. Flanders and Evan were glorying over the lack of a collapse in the markets concerning Hollande’s triumph: indeed Flanders noted a “recovery” yesterday. They forgot (natch!) to note that the markets – over the past weeks – had already taken into account the socialist victory so a collapse (unlike in the Greek markets) was hardly on the cards. BTW Stephanie ended her “analysis” by opining that the chaotic result of the Greek elections is “a vote in favour of staying with the euro”: “impartial” and sound analysis there then. Effectively this was another outing for the the false dichotomy of the “growth versus austerity” meme.
A snippet at around 8:30 was the advertisement for a later programme about Lovelock (“Mr Gaia”). Jim Al Khalili spluttered in mock-excitement that one question to be asked of Lovelock is to be about “Lovelock’s belief that it’s too late to save the planet”. Jim – and the BBC – want you to forget that Lovelock has substantially – and very recently and very publicly – resiled from the CAGW religion. Any “hook” about what’s going to be discussed would (in an “impartial” broadcaster/advertiser) have featured Lovelock’s change of opinion: in fact, that would have been the whole point of the interview. But we’re talking the BBC here: the narrative is everything, the facts nothing.
Did the BBC pay Kens “disturbance moneys” into his personal or his private account for this mornings PPB on behalf of the Labour Party?
How do we check?
Mitchell(Sat), Mandy(Mon)Livingstone(Tues) all blagging the top table for the BBC interview following the 8am news…all ex-has beens Labour scum…and all reverentially and gratefully received by the Toady Show.
We need an analysis of this systemic, perpetual bias by the BBC…and we need to get them for it.
Need a group effort to rub the f***ers faces in their own shit and fast!
To hear ram-raiding Ken sneering at the Tories for not knowing where the windscreen washer bottle is, when Labour have wilfully crashed the car into a wall and left it ablaze is just too much.
When is someone going to screw these leftie scum so they get out of denial for the evil they did-and will always do if we let them loose again?
Count me in…one maths degree and time on my hands…let`s be the true children of the revolution shall we?
Hard facts? It would take a lot of monitoring, though.
There’s a good comprehensive article about BBC dhimmitude at PJ Media (with a mention for Biased BBC, too).
URL no good?
Thanks – corrected.
Ironically, the link Ruskin has for this site is also no good: it’s the old one. I just sent him an email about it, hope he sees it.
What is it with people who want to become dhimmis? why don’t they emigrate to an islamic country and be happy in their dhimmitude.
Or do they really think that it doesn’t apply to them, just us ordinary plebs?
Excellent find, and comprehensively damning of IN-BBC’s prostration to all things Islam. Particularly gobsmacking was the ‘fanatical British Christian decapitating a peaceful Muslim in a 2008 episode of the BBC archaeology drama Bonekickers’ – an inversion of reality that even by BBC standards leaves you speechless. The thing is, do we believe Thompson’s reasoning, or is he just creating a smokescreen for their US/Israel/Christian/capitalist-hating alliance?
A poster here (sorry I forgot who it was) gave us the heads up on a new BBC comedy currently in the pipline.
http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/citizen_khan/
‘Citizen Khan is a warm family comedy set in the capital of British Pakistan – Sparkhill, Birmingham. It follows the trials and tribulations of Mr Khan and his long suffering family.’
‘Things would be so much easier if everyone just listened to him and followed his lead, but his obsessively house-proud wife and two feisty daughters have other ideas.’
Citizen Khan? Surely the Beeb can come up with a better title for this race-based comdey? (shushhhhh…..Islam) Feisty daughter and pompous patriarch sit-com – sounds as though it harks back to the 1970s, with all the subtley of the likes of Alf Garnet, or that one which dare not speak its name – you know the ITV one with Jack Smethurst and Rudolph Walker?
Any suggestions….?
I’m not clear why the Beeb are referencing an old Orson Welles movie. How about something that harks back to British comedy classics but is more closely associated with this particular community…..
‘It ain’t ‘alf hot, Imam’
‘Are you being Sharia?’
‘Whatever happed to the Lover-boys?’
‘Till Martyrdom do us part’
or
‘Suicide-bomb thy neighbour’
“I’m not clear why the Beeb are referencing an old Orson Welles movie”
Maye because it was the title the writers chose when submitting their pilot to the sitcom festival where it won its full series commission?
If you think you can be funnier than them, give it a go. There are loads of writing competitions out there – the BBC writers room website maintains a list, but even that’s not exhaustive.
Hi Scott.
‘Maybe because it was the title the writers chose….’
You pick up on something of a side issue in terms of the actual thrust of my post. What I was really getting at was that I fear that this show will be a highly BBC-approved affair. By which I mean the multi-cultural PC narrative is likely to win out over the comedy.
You seem to be argueing that BBC writers have a large measure of artistic freedom – I find that idea amusing in itself. Judging by the output these days they seem to be selected from a very limited gene pool of political out look and work within a tight PC framework. If that were not true then the kind of 1970s style shows to which I alluded – and which we know would be popular with a large slice of the viewing public – would be allowed to be repeated on the BBC.
Let’s be honest. When you say “a large slice of the viewing public”, you mean you.
There are huge numbers of people who recognise that generating comedy purely out of racist stereotypes just doesn’t sustain a series. Even in shows like Love Thy Neighbour, which purported to ridicule those who expressed racist sentiment (but which did so far less effectively than Johnny Speight’s Till Death Us Do Part) the joke wears incredibly thin.
Repeating any old series is often mired in legal paperwork – when series were filmed, it was never envisaged that there would even be the possibility of repeats decades in the future, and the contracts of the time reflected that. In order to clear those sort of hurdles there needs to be a clear idea that the programme concerned is of sufficient quality to warrant the effort: and sorry to say, a lot of the programmes you clearly hold dear just don’t meet that standard.
‘Let’s be honest.’
Now that’s comedy.
Unless you are being serious, in which case you probably are on board when a pol says ‘The truth is..’ and quotes a daft fact or outright lies, and if it suits the interviewer’s prejudices they just nod along.
In which case it’s simply tragic.
‘Let’s be honest. When you say “a large slice of the viewing public”, you mean you.’
Apart from that statement – I wouldn’t really disagree with the gist of your last post.
In fact, it’s not me in particular, I had in mind a slightly older generation. (Believe it or not, we’re not all racist Colonel Blimps). My point was not to plead for repeats of outdated sit-coms but to counter your implied assertion that current writers get genuine artistic freedom at the modern Beeb. There may well be, as you put it, ‘huge numbers of people who recognise that generating comedy purely out of racist stereotypes just doesn’t sustain a series’ (BTW the BBC at present seem to be playing fast and loose with the concepts of huge majorities and narrow margins. Anyway that phrase sounds a lot like that other popular BBC construct used to preface and bolster BBC opinions ‘…some people are saying….’) – my point is that the BBC operates and pushes an advanced form of PC-minded censorship. Which your comments actually seem to acknowledge. It is clear to me that an un-representative nameless politically minded BBC elite makes decisions – about which you at least seem to approve – that have the effect of censoring the viewing of the rest of us. But to return to the main point…..Are we really supposed to believe that the very best idea out there for a family show to replace Outnumbered and My Family just happens to be written about Muslims. Serendipity or what? – and right there you have a better title than Citizen Khan.
There are huge numbers of people who recognise that generating comedy purely out of racist stereotypes just doesn’t sustain a series.
Which is why the BBC produced “Come Fly With Me”….
‘Hi-De-Hijab’
‘Allah Allah’
‘May To Ramadan’
‘Three Up, Forty Six Down’
‘Don’t Blow Up’
‘Jihad’s Army’
‘Iran, Milord ?’
‘Some Mullahs Do ‘Ave ‘Em’
‘Iman About The House’
‘Dhimmi’ll Fix It’
‘Mr And Mrs. And Mrs. And Mrs. And Mrs.’
‘The Mullah of Dibley’
‘Open All Hours (Except Fridays)’
‘Bless This Mosque’
‘Ever Decreasing Infidels’
‘Last of the Summer Grape Juice’
‘Whatever Happened To The Jihad Lads?’
‘Waiting for Allah (Peace Be Upon Him)’
‘Infidel Pigdogs Behaving Badly’
‘To The Minaret Born’
‘Iman Ted’
‘As Prayertime Goes By’
‘Two Pints Of Lemonade And A Packet Of Crisps, Please’
‘My Wives Next Door’
Not forgetting the satirical panel shows…
‘8 out of 10 khats’
‘(Don’t) Mock the Prophet’
‘Have I got Jews for you’
‘And Mother Makes 6’
‘Keeping Down Appearances’
‘Citizen Sahil’
‘22.4 Children’
I note that whilst Guido Fawkes has managed to report Christ Bryant’s apology to the Leveson, the BBC has not…
“the capital of British Pakistan – Sparkhill, Birmingham.”
Is this irony or fantasy?
Unwitting honesty, or an arrogant statement of fact?
Guido has unearthed an advert for a BBC Political Analyst that says:
“You’ll be required to have expertise in the workings of the Labour Party. You’ll have a comprehensive knowledge of the Labour Party and a good awareness of constitutional affairs.”
Who’d have thought it?
https://careers.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?s=DAjLiOTqDbSEjGgSby&jobid=35797,4154491214&key=35900743&c=492134609835&pagestamp=dbhxehemxaefveyigu
Can’t argue with that.
Under the “Skills” section, they left out:
“Ability to keep your head down and hide your political leanings”
I note that both the positions – for experts on Labour and the Conservatives – and most probably all other positions have this load of bollocks as a core competence for the job
Understands and appreciates the uniqueness of self and others. Demonstrates, and is committed to improving, understanding of why people react in particular ways. Understanding diversity in its widest sense. Demonstrates a commitment to improving diversity in the BBC. Takes a balanced approach to discussing and taking action on diversity issues. Articulates how individual differences can benefit the BBC.
At the BBC we respect each other and celebrate our differences so that everyone gives their best. The BBC positively encourages applications from all parts of the community and is committed to promoting equality of opportunity.
It is important to BBC News that all employees come from and reflect the different communities across the UK
We value their understanding, experience and knowledge which enables us to communicate with our audiences.
Accordingly an enormous number of people – including me – would be immediately disqualified from this position. I – and others – have absolutely no desire to “take action” (for what is, after all a temporary assignment) on “diversity issues” at the BBC. Furthermore I (and many others) have no interest or ambition to “articulate . . how individual differences can benefit the BBC”
Sure, the BBC wants to bring in expertise but the people who it is seeking to recruit come from the same groupthinking crowd of lefties and (possibly) CINOs who constitute the BBC’s possibly racially but certainly not politically diverse news/opinion mob.
‘Take action on diversity issues’ = be prepared to report a colleague to the BBC Equality and Diversity Wing if they use words like ‘blacklist’.
Why doesn’t Islam Not BBC (INBBC) report this classic of dhimmitude as expressed by U.S defence lawyer?
Does INBBC regard it as political normalcy?:-
“American female defense lawyer covers up in traditional Islamic dress at 9/11 Guantanamo trial ‘out of respect’ for her client’s religious beliefs. ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140393/9-11-Guantanamo-trial-American-female-defense-lawyer-covers-traditional-Islamic-dress.html#ixzz1uHYWg3jw
Let’s hope the person who administers the death sentence dresses properly too.
Party hats all round, then.