Monthly Archives: October 2012

ROMNEY WINS, BBC GUTTED

By | |
102 Comments

I was on the BBC earlier this morning talking through last evening’s Presidential debate. It was bad, real bad, for Obama and even Mark Mardell was forced to accept that Romney “won.” So cue solemn music and black armbands. The new line is to say that whilst Romney may have “won” the debate, if the polls do not shift in his favour he will have lost! LOL – wonderful stuff and assumes that we all believe the pro-Obama polls.

Mardell Tells A Little White Lie For The White House

By | | , , , , , , , ,
22 Comments

I chose the word “lie” with great care, after long consideration. But I can come to no other conclusion. If one has wrong information and then makes a statement based on that faulty info, it’s not telling a lie. If one has the correct information but knowingly makes a statement contradicting that, it’s a lie. I think that’s what Mardell is doing here.

US election: Is foreign policy Romney’s best chance?

The short blog post is mainly about trying to push the idea that Romney’s campaign is in disarray, and that triangulating on a perceived foreign policy stumble regarding the Benghazi fiasco might help his chances. The BBC’s US President editor – a lifelong political junkie who should know better – actually wants you to believe that taking advantage of a new opportunity is the same thing as completely overhauling a campaign because the other ideas aren’t working.

Naturally, Mardell’s conclusion is the one you probably guessed: no, it won’t help Romney in the end anyway, because the people actually care more about the economy than anything else. Why this brilliant bit of obviousness took him 434 words to say instead of two short paragraphs, I have no idea. Since this is Mardell, though, there’s usually a gem amongst the paste. He sets up the notion that Romney’s campaign is desperately spinning wheels trying to find some traction by saying this:

Some in Mitt Romney’s camp are tempted to switch focus to foreign affairs.

As if they never had any plans to mention it, and as if events, dear boy, didn’t provide an opportunity. To back it up, he then says this:

No-one doubts now that the opinion polls show Mr Romney in a whole heap of trouble.

He didn’t say, “most” or “the conventional wisdom” or “expert analysts” or even “no-one with half a brain”. He said “no-one”. This is a lie, because by October 1 Mardell knew all about the following, but chooses to tell you they don’t exist:

Obama and Romney are basically tied in Virginia

What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls

 The presidential race remains competitive even though voters still trust Mitt Romney slightly more than President Obama when it comes to handling economic matters. Will Wednesday night’s first presidential debate make a difference?

With a race this close, possibly but not likely, Scott Rasmussen argues in his latest weekly syndicated column. “Events in the real world matter more than debates,” Scott writes. “Only in the absence of other news could a slight change in the race coming out of the debates be decisive.”

(More on the debate issue in a moment)

Gallup on Romney’s terrible month

Also, this is registered voters. Likely voters probably favors Romney.

Morning Jay: Are the Polls Tilted Toward Obama?

One important “tell” in my opinion, is this president’s continued weak position with independent voters, who remain the true swing vote.

But wait, there’s more.

The Election Isn’t Over

Only fools and partisans think Obama has it locked up.

Obama and Romney Neck in Neck in OH Poll… WITH D+10 SAMPLE!

What to Make of Declining Democratic Registration?

Basically, there’s a big discussion going on right now about the polls being skewed or otherwise unrepresentative of reality. And Mardell knew it. He just decided none of this was worth a damn and that you should think “no-one” doubts that Romney is in desperate straits.

Before any itchy fingers start trying to tell me that Mardell is right that Romney is in trouble, let me remind you that it’s irrelevant. I’m talking specifically about the fact that he said “no-one doubts”, which is patently false. A lie. At best, dismissing Rasmussen and Gallup and the Wall Street Journal as well as the local stuff, and saying that none of what I’ve linked to is worthy of respect, which just means he’s as biased as we say he is. Only fools and partisans, indeed.

Do I think a lot of this noise can be put down to sour grapes? Sure. Every time I hear someone complaining about skewed polls, that’s what I’m wondering. But that’s not the point. The point is that a lot of otherwise reasonable, respectable people think things are a lot closer than they really are. Also, let’s remember that in 2008 when Candidate Obamessiah had a similar lead over Sen. McCain, the Beeboids were fretting that the polls were skewed due to lying racists and the Bradley Effect. Ah, good times….good times. Funny how we’re not so racist now. Any bets that we will be racists again if Romney wins?

Now about tonight’s debate. The new Narrative in the US mainstream media (whom Mardell has admitted are mostly liberal) is that the debates don’t mean anything. It’s a clever pre-emptive strike at the bounce Romney will most likely get. There’s also been an attempt to revive the myth surrounding that Nixon-JFK debate where supposedly people who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won, while those who listened on the radio thought Nixon did. In other words, since most everyone is going to be watching it, don’t believe your lying eyes if you think Romney won.

Mardell dutifully follows suit. A draw will be a successful result for the President. He also throws in an appeal to authority and has some academic say that the debates don’t usually change anyone’s mind, but at least leave the voters better informed. I’d like some maple syrup on that waffle, please.

At least Adam Blenford’s full-length piece on the debate issues and candidates is pretty well balanced and not obviously biased. I even think that the weaknesses listed for both men can be considered different versions of the same thing. He didn’t mention the President’s whining about having to rehearse and study for it, but never mind.

Mardell will be tweeting during the debate and then blogging his pearls of wisdom afterwards. Joy.

Bombe Surprise

By | |
39 Comments

 

 

You couldn’t make it up…..the BBC happily giving Muslim terrorists and their supporters free propaganda.

A programme that was supposed to investigate a conspiracy theory that the British government planned the 7/7 bombings, fronted by Irish comedian Andrew Maxwell, was haphazard in its approach and patchy in its ‘evidence’, not looking too deeply at issues raised.

Perhaps, you might think, they were not overly bothered if they didn’t disprove the conspiracy theories.

Who were the conspiracy theory advocates? Three non-Muslims and a Muslim….but a convert…..the BBC loves a convert. Chosen specifically so that the viewer can’t just say ‘They’re all Muslim, they would think that wouldn’t they?’

In other words….if non-Muslims are suspicious it gives the ‘suspicion’ more credibility.

And who is the real danger?  Is it the internet trawling white boy or the Islamic radical who uses this information to stir up hate and recruit more extremists in his own community?…..as a BBC report from 2005 tells us……

‘ Video tapes and DVDs left at mosques in Dewsbury contain “distasteful and offensive” propaganda material, a senior police officer has said   “As far as we know the videos were a portrayal of violence – a portrayal of Muslims being victims of violence.

“It was an attempt to portray Muslims as victims and to perhaps try and evoke local sympathy, local pressure into some sort of backlash towards the perpetrators which I think the videos portray as British and American politicians – European democracies as the enemies.

“I believe they were aimed at stirring up racial tension – stirring up concern in the community.

“I think the broadest aim may have been recruiting terrorists in the future.’

 

So why not have four Muslim conspiracy theorists on the programme?….prove it to them and it might be worthwhile.

 

What does Maxwell say about the theories?……‘I can understand a giant suspicion of the British establishment…back in the 70s the British cops did fit up Irishman for bombings.’

So just setting the scene eh?

As he went on to look at the background of the bombers he said…..‘We will try to get into the mindset of these supposed bombers.’   ‘Supposed bombers’?

The first character ‘witness’ denied that the bombers could have been bombers…they were ‘good Muslim boys, not terrorists.’ But as she lives in the community is she a reliable witness or is she saying what her neighbours want to hear?

The show brings on a Muslim (for some reason) psychologist who tells us that it is hard to spot a terrorist….but that ‘their extremism might start with a legitimate grievance….without doubt one of the biggest recruitment causes was the Iraq War….add to that someone who has experienced racism and it becomes toxic.’

So there you go, the BBC have slotted in their own narrative, and that of the bombers…the terrorism is all justified…because the Iraq War was illegal and Muslims  were victims of discrimination.

Then came another theme…current in BBC thinking….it’s all down to Big Business and the government operating behind the scenes to facilitate Big Business…going so far as to bomb London in order to keep the Imperialist British flag flying over the world and sell widgets to the natives at exorbitant prices.

　

The programme proved little other than that the bombers were on the trains and bus and that a homemade bomb works….we all know that…the IRA were making them for years and the Taliban are more than proficient.

Was the BBC really trying to disprove the conspiracy theory?

Some might say that the BBC is doing the opposite…..who is its audience for this?  I have never once thought that the government plotted the 7/7 bombings. Not many other people will have either.

The only people who believe this are people who don’t actually believe the ’conspiracy’ because they know the truth but are happy to sow the doubt and confusion….that is, fellow travellers of the bomber‘s…… and the conspiracy theorists who will never be ‘turned’ whatever the evidence proves.

So it is a relatively very small group of people, the majority of whom will not change their views under any circumstances….therefore why give such prominence to conspiracy theories that only a few extremists want to believe?

I can only conclude that someone at the BBC thought this was good entertainment or that it would be good to spread the propaganda to a wider audience and in order to keep up the attack on Blair and the Iraq War with subtle hints of possible Machiavellian plots to murder British subjects.

What was missing from the show?…the bomber’s own videos declaring their Jihad upon the West….the videos prove it was no training exercise, they prove that they were involved and they prove that, inconveniently, Islam was the driving force behind the attacks.

 

So why did the BBC not show those videos when they are so relevant to disproving the conspiracy theories?

　

If you think the BBC are incapable of using the 7/7 attacks, the 52 dead and the over 700 injured, as pawns in their games you may have forgotten the first anniversary of the 7/7 attacks which the BBC decided was a good time to insist that Muslims were the real victims of the bombs…suffering suspicion wherever they went.

To prove the point the BBC hired themselves a Muslim, gave him a rucksack and walked him through the people at the remembrance service….causing quite evident, and quite natural, alarm amongst some people.

It is apparent that some at the BBC have lost all sense of propriety and proportion, not to say common sense and common decency.

In their never ending quest to prove Muslims are innocent of any dark thoughts at all they are prepared to sacrifice everything from free speech to the right to live in a safe and secure environment….or rather make everyone else sacrifice those things on the altar of some form of twisted political correctness.

　

　

 

Fury as BBC documentary suggests Government plotted 7/7 attacks to boost Iraq war support (well, it is hosted by an Irish comedian)

The BBC3 documentary shows conspiracy theorists – including model Layla Randle-Conde – play the bombers. 

Producers blow up a bus in a bid to recreate the explosion in Tavistock Square that killed 13 people. 

Parents of victims brand programme ‘disgusting’ and in ‘really bad taste’

Families of victims of the 7/7 London bombings have slammed the BBC for a ‘disgusting’ documentary that investigates conspiracy theories surrounding the atrocity.

The programme, to be aired on BBC3 and hosted by Irish comedian Andrew Maxwell, probes claims that the co-ordinated blasts were in fact part of a Government plot to boost support for the Iraq war.  

 

007 would have sorted it all out.

 

 

 

 

 

A View From Outside The Echo Chamber

By | | , , ,
32 Comments

Defenders of the indefensible love to belittle this blog by claiming that it’s nothing more than a microscopic minority of cranks and haters caught up in an echo chamber, not representative of any popular opinions, not a single word to be taken seriously. The views expressed here about BBC bias do not, we’re told, represent anything other than an extremist, miniscule minority.

With this in mind, I’d like to direct your attention to this piece by  US writer from Minnesota, James Lileks. He’s of the Right, but socially pretty liberal and has plenty of mainstream opinions and tastes, although maybe an unhealthy obsession with advertising and magazine art from the 1950s. In other words, he’s not the kind of extremist defenders of the indefensible claim we are. So when he independently catches the BBC in exactly the kind of bias we point out here, it’s worth taking note.

Read the following, part of a larger point about “offensive” art and intentions, and notice how it could have been written by any number of people here:

While listening to the BBC today I heard an interview with a California church singled out by the Southern Poverty Law Center – “an organization that monitors hate groups,” and thus utterly neutral and trustworthy, of course; the very act of dedicating yourself to the task proves you’re on the side of the angels. The interviewer, having been informed that the church endorsed the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video, badgered the pastor about supporting hate,  sounding as though he had a film of sour jam around his teeth as he spoke. The pastor asked the interviewer to explain how the film was inaccurate. There wasn’t any response to that, but the earnestness of the pastor and all that JEEESUS talk was supposed to say it all.

Then the  Southern Poverty Law Center spokesperson said that the church wasn’t violent, but such extremism, combined with easy access to firearms, made for a worrisome situation.

The impetus for the story, just to recap, was a video that supposedly made people on the other side of the world rise up in murderous rage, which had nothing to do with the church in the profile, except that they endorsed its sentiments. They do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet. I suspect the interviewer didn’t, either, but of course he said “The prophet Mohammed” whenever the subject arose.

It’s just easier all around that way. You get less mail.

It’s stuff like this that makes me laugh when defenders of the indefensible do their “you’re an obscure tiny minority and nobody agrees with you anywhere outside the echo chamber” routine. This is also yet another example of the institutional bias at the BBC. Same perspective on this story, same angle of attack, same “Prophet Mohammed”, but on another programme on another channel. Lileks doesn’t say, but this is most likely the World Service, editorially independent and far away from Barbara Plett on Radio 4 and some Beeboid on the News Channel and the rest of the spectrum of BBC broadcasting. They don’t need to pass memos around or send editorial directives from on high or hold secret meetings to deliberately plan this kind of biased reporting: it’s reflexive. It comes naturally to them because that’s the kind of people the BBC hires and that’s the atmosphere in house.