Andrew Neil is my favourite BBC political presenter. He is usually fair and even handed and he is one of the “talent” that deserves his salary. So that made last night’s BBC THIS WEEK opening item on the US Presidential race all the more disappointing. Neil invited the openly partisan “financial guru” Alvin Hall to provide the commentary and the gist was that Trump is ..yawns — appealing to angry racists and “has no plan” for being President. A discreet veil was drawn across the deplorable Clinton track record. The BBC want Clinton to win just as they wanted us to vote to Remain in the EU, just like they wanted a hung Parliament in 2015. So far the people have denied them their will and I sincerely hope that in November the BBC will be confounded with the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the successful election of Donald Trump. Andrew Neil should be ashamed of himself for playing along with the “nudge nudge wink wink” race baiting that was broadcast last night.
Former Labour culture secretary James Purnell has been chosen as the BBC’s new director of radio in a ‘highly unusual’ appointment say Conservative MPs. Replacing the incumbent Helen Boaden, Purnell is set to be unveiled as the next radio chief on Friday.
So we can look forward to the already horrifically biased BBC radio deepening its bias under the gaze of the former Labour Culture Secretary. This is why I believe the BBC is way beyond the point of any possible reform. It extorts cash from us and then uses these billions to deploy those with an OBVIOUS political bias to direct its output. Labour and the BBC….
If you have been listening to the BBC’s coverage of the latest football scandal you may have noticed a constant theme that gets slipped into the discussion…that of ‘TV money’, not actually naming Sky of course, corrupting the beautiful game.
Is it just my imagination or is there an underlying line that the BBC is pushing…such as an attack on Sky?
Perhaps we could check out what the BBC’s outhouse journal and partner in so many crimes, the Guardian, says….
Over the next few days more tales of football’s dirty deals are promised. The beautiful game will be besmirched.
Since television money flowed into the sport in the early 1990s, the Premier League has become less a local English affair and more a global one. That has some benefits: better facilities and bigger names on the pitch. However, with top-flight clubs owned by foreign investors and English players making up a third of Premier League teams, there is a feeling that English football is becoming detached from its roots. Such is the concern that Andy Burnham, the Labour mayoral candidate for football-mad Manchester, thinks a quota on foreign players is needed.
The television cash is largely swallowed up by players’ wages, managers’ contracts and agents’ fees. England’s team of millionaires being beaten by Iceland, whose top division is a part-time league, shows how little money is related to talent.
So really it’s not ‘TV money’ that’s the problem but immigration and free market failure? The Guardian….such a racist rag. But er…the Premier League is not the England Team….the market brings to the English league top players and managers from around the world….so not a market failure…it’s the failure of the footballing authorities to distribute the money and train the youngsters that if anything puts a hold on the development of many more English players. Having said that do players from African or the Balkans or South American have the money and facilities available to English players? No. So more to it than money.
But what does the Guardian think is the answer? A little bit of anti-capitalist [Murdoch] socialism and matches given free to the BBC….who’d a thunk?..
To correct this market failure, politicians should restrict the number of games broadcast on pay-TV and set aside some top matches for free-to-air TV. More people will watch the games. The BBC would be able to showcase an expression of national cultural identity. Commercial free-to-air channels could benefit from advertising. Highlights on the BBC draw millions more than a single match on pay-TV. With competition from free matches, TV deals will shrink. Clubs will reduce player salaries. The wealth of club owners and media tycoons will drop.
Guess Milne must already be back at the Guardian doing a fine job pushing the Corbyn new/old politics and helping out the lefty BBC on the way as well as attacking the old enemy, Murdoch. Three for one, certainly getting value for money these days at the Guardian.
“When lifelong Republican Jennifer Williams arrived at the party’s National Convention in Cleveland this summer, she felt nervous. Although she was excited to be an honorary delegate for New Jersey, she was worried about how others would respond to her.
She had attended many political events before this, including both of President George W Bush’s inaugurations, but this was to be her first party convention – and one of the first political gatherings she would attend as Jennifer.
As the sole transgender delegate at the event, so far as she could tell, she knew there was a possibility some would not welcome her with open arms.
“I was wary of my surroundings” she says. “But I did allow myself extra time to find a less crowded bathroom whenever I could and always made sure to confidently smile and chat.”
This elevation of these poor mentally conflicted people is now a daily part of the BBC agenda.
Guido is listing the runners and riders he thinks could replace Shameless Milne as Labour’s Director of Communications. Would have thought the obvious choice would be Nick Robinson, already offered such a role by Labour before and who is doing a fine job suppressing criticism of Corbyn on the BBC, or of course someone as equally shameless and off the wall as Milne, James O’Brien, now also doing a fine job cheerleading for Corbyn. Could explain a lot about his last outburst.
Then again nothing like having two Corbyn stooges in top jobs at one of the world’s most influential broadcasters.
The BBC reports that Serena Williams ‘won’t stay silent’ about Blacks being shot by police…and we get a very exploitative video of a young girl talking about the killings…channelling only what misinformation her parents have fed her of course.
She is probably unaware that the police officer who shot Keith Scott was himself black or that Scott had an illegal gun or that he abused his wife….then again the BBC seems entirely unaware of such facts…the Telegraph reports:
The black man whose killing by a police officer sparked race riots in Charlotte had owned a gun, court records show, contradicting claims by his family that first prompted the unrest.
Authorities said Keith Scott was carrying a loaded weapon when he was fatally shot by a police officer last week, but Mr Scott’s relatives countered that he had been carrying a book.
In a press conference after the shooting Justin Bamberg, a lawyer said the testimony he had collected from Mr Scott’s family was that he “didn’t own a gun” and “didn’t carry a gun”.
But in October last year, Rakeyia Scott, the victim’s wife, filed a domestic violence protective order in which she said her husband carried a 9mm hand gun and that he didn’t own a permit for the weapon.
Mr Scott had beat her and her eight year old child and had threatened to “kill us last night with his gun,” she wrote in the order obtained by a local news channel.
This was dismissed later in the month when Mrs Scott said her husband no longer posed a threat.
The revelation came as police said a suspect arrested for burglary had confessed to selling a stolen weapon to Mr Scott. Authorities said the same weapon was found at the scene where Brentley Vinson, a black officer with Charlotte-Mecklenburg police, shot him.
Why is it that all we get from the BBC is BlackLivesMatter propaganda and not the true facts? Why more keen to publicise Williams’ alarmism than the truth about Scott?
The BBC’s emotive and deliberately dishonest reporting is continuing to, and seems designed to, stir up racial hate and anger….all of which are being transferred to the UK as Black agitators clamber on board the BlackLivesMatter bandwagon to use for their own purposes.
The BBC charged with maintaining social cohesion and a civil society? LOL.
He must be wishing he’d deleted the whole of Tom Watson’s.
This afternoon, Labour members in Liverpool watched their deputy leader expertly undermine their leader – and then gave him a standing ovation. It was remarkable. And because Mr Corbyn was sitting at a platform on stage, mere feet from Mr Watson, you could watch his reaction. It wasn’t hard to guess what he thought.
At the end, Mr Corbyn had no choice but to join the standing ovation, shake his deputy’s hand, and stand smiling and waving with him. Inside, however, he must have been fuming.
The leadership battle was supposed to end on Saturday. I’m not sure it did.
Funny though, if you read the BBC’S report of the same speech you’d think it was almost entirely harmless and not at all a blistering attack on Corbyn and his storm troopers:
Apparently the media have to stop being nasty to Corbyn. Can’t say I’ve noticed the BBC being nasty, being very restrained and grovelling yes, nasty? no.
Is the BBC biased? draws our attention to an article by Newsnight’s James O’Brien, the man whose stock in trade is a hefty dose of deep unpleasantness combined with lies, outraged moral anger and smug self-righteousness but who thinks poor old Corbyn is having a hard time….the media must be nice to him and his wonderful policies…
James O’Brien said today that it was time for the media to change the way it talks about Corbyn.
He said: “The media, myself included, now have to stop talking about Jeremy Corbyn like he is some sort of pimple on the backside of British politics and start talking about him as the only alternative Prime Minister to Theresa May.
“That is what he is.
“I’m not going to lie to you. I’ve made a conscious personal and professional decision to leave the scepticism at the door and will now treat this party and this man as I treat all politicians – with a degree of cynicism but not as some sort of aberration.
And questioning the negative media reception to Corbyn’s polciies, he said: “Try this on for size. We spend far too much money on war and weapons and we should be spending that money on the poor.
“What’s not to like about that?
“Why is that even controversial?”
He added: “I used to call it undergraduate, quasi-Marxist. Parking all that language, it’s over, it’s finished, it’s meaningless.
“You begin to look for finer detail in the policy. You struggle at the moment to see it, but who comes up with a fully-fledged manifesto within a few weeks of being leader, or a year? He’s not got an election to fight.”
Praising Corbyn’s qualities, he said: “You see a strength in the man, a lot of other people would have buckeld under the sheer weight of abuse he has recieved from his own party let along the media and establishment.
“You’ve got a leader who really does appear to represent a profound alternative to the notion of business as usual.
“Why has that been treated so negatively?”
Possibly because he’s a dyed in the wool Marxist with policies that would destroy the economy, our defences and our society…never mind presiding over a steep rise in anti-Semitism and violent abusive behaviour in his party and rather than do anything about it actually ignored the anti-semitism before greeting one attacker with praise and a slap on the back, and of course he is the man who gave a peerage to someone who was supposed to be holding an inquiry into that anti-Semitism…perhaps that explains why the inquiry was such a white-wash.
Speaking of which…good old Andrew Neil interviews a very Shifty Shami:
Raises a few questions about Corbyn as well doesn’t it? Not allowed to ask them apparently.
Still, Corbyn is an honourable man…no?
O’Brien should never have been given a job on Newsnight to start with, he got it solely on the basis of his hatchet job attack on Farage so bigging up Corbyn won’t be seen as an obstacle in his new career.
I wonder what the BBC Trust would make of it…presumably they’d say, ala Packham, that he wasn’t a regular BBC employee…however he is of course involved in news and public policy related output…..surely he is breaking editorial guidelines on impartiality…speaking of which….
New editor of the magazine Sheena Harvey told the BBC Trust: “Coming to this magazine as the new editor and with a fresh eye, I will say that I feel some of the language used by Chris Packham in that column was somewhat flippant and the use of a phrase such as ‘nasty brigade’ would not have been let through had I been overseeing the content.
The BBC’s response?
The BBC Trust complaints committee said: “The committee considered that the fact that BBC Wildlife Magazine’s new editor would not have allowed the term ‘nasty brigade’ to have been published, together with the fact that both complainants had been given a right to reply to it, meant that the issue had been resolved and no further action needed to be taken.”
Hmmmm….so even though it looks like Packham was wrong to use the language he did and should have been brought up by the Trust for saying it the Trust has decided there is nothing to see here because in future he wouldn’t be allowed to use that language.
How can a complaint be dismissed because someone agrees something is wrong but says in future it won’t be allowed? That just opens up all sorts of possibilities and a world where no complaint is successful….unless you put one in now for future programmes in the expectation someone says something that is controversial and they do.
Bet the Nazis wished they’d thought of that defence at Nuremberg….sorry, won’t let it happen again.
The BBC coverage of last evening’s first US presidential debate was as pro-Clinton as I expected. It reminds me so much of the run up to the EU referendum, the BBC is smugly confident that their side will win. I will delight when Trump prevails and they are forced to go into another bout if sustained denial. Your thoughts?
The Remain losers are out in force though you might never know there was an orchestrated campaign to undermine Brexit if you relied solely on the BBC’s ‘analysis’.
Osborne came out declaring he was the voice of the liberal mainstream….that ‘mainstream’ that was so mainstream it couldn’t get a majority, he’s now claiming that there is no mandate for a ‘Hard Brexit’…but of course there is…the vote was precisely about that…stopping immigration and wresting political control from Brussels. Osborne conjures up strawmen as he suggests Hard Brexit means cutting all ties and cooperation with the EU, or ‘Europe’ as he calls it….naturally that is complete alarmist nonsense…lies. And oh yes…the results of many of Osborne’s own policies, such as the living wage and stamp duty changes?…pretty disastrous in the effects they have in business and the housing market and tax receipts.
Clegg told us that he couldn’t leave politics to the extremes, left or right. He then told us that politics was broken and that what he saw drove him to become a radical who wanted wholesale change of the political system. Radical then but not ‘extreme’.
His replacement, Timothy Farron, is equally deluded as he claims Brexit was a ‘howl of anger‘ from the electorate about the state of the political system, the answer they sought being a LibDem government. Really? Four million UKIP voters, 11 million Tory voters and 9 million Labour. What did the LibDems get? Two million. Clearly the voters have no idea what’s good for them.
Indeed LibDem Norman Lamb told us on the Today programme (08:34) that we have no idea what the voters wanted when they voted for Brexit, we know what staying in the EU meant [sweets and happy days all round] but the voters had no idea what leaving the EU meant, therefore May has no mandate to negotiate, therefore we need a second vote to clear this up…and if May’s deal is not accepted then no more votes, we stay in the EU….er wouldn’t the vote be about the content of the deal not the principle of Brexit, leaving the EU? So another deal and another vote until we get one acceptable to the Leave camp.
Justin Webb didn’t challenge that claim that voting to leave was a vote for the unknown. That’s nonsense, and a continued Remain narrative, that Leave voters are basically emotive, stupid anarchists [not just racist]…Leave voters knew precisely what they were voting for, less immigration, no political control by an unelected, arrogant elite in Brussels and the end to EU courts interfering in British sovereign law. As for knowing what staying in the EU meant….Lamb thinks it is the land of milk and honey, the BBC refused to explore this important issue…because the real truth is that the EU is heading for ever closer integration, the only way it can survive, along with an EU army…and you only have to look at Deutsche Bank right now to understand the problems of the EU economy as it crashes and will possibly sink the Euro. Which may be no bad thing...The euro has destroyed the EU and led directly to Brexit
The BBC itself often pushes that same narrative from Lamb…that the vote was merely a vote against something rather than for something. Which is tosh. For less immigration, for an independent Britain, for control of our own laws and borders.
Now we have the pro-EU Sunday Times and Remainer and BBC plant [you have to think] Craig Oliver [in the pro-EU Sunday Mail] both churning out anti-Leave books. Oliver was so upset at the result of the referendum he was sick…he thought holding the referendum was madness. Can’t think what possessed Cameron to employ him. Oliver claims May was an enemy agent for the Leave camp, good chance Oliver was an enemy agent for the BBC, gone from their employ but still onboard and reporting back from the heart of the Tory government…taking copious notes and then rapidly turning that into a reveal-all book.
The BBC sees nothing underhand in these attacks on May and Boris and gives them full, uncritical credence.
The Sunday Times claims that May was soft on immigration controls and that her stance stopped Cameron from getting a better deal with the EU [in his utterly failed negotiations that the BBC reported as a success]…however it admits that May wrote twice to Cameron in the period on question demanding tougher immigration controls….but you know what? Cameron didn’t feel he had her support for a tough line. Poor lad. Just who was it really that didn’t want tough immigration controls? Cameron.
Oliver tells us that his book is a sincere, eyewitness account of what actually happened…however the crucial messages that he claims were sent by Boris that Oliver says indicated he actually wanted to vote to Remain are missing….
Sir Craig also claims Mr Johnson, now foreign secretary, was “genuinely in turmoil” about supporting the Leave campaign and had been “flip-flopping within a matter of hours” of declaring his intention.
Sir Craig writes that, the day before throwing his weight behind the Leave campaign, Mr Johnson sent a text to Mr Cameron warning him that he would be campaigning for Brexit.
However, he says Mr Johnson later sent a second message suggesting he could back Remain. [So where is it?]
“I ask DC what makes him so sure Boris is wobbling. He reads out some parts of the text including the phrase ‘depression is setting in’, followed by a clear sense that he’s reconsidering.
“Neither of us is left in any doubt,” he added.
Well I have a few doubts. So Boris was down in the dumps….but where is the message that he was thinking of voting Remain? ‘A clear sense that he’s reconsidering’ is just meaningless twaddle, pure invention, where’s the proof?
Still the BBC accept it as proof, so good enough eh?
But rest assured, the BBC is absolutely impartial and a vital balance in the nation’s political debates…so says James Harding, BBC Director of News…
LOL. Harding is either a fool or a fraud. My take is that he is completely and wilfully dishonest. Just read his piece and laugh aloud at the brazen lies and delusions that pour off the page. The title is a good place to start. But there’s more, lots more…
There have been two strands of criticism of our coverage. On the one hand, some Leavers have said the BBC reported impartially and accurately through the course of the campaign, but, since the vote of 23 June, we have returned to what they say are our true EU-luvvie colours and our reporting of the prospects for Brexit Britain has been gloomy or hysterical.
On the other, some Remainers have complained that we have been too impartial – that our unthinking insistence on balance meant we treated Remain and Leave arguments with equivalence, giving the same treatment to respected experts as to know-nothings and lightweights. Worse, the criticism has gone, we abandoned our duty to inform the public: the Leavers’ exaggerations, distortions and downright lies, they say, were given the same airtime as the Remainers’ evidence-based judgments. Impartial reporting, this argument goes, is contributing to the problem of post-truth politics.
Note how Harding words that as if the Remain camp’s claims about Leavers’ exaggerations, distortions and downright lies are true whilst Remain had ‘evidence base judgements’. Well post-referendum the facts seem to indicate that the Remain camp’s ‘experts’ were vastly wrong…the ONS, the Treasury, the OECD and many other organisations now backtrack and tell us that all is calm, Brexit has not resulted in a meltdown…the main problem is the world economy and the EU’s economy not the UK’s.
He tells us that ‘In the months ahead, our job is to understand what Brexit actually means – without relish or alarm.’ Well not so far….the apocalyptic and alarmist tone that the BBC adopted pre-referendum has continued as it cherry-picks every negative story that it thinks it can connect to Brexit in some shape or form.
Laughably he says…‘Unsurprisingly, the BBC did not carry water for the government: our job is to challenge politicians, not to serve as a rebuttal unit or advocate the alternative argument.’
The BBC spent all its time rebutting the Leave camp’s claims but spent little effort in challenging the government’s…nor the fact that Cameron had hijacked the ‘Government’ for his campaign.
Harding even admits the BBC favoured the Remain camp…‘Inasmuch as the EU referendum was about the economy, it was about forecasts more than facts. It was not a contest of hard truths but an argument over whose predictions of the future you preferred. The BBC was abundantly clear that the overwhelming weight of expert economic opinion advised people to vote Remain.’
Trouble is those ‘experts’ were sp often in hock to the government…Carney and Lagarde owing their jobs to Osborne. And as for the referendum being about the economy…no it was not. The BBC decided it was going to concentrate on the economy as did the Remain camp…but the referendum was about immigration and sovereignty, political control. The economy was a secondary issue. The BBC pushed the Remain camp’s message.
So the examples he gives are nearly all ones where the BBC challenges the Leave camp…and the one he gives for the Remain camp? Well we’ve looked at the BBC’s Reality Check and found it somewhat unchallenging when it comes to Remain claims. Kamal Ahmed was decidedy pro-Remain and uncritical of their economic claims.
Funny old thing…it looks like the BBC’s Kamal Ahmed is a one man hit squad for the Remain camp out to neutralise any Leave campaign ‘good news’.
Have no fear though, the Remain camp didn’t suffer from BBC bias…
No one who watched the BBC during the campaign could have been left in any doubt that President Obama, the governor of the Bank of England, the IMF, OECD, IFS, CBI, prime minister, chancellor and, yes, both David Beckham and Jeremy Clarkson believed Britain should remain in the EU.
But did the BBC ever challenge any of their claims and their credibilty? No.
George Osborne’s bogus ‘families will be £4,300 poorer if we leave the EU’ claim a couple of days ago wasn’t debunked during the BBC One News at Six, despite being cited five times during the course of the bulletin. In fact, it wasn’t even questioned (not even by the BBC’s economics editor Kamal Ahmed).
As for Reality Check, the nearest we got to that was:
And the BBC’s Reality Check team has been going through the claims and today’s document in more detail on our Reality Check pages. That’s at bbc.co.uk/realitycheck.
I have to say I that’s pretty inexcusable.
Harding finishes with this piece of self-delusion:
The BBC’s job is not to preside over the democratic process – it is to report, to host the argument and to interrogate the participants. We aim to inform our audiences, not seek the approval of politicians or pundits. That is what we sought to do in this difficult and contentious contests. And it is what we continue to do.
The BBC of course sees its job as precisely that, over-seeing the democratic process, guiding the voters to the ‘right’ conclusions…even if that means shutting out the ‘unacceptable voices’ from the debate, hiding the facts and promoting only the narrative, views and ideas that the BBC approves of.