Who ate all the pies?

More nonsense reporting from the BBC. A generous portion of the BBC’s bias lies in giving credence to outlandish leftist notions- such as that the cause of food shortages is obesity.

Why exactly the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is calculating the costs of John Prescott’s sad “condition” is one of many unanswered questions from this report.

Let’s just consider some real news shall we? How about Alistair Darling’s attack on EU grain tariffs, which actually do keep food prices high? I couldn’t find a BBC story on it or the backlash. Or how about the story mentioned in this report of how the UK Treasury is dealing with its debt problems by raking in from the high fuel prices which make food so expensive?

How about a bit more on the impact of biofuels on food production? Some number crunching there would be more than welcome.

The war on fatties is pure diversion from the machinations of politicians. The BBC is entirely complicit in these. Politics, statism, and the manipulation of the populace is the BBC’s stock in trade.

NEVER LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY.

Here’s a good one for you. If you read this story carried prominently by the BBC (and the rest of the gormless msm) you will be under the impression that pro EU Constitution Irish Labour MEP Proinsias de Rossa was knocked to the ground after a public meeting in Dublin on Monday night. The BBC solemnly reports Labour leader Eamon Gilmore claiming that the MEP was confronted by a group of anti-EU Constitution supporters who screamed abuse at him before knocking him over and pinning him down. Poor thing! Just one problem – it didn’t happen. Turns out that Proinsias tripped over and fell on his face and the entire incident was caught on camera here! But since the source of the story was the pro-EU Irish Labour Party and since the BBC is pro-EU why let the facts get in the way?

The BBC – all the EU propaganda that masquerades as news.

Italian Job

A lot of people, including the (generally more junior) BBC journalists who sometimes visit this blog and take part in discussion, admire what one could call the “big beasts” of BBC journalism- people like Marr, Humphries, Simpson, and Mark Mardell. Urbane and intelligent, they are seen as figures of substance. That’s troublous to an outsider to this circle of admiration as they’re biased too.

Well, take a look at Mardell’s reaction to the Italian election [correction- have a look here. Thanks Max]. His first comments “With Italy’s elections complete, does the domination of the media by the political elite distort the debate, and will the internet change things?”

Coming from a “big beast” from within the unquestionable behemoth of British media, the hubris is comic.

But also clearly unfair when one thinks about it, however one may object to Silvio Berlusconi and his media empire. The first point is that this “empire” didn’t prevent Berlusconi losing power to Prodi two years ago. The second is that Berlusconi turned his narrow defeat into a victory by a 9% margin- quite a feat. The third is that Italians apparently made an historic sea change in their politics this election- they gave their communist party (a long-time political player) precisely no seat in either chamber. Wow. Oh, and the greens went too- analysis here.

So of course Mardell is at the front of the queue undermining the legitimacy of the Italian public’s choices by implying their thought processes were skewed. After more than ten years of Labour government, one might start to consider whether the status quo in the UK might have anything to do with the Labour-dominated BBC.

Bias in the bones.

It was interesting, I thought, to listen to Helen Boaden’s comments in response to the comments of Robin Aitken and others on the Talking Politics show highlighted by Andrew below. Boaden’s comment about impartiality not being a “state of grace” I thought especially revealing. I mightn’t actually have to think too hard to think of a few apples which the BBC ought not to bite, or commandments they shouldn’t break.

For instance, one might be that “people sceptical of the political contruct of EU centralisation of national powers shalt not be referred to as being “in opposition to Europe” or any other such false witness be borne regarding their position.” It might be especially relevant when their concerns are purportedly being aired. Background here.
The idea of being “in opposition to Europe” is patently ridiculous, debasing language as well as ideas.

There is no question of treading on eggshells here, provided the BBC’s attitude is right.

Then again, another commandment might be: “thou shalt not consider the opinion of someone interesting purely out of concern for their racial background and in defiance of other factors”, as is highlighted here by Mr Dale for example regarding this article.

“”Black MPs spurn Boris for Mayor”.

It is actually a “story” about two Labour MPs, Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott both saying that they do not support Boris Johnson. I may be wrong but Labour politicians saying they will not be supporting a Conservative is as relevant as the announcement that David Cameron will not be voting for Gordon Brown. What is the BBC playing at?”

And those would be just two commandments. Very modest I think. I am sure others can think of more.

Update: As Jonathan in the comments points out, the article has been changed from
“Black MPs” to “Labour MPs”. Chalk one up for Mr Dale. Now we can see that the article has no sense whatsoever once the BBC’s racialist presumptions are taken out of it- it was prejudice appealing to prejudice and now it’s nonsense appealing to, well, hopefully not too many people.