...and any other matters that take our fancy
BBC staff are predictable, but can still surprise.By what stretch of the imagination such 'reporting' can be justified under the banner of holding power to account is intriguing enough, but breaking cover in this way over the newly elected POTUS on behalf of UK state media is quite special.Especially a presumptive speaker for the nation who lies all the time and then retreats behind expediting and FOI exemptions if challenged, to keep on getting away with it.
James Cook, like James O'Brien looks a bit dense. It may simply be a lack of intelligence that means he is unable to understand I might for instance say "Spurs were wrong to play that Croat guy up front" whilst still being, and acting as, a Spurs supporter. Just too subtle a conceptual challenge for him to get his head around? :)
On the topic of Trump lies and the media, check out the latest Newshour. It features Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, and he demonstrates the hypocrisy and partisanship of the media, and evokes a classic BBC sneer. Note the health warning for Reynolds, and Rule #1 in effect for the other guest. It's the first segment.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04pj481
Cambridge scientists consider fake news 'vaccine'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38714404Explains why I think most of BBC output is fake, The MSM just don't get that it's them people think churning out fake news. The majority know the 2 bit www.fakenews.com websites are made up, I'm looking at you www.bbc.co.uk ;-)
"North America correspondent based in California". Nice job, eh? There are many others too. So why also send the likes of Naughtie and Matliss over there for the Inauguration?I know I bang on about this, but for me it's the clear sign of an out-of-control organization. Out of the control of it's supposed governance and with weak or self-serving management. It is run for the benefit of the staff rather than the supposed customers. This shows up in it's travel budgets, salaries, appointments and also, of course the bit we notice most, the output.I do look forward to the publishing of the BBC salaries above 150,000 GBP. BBC kicked and screamed about that. Still not done is it? I would have gone further and said you must publish all salaries and all expenses too.
I agree. There is no need for hundreds of BBC staff to cover the US elections and inauguration in these days of satellite links and social media. In fact the expenditure on the elections is really quite pointless. The USA is a different country and who they elect president is their concern. Obsessing about it, to the exclusion of important news from Asia, the MIddle East, Africa and Latin America is really rather infantile.
I think we need to keep tabs on BBC Reality Bend. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38639638From 16th Jan:"The claim: The UK and USA can quickly negotiate a trade dealReality Check verdict: The earliest we could possibly get a deal is 2019, when the UK leaves the EU under the government's current timetable. The complexities of the process mean a trade deal with the US could take considerably longer."What a completely bogus and pointless exercise! Well obviously, for the BBC, it's not pointless since it's just a bit of Trumpbrexit bashing but I mean pointless in terms of pretending this is a proposition that can be "checked" for whether it's real or not. Who knows? No one does or can know the answer. First off, the piss-poor "analysis" doesn't even define terms. What is "quickly"? The BBC keep telling us that trade deals take 7-10 years to negotiate, but suddenly here 2 years seems to be the benchmark. Is "negotiation" the same as ratification or implementation? The BBC don't even address that rather important point. Does it matter whether it's done "quickly", whatever that is or is it more important that it's done "well"? I note that rather than stick to the claim, the BBC get on their NHS hobby horse. But the "claim" they are purporting to analyse is that the UK and USA "can" negotiate a separate trade deal quickly, not "will". However, by the end of the pathetic "analysis" (really, just a short opinion piece) they are clearly talking in terms of what is likely to happen not what might be theoretically possible. But accurate use of language is never much in evidence on BBC's Reality Bend.
For the anti-Brexit, BBC it's important to always keep the issue of trade running, however nebulous and ill-informed, in order to distract from any focus on the 100% resolved pro-Brexit issues of sovereignty and immigration.
Good point. The BBC is as much about omission and distraction as actual biased reporting.
The first casualty inflicted by media whores is propaganda, closely allied with censorship
Trump is supposedely trying to 'massage the message'. Has anyone in the BBC heard of Alastair Campbell? That was his role in the Blair years, (now airbrushed out of history unlike 'divisive Thatcher').Would it be 'fake news' to claim that the BBC has made more jokes about Trump in his first week than Obama in eight years?