Friday, 30 June 2017

Bias by title

Ms Waters is the founder of Sharia Watch

The most striking thing (for me) about the article by the BBC's Brian Wheeler is how Mr Wheeler uses people's titles. It's quite something.

Mr Wheeler of the BBC repeatedly calls  UKIP's Paul Nuttall "Mr Nuttall" and calls Ms Waters's critic councillor Allen Cowles "Mr Cowles".

That's properly respectful.

In contrast, however, Mr Wheeler calls Ms Waters "Waters" throughout, as if she were a criminal.

(He calls her "Waters" seven times in the piece. The only time she is called "Ms Waters" is when Mr Cowles is quoted calling her "Ms Waters").

Now, 'in fairness', Mr Wheeler of the BBC also calls Tommy Robinson "Robinson" too - though that only serves to highlight the difference even more starkly.

Mr Nuttall and Mr Cowles are evidently (just about) within the pale for Wheeler but Ms Waters and Mr Robinson are very much beyond Wheeler's pale so no respect is accorded them whatsoever.

Ergo, Wheeler is showing his bias.


  1. BBC Whirled Surface30 June 2017 at 23:50

    I particularly objected to Grand Inquisitor Wheeler's underhand reference to "Anti-fascist campaign group HopeNotHate has branded Waters a "toxic figure"."

    The unwary or naive will take this to imply that Waters is a fascist. Job done! Mr Wheeler doesn't have to say and even HopeNotHate don't have to say it. It's enough to put "anti-fascist", "branded" and "toxic" in the same sentence.

    It's as if I said "anti-bias website "Is The BBC Biased?" has branded the BBC's Brian Wheeler as "lacking respect" " - I haven't said he's biased and neither have ITBB. But the unwary and naive might assume that is the case.

    In this day and age to imply someone is a fascist or racist is a cultural death sentence, a potentially fatal Fatwa. Ms Waters should have at least been given the opportunity to provide rebuttal. I am sure she could. All her statements make her to my mind a democrat not a fascist. She is anti-totalitarian, a feminist, believes in the rule of (parliamentary) law.

    I hope she pursues a complaint about the article.

    Mr Wheeler ought to be more careful - he had an article out recently making clear he opposed murderous polygamous cults:

  2. Around the time of the late seventies (or early eighties) when 'attitudes' changed towards what is 'sexist' or 'racist'(or any other word you could add an 'ist' to?) the BBC led the way in their clean-up the point of broad farce.
    Some of their biggest shows (like The Black And White Minstrel Show....Aint Half Hot Mum.....Are You Being Served....Top Of The Pops) were suddenly deemed all kinds of 'IST'
    And the worst part about all this, was that most of the complaints about said shows weren't coming from the so-called offended minorities....but more often than most, were attributed to an offshoot of the failed Mary Whitehouse 'crowd'(that had recently lost their 'CLEAN-UP' campaign, due to the the advance of the video-cassette, placing the responsibilty onto the individual....gasp!)
    The irony being, that most of these type of shows were recycled and brought back onto TV....but it was now deemed important that the actual minorities be involved in such material. Therefore, a rise in 'Black-Themed' shows came to the fore (plus, a lot of actual 'gay' comedians) all with the same material as the previously mentioned shows, but armed with a sense of entitlement (and little else) which meant no more 'black-face', but plenty of black-faces, and any jokes about 'poofs' could only be told by actual short....political correctness.

    And given that the BBC had made it a policy to hire a proportionate ammount across the board (be it race, sex, sexuality or disability.....regardless of experience or talent) the tonal shift from (once) telling it how it is, has morphed into "offend no-one"

    This 'disease' (and trust me, that's what political correctness is) has trickled all the way down to their newsdesks. And over the years, the (once) 'minority' have held ground and multiplied at the BBC, whilst the 'majority' have either been pushed out, or jumped at their accord (once again, rather than "offend") resulting in a broadcasting corporation that nowadays won't actually report news events, if they think it'll offend. There's probably a few die-hards left at the station who'll keep quiet, if only to keep their jobs?
    The current vibe *I* get from the BBC is that it's a heavily Muslim-Friendly, 10% conservative/90% Labour, Pro-EU, disabilty-always-a-bonus, channel that's too far gone to ever change (this is reflected in most of their products) The BBC have s(adly) become a case of "WHY NOT" as opposed to "WHY?"