...and any other matters that take our fancy
That is a hare-raising photo.
As a famous TV star from years back (who's still alive and in rude health but who isn't a friend of rabbits) might say, 'Boom, boom!'
Like the pun, but for me the animal that leaps to mind in the context of the biased Beeb is Roland Rat - or, as his chief promoter would say, 'Woland Wat'. It seems to me that the BBC's decline was greatly accelerated by Mr Dyke, & his placemen are still there, doing their best to destroy the country.
In anticipation of President Trump's forthcoming Fake News awards could I suggest we make a few BBC nominations of our own? I'd like to nominate as follows:MOST OPINIONATED ARTICLE POSING AS NEWS: James Cook's piece on Fascist Trump. (But another contender is Nick Bryant for his 10,000 word cod history of the USA since 1980.)FOR CONSISTENT DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH: The BBC Reality Check team who seem incapable of even answering their own questions in a logical manner.BIGGEST ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AWARD: The Newsnight Team for devoting an hour long special to the Housing Crisis and failing once to mention mass immigration as a possible contributory factor. LEAST MERITED OVEREXPOSURE IN THE AREA OF NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS: Amol Rajan - will pop up anywhere and always happy to dress up a conventional left-liberal opinion as original, daring or insightful. FOR COMICAL INABILITY TO EVEN ATTEMPT TO HIDE THEIR OWN BIAS: John Sweeney, most notably for his attempted character assassination of Farage and Brexit in relation to the murder of an East European later shown not to be a racially motivated crime. FOR THE BIGGEST EVER LIE IN UNDER 5 WORDS: Jon Sopel for his description of the BBC as "impartial, free and fair". About as impartial as a lion to an antelope, as free as a licence fee of £147 per annum and as fair as a prop forward gouging out his opponent's eye.
FOR SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION TO EXTINGUISHING FREE SPEECH: Samira Ahmed who has consistently argued that Nigel Farage (democratically elected MEP and prominent Leave campaigner)should be prevented from appearing on our TV screens and thus censored.
MB, your list could of course reach at least 50 (just as the methods of bias easily did). But your latest one here prompts me that there must be an award FOR MISLABELLING to the QT producers (and others) for labeling Gina Miller "a business woman".
The more awards the better as far as I am concerned...it's nice to single out individuals and programmes for their gross bias or Fake News. :) Perhaps there should be an award for faking concern about Parliament being ignored when you've happily gone along with it being ignored for the last 44 years?
Samira is often quite subtle in pushing her agendas...https://twitter.com/samiraahmeduk/status/952842258386161665
Guido has a statement from Richard Branson in which he reverses the decision not to carry the Daily Mail on Virgin Trains. I can't wait to see the BBC broadcast this change of policy from VT - after their willingness to run the story when it fitted their narrative.
The story has been updated to reflect Branson's statement albeit in one of the side bars without much prominence. This was 8 minutes ago. Let's see how long it lasts on the BBC News website.
BBC Editorial Integrity means there is often not enough space and/or limited time to feature news that does not suit the BBC
Yes, that must be why Newsnight didn't feature the fact that John Sweeney was completely incorrect in describing the murder of a Polish man in Harlow as a hate crime and outrageously incorrect in trying to ascribe it to Farage and Brexit. When the true facts came to light, Newsnight could find no time to set the record straight. That's because Newnsight couldn't give a toss about the truth.
Sure enough! News of the Branson statement about the Daily Mail being made available on Virgin Trains again had been removed by 3-30 pm. It wasn't on the BBC News Homepage, Business or UK pages either.
How often does Emily Maitlis say "Nice to see you" to a Conservative Minister? I shall keep a watch in future. Because she definitely said "Nice to see you." to St Stella of Creasy. Fruthermore she didn't challenge anything Creasy (who clearly knows little about these major public-private contracts said about the matter. For instance Creasy called for a "Domesday Book" of how much the public sector "owed" under these contracts nationally! lol that is so stupid. Most of the contracts will involve annual, monthly or other periodic payments . But some of those payments may be variable. There may be some variations related to inflation or interest rates...she's actually asking for (if we are kind and assume she knows what she's asking for) a huge assessment operation to be undertaken that would probably cost hudnreds of millions of pounds in lawyer, accountant and consultancy fees as they all went through these 10,000 page contracts and projected possible costs over the next 30 years. Creasy is a complete joke but Newsnight treat her as some kind of expert on public finances. What would her Domesday Book achieve? You would end up with a range of possible figures: having forked out hundreds of millions of pounds on the exercise, the thousands of people involved would come back and tell you "It could be anything between £40 billion and £170 billion on our best estimates, dependent on a range of variables, Minister." Well that's interesting to know isn't it?
Oh dear! If there was one thing the BBC was still very good at it was the wildlife documentary - OK, Attenborough & co have been known to film the occasional polar bear in a zoo, instead of the Arctic, but on the whole, the standard has been high. I've just caught up with last week's 'Big Cats' - it was beautifully filmed but they ruined it by either cutting away just as the cats made their kill or showing it in slightly blurred long-shot with nary a drop of blood to be seen - and no catharsis to be had either. Sorry, but nature is red in tooth and claw and should be shown as such. If the Beeb isn't careful, the snowflake generation is going to grow up - if it ever does - believing lions are vegans and halal meat is made from soya bean protein. So Beeb, what next? - Ophelia jumps in the drink but because of global warming the water is only ankle-deep? Richard III finds a horse and gallops off into the sunset to start a new life as an organic farmer? The asp gets tangled up in Cleopatra's bra strap and chokes?
Oedipus appears on a Long Lost Family special hosted by Davina McCall being reunited with his father and mother and living happily ever after.
It was ridiculous that the BBC decided to highlight the Toronto Hijab Scissors attack in the first place...it was hardly an issue of any great importance in terms of the range of US/Canada issues that can be reported on. However, they never learn do they - this like so many other Sharia-promotion victim stories proves to be false: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42695319So the BBC now admits it helped spread Fake News - not surprising since it is a Fake News operation.
Better screen-shot it now because it won't be there for long!
Still there!So is the original story - doesn't carry any health warning or link to the update. So anyone using the BBC ("news you can trust") for research could still come away with the idea this was a genuine hate crime. Also, I note in the original article it states:"Canadian police are investigating a possible hate crime after a man tried to cut the hijab off a young girl."That is collusion in the Fake News by the BBC because they state as a fact that a man tried to cut the Hijab off a young girl. They could have inserted "after it was reported" or "after it was claimed" but instead they lend all their authority as a high profile news agency to the story.
The whole of the BBC obsesses about and fantatises about the USA! It's sick, very sick,folks (as someone beginning with T might say). This time it's our old friend and anti-free speech activist Samira Ahmed addressing "The Little House on the Prairie" and the myths of pioneer America...http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09hrr7nDifficult to imagine Samira producing a similar critique of the founding myths of India and Pakistan, or their treatment of native tribes, isn't it? The BBC's USA OCD is now incurable. They can only be put out of their misery.
So my local MP has made the national news today by suggesting that you should not be able to claim benefits for more than two children, and that people who play the system should be given a vivasectomy. This all occurred in a blog in 2012, he’s at most 25 so he’d be 20ish at the time.Agree or disagree, I’m just surprised how quickly it made the BBC front page. He’s Tory but you’d be surprised if similar Labour Anti Jewish or Sexist posts made it there that quickly if at all.
Made the headlines on R4 Today 6 am this morning. Main headline was that nurses are leaving the NHS (low pay blah blah). It really is like waking-up and reading the Guardian and I'm going to have to stop doing it.
What a shame we don't have any academics like this in the UK. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01/17/youve-got-me-feminist-cathy-newman-crumbles-in-channel-4-interview-with-controversial-prof-jordan-peterson/
Thanks for that link - he took her apart! Especially the bit where he said your upsetting and offending me now but I defend your right to do it in response to the team gender question.
It's a shame Trans American Airlines went bust. That would have been funny, watching them deal with that.
You’re etc we need an edit button
Top story in the BBC News US/Canada section is...a load of promotional guff for the "girther" movement that disbelieves his medical. So BBC Fake News Central is now actively promoting conspiracy theories as its lead stories? An effing joke, that they expect us to pay £147 a year to do that.
Obviously the BBC may do or say anything it likes without fear of sanction, hence the reason for sites like this, however; How Tuesdays Newsnight Trunk mocking end story "funny" was in any way without bias must be beyond anyone....
Trunk = Trump I take it... and yes I saw that - it was absolutely pathetic, beneath even the BBC taken at its own estimation. It's the equivalent of a child drawing something scatalogical on a blackboard. No wit, no insight, no nothing from know nothings. I think the BBC have done the impossible: turn me from a complete Trump sceptic (why would you trust a billionaire to run a country - I wouldn't as a matter of principle) into a Trump fan...I just love watching all the signs of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Actually my favourite is Robert Moore of ITV rather than any BBC hack - love the way he reports on Trump: seeing his jaw tighten, his eyes become like tiny beads and his mouth settle in a permanent scowl is great fun.
In the 2018 open thread, I copied my complaint to the BBC about the reporting of Theresa May's interview on the Andrew Marr Show. This was it:....Complaint titleMisrepresentation of what was said in an interviewComplaint descriptionBy a series of editorial content changes, the BBC News website misrepresented what was being said by the Prime Minister on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday 8th January 2018. At 37 minutes into the Andrew Marr Show, Theresa May says 'The NHS is treating more people...' However, this statement was reported on the BBC News website differently. Firstly in version 1: ...'She [Mrs May] insisted the NHS was delivering care to more people than ever before'.... And later on in the day, version 2: ... [Mrs May] 'insisted that the NHS was delivering more than ever before'... It is version 2, which will most-likely be the archived version, what the Prime Minister said has been misrepresented. By removing ...'The NHS is treating more people...' and replacing it with ... 'insisted that the NHS was delivering more than ever before'... the PM's assertion that the NHS were treating more people has been lost altogether. If waiting times are not being reduced as a result of increased numbers being treated, then good journalistic practice might have led Marr to ask what the reasons for that might be. My complaint is that the Prime Minister's words were deliberately misconstrued in order to convey a politically damaging message about the Conservative Governments handling of the NHS....And this is an extract of the BBC's respnse:.... Thank you for contacting us regarding the BBC News Website article entitled, 'PM Theresa May defends record ahead of cabinet reshuffle' published on 7 January.I understand you feel the article misrepresents what Theresa May said about NHS services during her interview on BBC One's 'Andrew Marr Show'. I note your view that the wording of the article indicates bias against the Conservative Party.While I appreciate the time you have taken to raise this with us, we would emphasise the intention in this brief section of the article was to provide a summary of the key points made by the Prime Minister when questioned about NHS funding and how the service is handling winter pressures.Summaries within articles are necessarily concise and so can’t convey every element of a story; this is particularly so when the interview being reported on is wide-ranging in nature.However, we assure you impartiality is a core value of the BBC, and one reason why we believe our news coverage is trusted and respected around the world. We apply this principle to our reporting of all issues and never take a position on anything that we cover.The BBC is of course independent of any political interests, and our news agenda would never be influenced by any outside organisation.It's also important to recognise that due impartiality isn’t necessarily always achieved in one single report, so we would ask that you take account of how we cover a topic over time.We’re sorry if you feel that any aspect of our news coverage displays bias, but hope the above explains the approach we take to reporting to try and ensure that we always maintain our impartiality. If you’re interested, you can read more about the BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality below.....Erm: I never mentioned the word bias at all, but their response tells me in (para 2) that I was complaining of bias against the Conservative Party. My complaint was that by misconstruing what TM said, the BBC News website report of the Marr interview was deliberately skewed in order to cause political damage to the Conservative Party.
"Impartiality is a core value of the BBC...we believe our news coverage is trusted...we never take a position on anything that we cover...our news agenda would never be influenced by any outside organisation..." Please Mr Beeb spokesman,(woman, trans/vestite/gender or newly-created other) STOP IT! It's bad for a chap to be convulsed with uncontrollable laughter so soon after lunch.
The BBC complaints doesn't seem to have moved on regarding apologies. In Feb 2003 the BBC upheld 3 of our complaints to the documentary "The Road to Armageddon" but see how they treated us http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/appeal-to-governors-road-to-armegeddon-3.html
BBC have yet another opinion piece on Trump disguised as news (they must be averaging about two a week since the New Year). Although the headline says "Viewpoint" it appears under the News section. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42692707I think it raises a lot of issues. Who is this Ron Christie who authored the article? The byline says " Former adviser to George W Bush"A footnote says he is a "A BBC political analyst". Meanwhile Ron Christie's Twitter Account says he is a "BBC World Contributor". Why can't the BBC be clear in its descriptions of those who write its article? They should indicate who are (a) BBC staff (b) freelancers working for the BBC on a frequent basis (c) persons from other news organisations or other broadcasting outfits with whom the BBC has some sort of formal of informal arrangement (d) occasional contributors paid on a fee basis (e) experts, pundits whom the BBC call upon and (f) people who with whom the BBC are simply "engaging" e.g. interviewees or people invited to give their views for some reason. I really don't think the BBC wants to be clear about these distinctions, for good reason (from their point of view).
OK, early days but I see Fox News are reporting on the Trump Fake News awards. I have to say Trump has played a blinder choosing rock solid Fake News examples like the "removal of the Martin Luther King statue from the Trump White House" Fake Story. Now we all know the BBC suffer from USA OCS, Trumpophobia and Trump Derangement Syndrome. So you would think they would be all over these Fake News Awards...but so far nada...I am not surprised as I noticed when I googled on this before the awards were made nothing was coming up. I think the Fake News Media have agreed amongst themselves to minimise reporting of this even though all the items cited by the President are cast iron FAKES of which the media should be ashamed.
OCS = OCD Yes we need an edit function!
So much is being covered up by the MSM in both the USA and the UK...please take a look at this: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5714015169001/?#sp=show-clipsBTW I think Newt Gingrich is probably the best American politician of the last 50 years.
I would just like to say that this whole maybe-you-get-to-see-the-Bayeux Tapestry-for one year in return for £7 billion is not going to go down well...May and Co seem to think that British people are v unintelligent...maybe on the level of a sheep or goat but sorry - news for them - we get a bit p'd off if you treat us as though we are that stupid. We're supposed to be happy to receive a tatty bit of tapestry in return for paying in billions into the EU treasury? May has got this seriously wrong!
May's aim is for UK to end-up paying the EU just the same amounts as we do now. Maybe even more. Keeps the EU happy and will allow Remainers to say "look we are better off being in the EU" when the time comes for the vote in Parliament or even a 2nd Referendum.
I see the Guardian and New York Times have both reported on the Fake News Awards (not an indulgent way, of course):-https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/trump-fake-news-awards-winnersBut a search on the BBC reveals nothing under Fake News Awards. It appears the BBC have gone with Bias Technique no. 1 - if we don't report it, it's not news.
Apparently they have been discussed on Radio 4 (Today?)...but then, that is a relatively small audience.
Has anyone checked how many of these fake news reports were broadcast by the BBC? They have a blind faith that everything circulating that is anti Trump must be true.
I haven’t watched QT for a while, but the whooping and cheering Corbynistas were out in force last night. The very valid point raised that the Carillion fiasco wasn’t a failure of capitalism, but rather the opposite as Carillion had been run exactly like a state provider was completely lost on them.
Dimbelby allowed the audience to call the government minister a "liar" with no reprimand. He keeps his reprimands for righties who stray beyond the bounds (ie challenge the PC consensus). QT is just a joke these days. Corbynistas posing as nurses...4 Remainers to every Leaver...Dimbleby skewing the rules of debate to favour PC Multiculturalism and Islam.
There has been a complete metamorphosis in the outlook Adrian Chiles. Yesterday I caught a some of his programme on Radio 5 Live. He was bemoaning the collapse of Carillion. He was saying that someone had contacted the programme who had been working for Carillion on the Liverpool Hospital contract. This person had been laid off and his two brothers were out of work. Chiles said: 'This is the reality. It really brings it home to you' etc etc.This is the same Adrian Chiles who used to do the business reports for BBC Two during the Blair Brown years - at the height of the PFI. I daresay he will have reported with an arrogant authority on Tarmac at the time concerning their business credentials and growth into the NHS hospital sector.Perhaps silence on the subject of his former life as a serious business reporter is the price he pays for being readmitted into the BBC community - that is after his dalliance with football punditry on the other side.
He recently announced he was a "Virtual Vegan"...this could be affecting his brain function so that he forgets his former life. I remember before Chiles was allowed to become a token working class presenter in the BBC he had to go on some God-awful "isn't multiculturalism wonderful?" around the country...you have to smile...he's still trying to do his working class schtick while presumably earning half a million a year and spouting the sorts of viewpoints heard in lunatic Guardian columns.
The transformation was from business newshound - a bulldog snapping at the heels of business leaders to lapdog - a pug sitting in the comfort of Auntie's lap. The Carillion saga has been highlighted by the BBC only because its demise might have implications for PFI schemes run for the NHS and schools.As a former business reporter, Chiles could have been leading the way in exposing the management failings. He might just have allied his work with the Carillion shareholders - a group held in contempt by the BBC.
I didn't realise he was married to Jane Garvey. Sounds like she's working on completely detestoronising him with veganism. :)
This is the BBC and here is the bilge water...What is Sopelism? A searingly incisive analysis of what makes Jon Sopel tick...oh no...just another Trumpophobic article...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42738881I hate the way the MSM and BBC in particular have latched on to talking about Trump's "base" or "core vote" as though it consisted of a few Klansmen in Lousiana, a gnarled crawfish gutter in South Carolina and a backwoods survivalist in Montana. Trump got 63 million votes in 2016. In 1996 Clinton got 47 million. Did the BBC harp on without cessation about Clinton's narrow base?
Nick Robinson showing (a) he's not as clever as he thinks he is and (b)he likes to spread Fake News. https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/955018344796708870Robinson claims in his tweet that Norway is a member of the EU's Single Market. This is false and fake. Norway is not a member of the Single Market. To quote from the EU Commission's website:"The Single Market refers to the EU as one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services." https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market_enNorway is not part of the territory of the EU and therefore cannot be a "member" of the Single Market. Norway has an agreement via EFTA with the EU that creates the EEA - European Economic Area. But that is not a complete replica of the Single Market. For instance, agriculture and fisheries are excluded and the rules on free movement are different. Not all of EU economic laws are translated into EEA/EFTA legal requirements. The EEA essentially gives Norway high level access to the EU Single Market, but Switzerland also gets that via bilateral treaties. At no point in the EEA treaty is the Single Market referred to, not surprisingly as it is an internal EU matter. http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main%20Text%20of%20the%20Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
Zurcher is normally quite clever at leaving some wriggle room so he can deny bias...but on this occasion he's slipped up.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42739556He refers to Comey's "infamous" letter, the one to Congress indicating he (Comey) had (quite rightly) re-opened investigations in the Hillary e mail scanda. Now how can that be an "infamous" letter in an allegedly impartial report by the BBC...only if there is a complete consensus on that. But I think you will find more than half the legislators in the US Congress think Comey did the right thing on that occasion. So the fact that Zurcher considers it an "infamous" letter is very telling. It means he is siding with the Clinton crime family, the Democratic Party and the partisan liberal media in the US. I think you can use "infamous" in impartial reporting in certain circumstances where there is a strong consensus. You can have infamous murders, infamous orders to commit genocide and so on, and infamous judgements in criminal cases where they are later shown, conclusively, to be wrong. But Comey's letter as "infamous"? No. Not even remotely so.
Following an article in today's Sunday Times I have complained to the BBC as follows: -Why are the troubles in Sweden NOT being reported by the BBC? In a country of 10m people, more than 320 shootings and dozens of BOMBINGS were reported in 2017, along with more than 110 murders and 7,226 rapes. No matter how you defend NOT reporting this, it looks like the BBC's deliberate attempt to hide the facts because it is against your interest.
Add it to the long list of things the BBC doesn't report on(or hardly ever does - they are clever enough to put in the odd report here and there in inaccessible places...). Other issues include:1. The FISA scandal in the USA (political manipulation of FBI and legal processes). 2. Huma Abedin scandal. 3. What appears on Middle East media and TV channels in Muslim majority countries. 4. Gun killings in countries like Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Only interested in US gun killings. 5. Thousands of murders of South African farmers of European origin. 6. Russian connection to Clintons (Uranium One scandal). 7. That women under 30 earn more than men in that age range.
Interesting. Writing an extended article on BBC 'coverage' of Sweden in my forthcoming book, 'Brainwashing Britain.' - If you are agreeable would like to include this letter and reply in the book? my e-mail: elplit (at) hotmail.com (David)
Ranty rant part 1The Jordan Peterson / Cathy Newman story is a flashing red light as far as modern news broadcasting is concerned. An interesting article about the interview featuring a long response from Jordan Peterson has appeared in The G (one of two articles about Peterson in the G today) :https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/21/no-excuse-for-online-abuse-says-professor-in-tv-misogyny-rowIt ends :"(Peterson) suggested an antidote to ill-informed, short-term social media debate was more nuanced, meditative journalism. “Look at the popularity of longform journalism and podcasts,” he said. “It’snonsense that young people have a limited attention span, or that there isn’t an audience for the in-depth treatment of something.”And he has an idea for one such project. “If Cathy is interested, maybe we could model a conversation. That would be a good thing.” Will that happen ? No, it won't. Why ?Because if an entity with all-the-time-in-the-world such as BBC24 really started covering issues in this way, without editorial control in post production, or editorial control in pre-selection, a large chunk of popular narrative would be quickly and summarily dismissed with common sense argument and statistical scrutiny. Too many answered questions result in lack of control over a narrative.Newman was out for a gotcha award, and she failed to get one. Peterson is being generous in his reading of the purpose of television interviews like this in that he at least pretends to believe the idea is to get to the nub of the matter, not to smear those seen as enemies of progression. It now seems that in a deft and cynical move, Peterson has been welcomed into The Fold and stolen away from the philosophical clutches of the 'alt-right.' Phew, just in time.But who tried to tie him to the alt-right ? The Fold. Did The Fold cover the Lyndsay Shepherd story ? Nope. Did The Fold cover the Bill C-16 story ? Nope.Would they cover them now ? Nope.Who did cover these stories in detail at the time ? Alt media - Steven Crowder, Stefan Molyneux, Dave Rubin et al. (None of whom are alt-right).
Peterson was in the CH4 studio to have tomatoes thrown at him, and it backfired. But it backfired in an academic, thought provoking way as far as Jasper in production sees it. But Peterson's not a bad guy any more. He makes some sense. He's an accepted thinker, with valid thoughts and permission from Jasper to exist. Turns out he's one of US then. But caution is required Don't broadcast a full lecture.And Jasper is thinking "2 million + views on YouTube ! Who else can we wheel in for Cathy to berate ?!" Viewers = potential advertising revenue after all, Jasper.Last week's BBC QT currently has 48,034 views.Peterson is right when he says that much more time should be given to long form discussion, because it's often the case that an interview only becomes interesting and informative just before the presenterdeclares "I'm sorry, we'll have to end it there". The tenor of an interview often becomes swamped in panic as the journalist rushes to push out the questions, and the interviewee rushes to push out points as the seconds tick down.I've lost count of the amount of times this happens, and it's usually to make way for yet another weather forecast, a cricket update or an item on 'papier mache techniques in the age of inter-sectionality.'Why do 24 hour news broadcasters steer clear of debates like IQ squared and the ones held at Oxford Uni ? Why is there very little news about what's actually going on in other European countries at street level ? Why dowe hear more about the (metaphorical) weather in the USA than weather in Belgium or France ?Why is Dateline London formatted like it is ? Snug, safe, limited by a very narrow set of parameters and oh so bloody noddy.What is Ros Atkins and his tappy screen for, exactly ? All these questions and more.....God forbid that you might learn that the same micro-cosmic issues disturbing your country are happening all over the western world. All at the same time. Weird that.So no, Jasper in production doesn't want the detail and answers, and he's not looking for them either.
I think the Peterson interview and the aftermath has been very instructive. Firstly the Police were quickly called in by Channel 4. Allegedly to deal with offensive tweets but one suspects more to protect the left-liberal-feminist-Channel 4 brand following the culture wars disaster that the interview represented. Cathy Newman is in serious danger of losing her job I think because the left-liberal media elite do not look kindly on persons on their side who compromise the narrative. Secondly, I think Peterson's interview laid down a successful template for how people of common sense should deal with the PC Uberfeminist Multiculturalists.Take every PC claim seriously, unpack it and deconstruct it and then ask your interlocutor if this is what they mean...they will stutter, stumble, become confused and ultimately contradict themselves. Add that to some useful interview techniques, like refusing to speak if someone keeps interrupting: "Excuse me, do you want to hear my reply? Or did you want to speak over me? Can I continue now?" I am a complete fan of Peterson now. Will look into his work some more. Last time I can recall any real debate on TV was probably After Dark back in the 90s I think. It was on Channel 4. I want to hear all these big issues debated properly, hearing for and against in a sane debating forum. I want to hear people for Trump, not just against him. I want to hear from Communists and anti-Communists. I want to hear from Islamists and those who oppose Islam. I want to hear from Fascists and anti-Fascists. I want to hear from capitalists and anti-capitalists. There is absolutely nothing to fear from opinion. However, Samira Ahmed and her colleagues have made absolutely clear they don't want debate: they want PC analysis, PC explanation, PC expression of views...and no challenge.
Calling in the law was very cynical on CH4's part, but it achieved the desired message goal, namely :"Some of the people following Peterson are clearly evil trolly types, but he has disavowed those people (unlike Trump) which makes himpalatable. Welcome to The Fold, Jordan. Cathy enjoyed the debate. "She won't lose her job, they've played a blinder.She should have lost her job after that event with the mosque a few years ago.I can highly recommend this to you. It's a CBC debate from 2016. The presenter does an excellent job.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc&t=2707sWhat I find dangerous is the sort of diatribe that was present in this week's QT.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xOi_e5qCZwDustin Lance Black (fresh faced screenwriter and director) spouted a series of uber moral Obama-esque platitudinous opinions consistingentirely of hot air and no responsibility to anything other than a future where we all hold hands and gently stroke each others hair.At 36'57" he makes a little speech. The danger as far as I am concerned is that in the current media environment of dizzy obfuscation, it is almost impossible to argue with Dustin withoutcoming over as a complete git.The setting is not suitable for bleating on about stats, realities and practical issues, and it is consciously designed to be that way.In such a setting, the bland moral argument will always get a rousing round of applause, which is why Andy Burnham likes being on QT.
Today Radio 4: according to the news, President Trump has "refused" to attend the opening of the US Embassy in London. Did he? Trump stated in his tweet he "cancelled" his planned trip...Nowhere did he stated that he "refused" to come to London. Why is the BBC using that verb rather than "cancelled"? Well of course we know why...narrative purposes: it doesn't want to take the blame for a breakdown in the special relationship and wants to excuse its pet politicians like the Khan of London. You can see why they want to use that very strong verb to bloster their bias but is it actually Fake News? Remember, the invitation can only have come from the Embassy itself, part of the US Government as is the President himself. I think constitutionally the Ambassador is in fact a servant of the President. So "cancel" seems much more appropriate than "refuse" for something you invited yourself to.
Yes, the BBC seem determined to insult Donald Trump personally, even if by doing so they sour relations between this country and our closest ally. Equally, they seem determined to wreck Brexit by calling for a soft Brexit, or an indefinite transition period, even if that means alienating the majority of the UK electorate.The question is - why? It's clear that the BBC would have preferred a Democrat victory in the US, and a Remain victory in the EU Referendum. In denial, the BBC has become like a spoilt petulant child stamping its feet because they didn't get their own way. Spoilt, because there are no consequences to their childish behaviour.
Indeed. There is also dinner party syndrome. Remember the sorts of people who make decisions about BBC policy probably average at least two dinner parties a week...and there they meet other Guardian and FT readers, who love globalisation and PC multiculturalism (the two are in a kind of symbiotic relationship*). After a couple of bottles of wine, they have all worked themselves up in a terrible liberal lather about Trump and Brexit, which then informs their conduct at work. It's alcohol- fuelled group-think. Someone (Jordan Peterson?) ought to write a book about the relationship because on the face of it they are two quite different things. PC multiculturalism is a kind of utopian ideology that holds that all cultures are of equal value and merit and can interact harmoniously. Globalists are money-orientated and have a very cynical attitude to culture, knowing that they are not all of equal value, which is why they don't site their key institutions in "sinkhole" countries. But PC multiculturalism serves their purposes by promoting "no borders" thinking and reality and by supporting dismantlement of trade barriers in the advanced capitalist countries, at least, and also the importation of cheap migrant labour. In return PC multiculturalism gets lots of funding and political support from the globalists.
Amazing! The BBC and the MSM in general have in recent years been at pains to put UKIP down a memory hole, concrete it over and never mention them again...until Bolton's leadership goes into meltdown. Then suddenly UKIP are headlining the news...but the really amazing thing is Samira Ahmed is not complaining about the prominence being given to a far-right (as she would put it) party with no elected MPs.
I'd come across Mike Wendling who seems to run BBC Trending. We know it is always biased. I was looking at his Twitter feed - which is so obviously biased to the left and against all things of the right, that I wondered what his background was. Sounded almost SWPish in its obsessions. Discovered before he joined the BBC he tried to set up a "Village Voice" type paper in London (predictably, the paper failed ignominiously - the BBC is the home of failed editors). Their first big interview was with George Galloway MP - sadly I haven't been able to track that down. Looking further back I came across this and wonder if he was the Mike Wendling, editor...https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=7474&context=bg-newsIt's a pretty standard student paper of 1999. If it is him, then presumably he is American which would explain the Village Voice thing and also explain the American obsession of his Twitter feed AND BBC Trending.
I tried to send a link to a video featuring JO R Dan Peter Son...didn't appear...just wondering if your provider is censoring...?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42661642Incredible! The BBC reporting on an individual who was targetted for being Jewish under guise of an anti-Zionism campaign...don't worry, it's ancient history -happened back in the 60s so the BBC is happy to mention it and shine up it's JDL badge, when of course they are complete enablers of the current Jew-hating campaign disguised as "anti Zionism" that connects Hamas, PLO, Iran, Corbyn, lefties everywhere and the BDS campaign. In passing I note that it refers to this as one of Communism's "darker" episodes...that's a nice way of putting it...Making it sound like the rest of Communism was a visit to the sunlit uplands. :) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42661642
Just try sending this Jordan Peterson video...see if this works (wasn't the one I tried previously). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpv4ns52pJo&t=68s
I don’t know if you watched the Cathy Newman interview (ok it’s Channel 4), but it’s worth a watch. She is so out of her depth that it is verging on the absurd. She must have imagined that it would be a pushover. You are probably also aware of the Twitter storm that followed. Did she post it because she was looking for validation or was it a deliberate strategy to draw out some of Peterson’s more unpleasant followers, and thus claim victim status? Clearly it worked as the Guardian (predictably, but not alone in this) took the bait and labelled Peterson as being the villain of the piece and part of the alt-right. Grossly incorrect on both counts.My feeling is that although Peterson is as of yet relatively unknown on this side of the Atlantic, a lot of people on the left are running scared. I doubt that they have ever seen anyone quite like him before.
I've certainly seen it on You Tube - it pretty much went viral, certainly for a "political" video,as opposed to a kitten or Beyonce video! The Guardian piece was an interesting example of damage limitation as they didn't attempt to taken on any of Peterson's arguments, and didn't directly accuse him of anything...They will be working on the Peterson Problem, looking for their own "Gotcha!" moment which will probably involve secret recording and unethical editing.
The BBC's suppression of news about the "FISA" scandal in the US(which is really a series of interconnected scandals) is one of the clearest ever instances of bias. Here's is Sean Hannity's overview of the scandal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R57xeEXRBAsAs Hannity says, this is Watergate on Steroids. The most recent revelations are FBI officers were exchanging texts talking about "a secret society" operating after Trump won the election and 5 months' worth of texts between two key FBI agents (the ones who talked about the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump won) have gone missing from the FBI! At some point the BBC are going to have to start covering this story and boy will they hate to have to do that, forever besmirching the image of Hillary, having to admit the Clinton Foundation was a criminal enterprise, fessing up to the truth the Trump-Russia investigation was a politically motivated piece of garbage, and having to reveal that there was within the FBI and DoJ an unconstituional anti-Trump lobby, or maybe even a real "secret society" as described in the text! Try spinning that BBC!! - of course the world's premier Fake News organisation will find a way.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/13/rule-law-under-siege-how-rampant-anti-trump-bias-in-russia-probe-threatens-our-democracy.htmlThe whole Russia-Trump probe is collapsing in on itself and not a whisper of this is reported on the BBC. In fact if you look at their guide to the Trump-Russia, you'll find nothing about the anti-Trump faction (or self-described "secret society") within the FBI, nothing about the expressions of political bias within the FBI...in short nothing that will undermine the probe's credibility because the BBC so very much want it all to be true and to lead to Trump's impeachment. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42493918
An update in the Mail on the FISA/FBI scandal that the BBC is refusing to report on:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5302599/Trump-slap-FBI-lovers-Strzok-Page-missing-texts.html#newcommentNormally the BBC are only too happy to tell us what Trump is tweeting...but not on this occasion.:)
CNN are now beginning to cover the FISA-FBI scandal...obviously being based in the USA It's more difficult for them to completely omit it from their news agenda...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9VSnN8Y3sCNN's attack lines are that the call for the memo release is all a political ploy by the Republicans and is backed by the Russians. They are still avoiding mention of all the associated evidence of collusion and corruption (e.g. the Strozk-Page texts, the "insurance policy", the "secret society", and strong evidence Comey lied to Congress about when the decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton was taken). It's funny isn't it how back in the 50s we had the American right paranoid about the Ruskies, and now it's the American left.Anyway, I am wondering that now CNN has decided it has to cover the issue will the BBC follow suit, all will it maintain its censorship of the subject? If it does, I fully expect it to follow the CNN attack lines.
Still Bloggered... hey ho.It is interesting to note the level of transatlantic cooperation at this difficult time for the MSM.Just as the BBC is politely following US priorities on 'news' censorship over there, so US titles are following UK propaganda lines here: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/956123173807906816
On the BBC tennis page which I read for the tennis, I came across this headline:Australian Open 2018: Tennys Sandgren says he is not a far-right sympathiserIn the article: "American tennis player Tennys Sandgren denied he was a far-right sympathiser as he was questioned about his beliefs after reaching the Australian Open quarter-finals." "Sandgren, 26, was asked about his social media presence, specifically his activity around the postings of 'alt-right' figures in the United States."Note the wording: From says to denied - he's on the ropes then...and far right to alt right, terms apparently equivalent or interchangeable. Are they or is that BBC presumption? Anyway, the media pack is in full hue and cry and it's all about some retweets that I haven't read and may have been deleted by now :https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/42776652
Meanwhile boxer Muhammed Ali who thought there should no intermarriage between races and who followed the vehemently anti-semitic Nation of Islam cult, is revered as a great man. Maybe he is far right...as long as it doesn't affect his behaviour in relation to tennis (ie as long as he doesn't insult other players for instance), then I don't see what the problem is. Are the BBC saying that far right (which it defines as anything right of the Conservative Party, so including UKIP) should not be allowed to engage in any social activities and should be put under house arrest? Probably.
Often the R4 Sports News items are not about Sport at all, but are a continuation of the BBC's narrative into Sport as various figures are castigated for incorrect speech or thought. I can't recall all the names now, but I have heard champion boxers, international rugby players and football managers being pilloried on issues unrelated to actual Sport.
BBC Sports News seems to be more about virtue signalling these days...there was something yesterday about a female cricketer appearing on the front cover of Wisden as though we were supposed to interested, amazed, gratified. The gap between male and female cricketers is probably something like 100:1 as in the proportion of runs they would score against a male team. Meanwhile elsewhere at the BBC they are telling us we are told such binary division of genders is an appalling example of fascistic oppression...so which is it BBC?
This morning the 7.30 am "Sports News" was all about a "sexist" tweet of Phil Neville some years ago. A (female, natch) sports journalist from the Guardian (natch) was interviewed about it. Good grief!
Important news from the BBC! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42809865Trump doesn't like sharks...probably along with 90% of the planet's population rightly or not. Now we've got that cleared up BBC, can you turn your attention to the FISA-FBI-Clinton Crime Family scandal? Hmm...I think they just said no.
Re the sleazy cheesy gropers ball...a few points occur to me:1. Not a single complaint was lodged by any of the "hostesses" either with the employer or an official agency as far as I can tell. So this wasn't a Cologne New Year's Eve outrage (which, lest we forget, the BBC refused to report for FIVE days). 2. On WATO they obviously took glee at repeatedly saying David Meller knowing everyone of a certain age would think "David Mellor". It was only on PM they clarified who was who. 3. If all male gatherings (except of course it wasn't all male, but you know what they mean) are wrong, why aren't all female gatherings like the Women's Institute, hen-dos and Labour Women's Committee meetings also wrong? 4. The PM programme spent nearly 30 MINUTES on this trivial item. That seems a gross distortion of the news agenda when we have North Korea, the FISA-FBI scandal, Iran, wars in Yemen, Syria, Sinai and the Maghreb, the Turkish attacks on Kurdish regions, an NHS crisis, a soaring pound, Cameron admitting Brexit hasn't been that bad, Davos, and ongoing bloody wars in equatorial Africa - plus all the other stuff like robotics, medical advances, primate cloning, the arts and thousands of interesting social phenomena...to name just a few things. I am not defending the event - it's what you get when you follow the economic policies of Blair, Brown, Cameron, Osborne and Hammond. Would be interesting to know how many of the hostesses were migrants from other countries. There are many sordid aspects to modern Britain - another example is the slave labour that keeps our nail bars going for instance (prostitutes by night, nail bar workers by day) about which the Government does precisely nothing.
A closer look at the BBC's first reporting on the FBI-FISA-Clinton Crime Family scandal that broke weeks ago in the USA, but has only been touched on today (BBC following CNN's lead as I thought they might). So how is the pro-Democrat Zurcher reporting it all? Fearlessly and frankly or in obfuscatory detail, clothed in denial? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42783147OK, let's start with the headline: "Trump, the FBI and the 'secret memo' intriguing Washington" Well that's a funny way of putting. Given the BBC's negative reporting most punters would think "Oh aye, what's Trump been up to now..." not "is there a militant politicised anti-Trump camp in the FBI who deliberately sought to set him up! The first three paras set up the article as being about the "secret memo", which is probably the least important part of the whole scandal. So a nice bit of obfuscation there. On the secret memo, it's much easier to make it look like a Republican-inspired spat with the Democrats. Fourth para there is a nice touch - he says the secret memo was written by "staffers" working for Devin Nunes. I haven't seen that anywhere else but it serves the purpose of belittling its authority - "those junior staffers fresh out of college" have screwed up again! Para. 5 then rips into Devin Nunes' credibility (even though he was found innocent of any unethical behaviour in his contacts with the White House last year). Foul! Or professional foul, as the BBC would like to call it as happy with their work as any Premier League attack dog. Para. 7 - he finally gets round to telling what the secret memo is about...or does he? Here he refers to the "so called" Steele Dossier...love that deft touch - what's so called about it? It was written by Christopher Steele!...it's like saying the so called Pinter play when you are referring to a play written by Pinter". He manages NOT to tell his readers how the dossier found its way to both the FBI and the media: a complicated story involving money changing hands, the DNC (Democrats) paying a large sum of money and John McCain...It's dirty politics,the sort that the BBC like to pretend the Clintons never get involved in ("we aim high when they aim low" and all that Woman's Hour adoration BS). He states the dossier "set the ball rolling for broader investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government" as though it had walked into an FBI office be itself. “What else might be in it?” he asks as though this is very much a secondary matter. You can almost hear him tying himself up in knots:"The memo may also reportedly contain - or reference - evidence of anti-Trump sentiment from high-level FBI officials"...you can feel his syntax jamming.Indeed it might! Because we've seen on Fox and elsewhere the texts he doesn't quote from!!! No need to reference the secret memo if you can quote the tweets...But that's the very last thing he is going to do in his biased article. He's happy to suppress his journalistic instincts for a higher cause.
[CONTINUED...]Zurcher can find no space for quoting the texts in full or part...but boy can he find space for diversionary BS about Russian bots being behind the campaign to release the memo and full rebuttals from the Democrats. There's a nice structural bias to the way he has long sections on "what the Republicans say" (managing to find a Republican who thinks his colleagues are "paranoid" on the subject) and "what the Democrats say" (not finding any Democrats who are concerned about what's been going on). This structural bias is all about presenting the story as one of a "partisan political row" whereas in substance, as with Watergate, it is about facts. So what other important facts is Zurcher ignoring? Firstly there is the revelation (via the revealed texts) that senior FBI officials (not Republicans, note) believed that a decision had already been taken not to prosecute Hillary Clinton BEFORE she or her workers were actually interviewed! That is of huge importance because Comey said under oath that the decision was taken after those (soft ride) interviews took place. Secondly, the scale of involvement of senior FBI officials with the Democrats. Many made significant donations to the Democrats. The wife of one official (Andrew McCabe) stood for the Democrats in Virginia and received huge funding from pro-Democrat sources. Thirdly, the meaning of one key text – Peter Strojk stated explicitly that there had been discussions about the possibility of a Trump Presidency and the FBI had to have an “insurance policy” in the (unlikely as seemed then) event that he did win. No wonder Zurcher didn’t want to quote that text! This isn’t just “anti-Trump sentiment”…this is plotting of a high order. Fourthly, that Mueller’s team investigating the alleged illegal Trump-Russian connection was (is) stuffed full of pro-Democrat FBI officials. Here's the conclusion to the Zurcher's article:"The investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian election meddling that has resulted in several high-profile indictments and draws closer to the president himself is becoming increasingly mired in a partisan melee. Given the stakes, the heat will only grow more intense in the days ahead."An odd conclusion! Isn't it a bit strange to use this article - which should really have focussed on the partisan Democrat "caucus" within the FBI - to emphasise the inquiry is "drawing closer to Trump", making it sound like some detective drama, where the net closes in on the murderer? Yes but it makes sense in terms of BBC Bias. Zurcher’s seniors will be pleased with his technical bias skills of obfuscation, omission, diversion and structural misdirection. An unbiased reporter would have started not by focussing on the as yet unpublished memo, but on the published texts and what they reveal. They would then have set out the influence of Democrats within the FBI and how Mueller’s team was packed with Democrats and also the implications for Comey who has stated on oath when the decision to clear Hillary was taken. He would then have covered all salient points including the secret memo. He would have concluded that although Democrats were fighting hard to contain the crisis, this was undoubtedly undermining the credibility of the Mueller investigation. He might also have mentioned Donald J Trump’s point that Clinton was interviewed for 15 minutes on her actions, whereas he was interviewed for 23 hours about a 40 minute meeting with a Russian.
Have a look at BBBC - a post from Martin W at 8.45 am today. He refers to a slip of the tongue from John Sopel, by which he inadvertently reveals a more detailed knowledge of this matter than he has ever reported.
Yes, London Calling, interesting slip of the tongue there by Sopel. The only explanation I can think of is that Sopel, like the anti-Trump senior FBI officials, believe they have a "higher duty" to ensure that politics goes in a certain direction, and that is why they lie by omission, by misdirection, by distortion and by plain falsehood. So Sopel and others like him are no longer journalists. They are more like priests advising their flocks on what is good for them. Talking of flocks, Not a Sheep also has a post pointing out how odd the Zurcher report is (odd in relation to the facts, that is). No way can the BBC claim these developments are unimportant! We are talking about major congressional hearings, statements by senators, leaked texts that show anti-Trump bias at the top of the FBI and direct contradiction of Comey's evidence on oath etc etc. And this is probably just the start.
The BBC wouldn't employ an anti-Trump activist to write impartially about the possibility of a Trump impeachment would they? Well they did employ Joel Gunter (yet ANOTHER BBC reporter, filing from the USA - must make about 20 by now on my count). Here's his tweet on the election of Trump...https://twitter.com/joelmgunter/status/796231523565522944The rest of his Twitter feed is full of anti-Trump sentiment including vicious quotes from people hostile to Trump. And yet the BBC think he can report impartially on Trump's chances of being impeached. Also, the BBC are ignoring the release of the latest Strojk-Page texts which show the FBI officials were concerned that Clinton would take her revenge on them if they did their job properly over the private server scandal investigation, that the FBI held back "inflammatory" witness statements from Congress and that Strojk did not believe there was anything of substance in the Trump-Russia investigation.
In a typically biased BBC article on Trump some BBC drone with a sense of humour has pulled out the following quote:'Every leader should have their shot'I bet more than a few BBC staff would like to see that nostrum applied to Trump literally. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42821699
Good news for the UK economy 'UK economic growth exceeds forecasts, ONS says'. Note that the BBC are not reporting directly. And the accompanying image: 'Service!' at some restaurant or other. This to the BBC is representative of economic growth. Perhaps this is where the the BBC reporters do their news gathering.
GDP is a very poor measure of real growth in any case. Take the Republic of Ireland...because so many big firms are nominally located there its GDP is huge, but very little of that money finds its way into the hands of the Irish people. GDP per capita is a better measure...in which case you immediately have to shave off about 0.8% points off our growth because our population is growing about 500,000 per annum, thanks mostly to current and previous mass immigration. So the real figure is closer to 1%. Then again, it's probably been higher quality growth - less to do with the overheated London economy and more to do with a growing manufacturing sector outside London. That's where our focus should be.
The restaurant image has been removed from the BBC News website Homepage headline in favour of an old Emma Bridgewater Pottery shot. It makes me wonder whether the BBC Business reporters know anything about the industrial and manufacturing sector.
Yes, the BBC are careful not to expose us to too many positive images of sectors like the space industry, worth an annual £5 billion plus to GDP.
So some male presenters at the BBC are prepared to take a pay cut...and there is no suggestion that, as a result, the BBC will be outbid by LBC, ITV or Sky and lose any of these presenters as a result. The only conclusion to draw is that they have, for years, most definitely been overpaid. Strangely, this point doesn't seem to have occurred to any BBC programme dealing with the issue.
A BBC article headed "US economy loses steam as imports surge"...oh dear, sounds like Trump is failing.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42831658Then you read the article and discover that under Trump GDP growth has accelerated from 1.5% to 2.3%, an increase in the growth rate of nearly half, so hardly "losing steam". Still, anything that feeds the anti-Trump narrative is good as far as the BBC are concerned.
Countryblues on BBBC notes "BBC News at lunchtime today, it seemed to me, followed last night’s trend with no overt criticism or ridicule. It’s almost as if the BBC has been ordered to change its approach."I noticed this as well...of course they have not yet changed their biased reporting on the Trump-Russia thing yet but there did seem to be a bit of respect. Is it the Davos thing? Is that like worshipping at the Globalist Altar or something? Odd...it's not as though we ever thought that Trump was anything other than a capitalist. Has someone put a rocket up the D-G's a*se about jeopardising the special relationship? It was odd.
Re the first para above, I meant to put in "Countryblues, referring to coverage of Trump..."
It was very noticeable that the Beeb was treating Trump with kid gloves yesterday. It would be nice to believe that somebody in May's cabinet has, at last, had the guts (or May's permission) to take the D-G to task, but I don't see it happening. Could it, perhaps, be that the Beeb has been tipped off that it is about to suffer a major change of status: the last broadcaster to get an interview with, even minor, US Government officials, the only major news service that can't be accommodated on Air Force 1, but never mind, we may be able to squeeze you into the cargo hold of a C5...tomorrow? There's also the fact that, Trump's 'another beauty' has just been recorded having a very unwise conversation with Mr Humphrys - being careful, perhaps!
Misplaced comma, 3 lines up. As several people have said, an edit function would be useful.
OK, in Helpful Hint corner...I have really despaired of listening to Radio 4 in recent years as more and more programmes seem to become "shoehorning fodder" i.e. whether it's science, women, arts, drama, biographies, Desert Island Discs or whatever, an excuse to promote the PC Multiculturalist agenda...and in the most insufferably priggish manner. So in desperation I tried out Radio New Zealand on my internet on the phone and must say I was pleasantly surprised. The news was of course standard anti-Trumpist but the rest of the programming was relatively sane and I have heard some interesting programmes on the intelligence of dogs, Gordon Ramsay's life and likes, earthquake-proofing buildings and so on. Be interested for any feedback from anyone else who tries it out...I've only visited a few times so far so can't vouch for having an accurate fix on the station yet. It was a bit like going back 20 years in time to how Radio 4 used to be before it was given the full works by the pro-globalist, no borders, multiculturalist nutjobs.
On the BBC News website, the BBC are in the habit recently of 'developing' a news story throughout the day. In some circumstances, this 'development' is carried out before the 'final' version is archived. Here os one such example:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42829555'Donald Trump prepared to apologise for Britain First retweets'At first, this article seemed to be mainly about the Morgan interview, but in the archive there is disproportionate emphasis given to comments from Brendon Cox, including a tweet from him:Brendan Cox✔@MrBrendanCoxWell done to @piersmorgan for pushing for an apology, not many have succeeded in getting one...though given Trump’s track-record of attacking Muslims, migrants and Mexicans it’s hard to take him seriously...In the Festive 50, the last line was Bias by Absorption. This is a good example - to take the words of an unelected biased commenter, and absorb them into a current news story.
.... 'Corbyn tells Marr he would “take over” “luxury, glossy, glistening” empty properties owned by rich foreigners' ...He's talking about London, of course. See 'A Call to Alms' below. With projected increases of 100,000 per annum for the next two decades - 2,000,000 more people to be housed in London, this proposal is totally irrelevant - emotive language reflecting the politics of envy. Even if the law was changed overnight in order for the acquisition of these properties to take place, it might, at a stretch of the imagination, amount to tens of thousands of extra dwellings over the coming decade. What about the other 950,000 plus people? Both the major political parties have buried their heads in the sand over housing policy for London.
I only saw this from The Guardian recently:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/29/london-suburbs-set-for-housing-boom-sadiq-khan.... Mayor plans to build more than 250,000 new homes in capital’s 13 outer suburbs ........ One-third of new housing planned in London will be built on small sites, including in back gardens and upward extensions of existing houses, apartment blocks and shops.The plan sets the capital’s development strategy until 2029 and calls for more than 250,000 homes to be built in 13 outer suburbs as part of a new London-wide housebuilding target of 650,000 over that period, more than double the current rate....I don't see this working out well. Will compulsory purchase powers be used to acquire back gardens from bona fide property owners? Will new rights of upward extension (of existing buildings) be created? ... The capital’s outer boroughs must build more homes over the next decade than there are in the city of Manchester, according to Khan’s draft London plan....Ambitious plans are all well and good, those is what is needed - but is this policy feasible? It does sound remakably like the Corbyn McDonnell plans for the economy - It will be alright on the night.
"Calls for" = he has no idea how to achieve it. This is a job for the state at governmental level. It's doubtful whether our transport system in the outer suburbs could cope with an additional 500K - 1 million. You can't just magic up multiple crossrail lines. It makes more sense to provide the homes in central London where people can walk and bike to work or (shortly) make use of cheap driverless taxis. Yes, that will mean higher density but London is not as high density as many cities around the world. The key housing policy is to stop mass immigration and then follow up with a ban on sales to foreign owners. We need to stop things getting worse first. We need a breathing space.
As far as I know, Sadiq Kahn's Plan for London didn't receive much coverage from the BBC in November 2017 when it was published. This page gives the key points:https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/eight-highlights-mayors-draft-london-planOf particular note in light of the above observations about housing is:... 2. Green Belt - Sadiq has strengthened his commitment to protect ‘the lungs of the capital’ - London’s Green Belt - and other important open spaces in the London Plan. He has also set out proposals to help make more than half of London green by 2050....As our national broadcaster, the BBC should be scrutinising this plan, and asking some searching questions as to its credibility. I agree with MB - Step One, find a way to stop this housing crisis from getting worse, as it is forecast to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pjgdgStart the Week is often like the PC starting blocks of BBC's Radio 4 - to get the station off to a flying start in the PC "Marathon not a Sprint" that is to follow through the week. I might have mixed up a metaphor somewhere there. Chaired by Kirsty Wark's this morning's piece of ordure was a migration-themed No Borders Fest. I couldn't listen to it for too long but I think I heard all the contributors and there wasn't one speaker who was prepared to voice any scepticism about the wonders of 21st century mass immigration. Kirsty Wark seemed particularly put out that rich people could get into the UK, but there was a bar on the billions of poor and illiterate peasants on the planet getting in. It's a shame Kirsty isn't Prime Minister so she could do something about that. Still she is at least a key presenter and inquisitor on the nation's premier news analysis programme, so that's OK then. There was so much tendentiousness, fake news, fake facts in ten minutes that a full debunking would take hours. But one part I could say was false was the attempt to describe the world as now one where people are constantly on the move from one country to another. In reality, figures show that 96.7% of the world's population are native to their country of birth, so about 6,800 million out of 7000 billion on the planet currently live in the country they were born in. Why is the BBC trying to convince us it is otherwise. Even if you look at tourism, some 5.9 billion people stay at "home", not leaving their countries while only 1.1 billion travel abroad each year. The number who travel abroad on business or for work will be much smaller again. Why is the BBC peddling this dangerous No Borders nonsense like some mad doctor prescribing their patients with a thrice-daily dose of lead, arsenic and asbestos powder.
7000 MILLION not 7000 billion of course! We really would be in trouble if it was 7000 billion! lol
The no borders movement is pure utopian fantasyland. The whole undercurrent to the discussion (and the whole multiculturalism delusion), was essentially anti-Western. As you have already suggested it is impossible to address all of the points raised, but I was particularly amused by the picture painted of a modern Pakistan populated by mixed race Chinese/Pakistani families.
I think those "mixed families" are probably unions between Uigur extremists and members of the Taliban.
Very nice of the Beeb to stiffen the sinews of any Brexiteers who may have been in danger of wavering!
With much reluctance the BBC are having to deal with the FBI-FISA scandal, despite weeks of suppressing it, ignoring it and misrepresenting it...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42865202However they are still very much pursuing the obfuscation strategy...in the above article you have to read a long way down before you discover Andrew McCabe's wife received $700,000 from Democrat funders when she stood for the Virginia State Senate. Zurcher goes out of his way to find excuses for McCabe and he provides a confusing narrative...but it seems as though McCabe had been on the Clinton investigation while his wife was receiving such funding.
BBC report on 10 O'Clock news about the current (very serious of course) drought in Cape Town, the cause of which was given as climate change (no alternative opinion). However, this is (you find out elsewhere) apparently the "worst drought since 1904"...maybe this is just the sort of drought that comes around every 100 years or so, because climate change couldn't have possibly caused the 1904 drought.
I'm quite prepared to accept that the climate is changing, because it always has done - as you say, these things are cyclic; I just don't believe that climate change is anthropogenic. To add to your drought example, the BBC & the Guardian were very eager to blame the 2016 floods on AGW, but the Severn always has flooded & sometimes reached greater depths than in recent years. I'm reading a C19 history of Upton-on-Severn, called 'The Nation in the Parish' (free on-line). It devotes two pages (193-4) to flooding - we learn that, in the flood of 1770, "whole villages were flooded, scores of human beings were drowned and infants were seen floating in their cradles over the flooded fields." And this flood, "probably attained a greater height than it had for three centuries."! In 1852, the town became an island, "and men boated to the bar of the star hotel." (Nice to know that the Englishman's devotion to the hop will overcome all obstacles!) The Beeb also blames the retreating ice of Greenland on AGW; but it forgets to mention that the receding ice is revealing the foundations of Viking settlements. Conclusion: the icy parts were not always uninhabited, Greenland was once warmer than it is now...which is probably why the Vikings christened it 'Greenland!'
AGW may or may not be true - one thing is true though is that climate scientists do not have a thorough enough understanding of how climate works to be able to say whether or not it is with anything approaching certainty. But let's assume it is happening, is it necessarily a negative. More CO2 is great for plant growth and does us no direct physical harm. More warmth is good for plant growth. More warmth means more rain, which means well watered plants grow prodigiously. More plant growth means a greater animal population can be sustained, including us.
Breathtaking bias on the BBC this morning - Radio 4 Today 7am. Not a single mention of the vote to release the FISA memo in the USA!!! We heard a lot from Mike Pompeo's interview with the BBC about the CIA's work. In the lead up to that super-rich presenter, gentleman farmer and non-journalist John Humphries made a fleeting reference to the departure of Andrew McCabe from the FBI, making it sound as if it were further evidence of Trump-Russia collusion! Unbelievable!! Otherwise, there was nothing to explain his departure or the FISA memo release decision. My conclusion: the BBC are bricking it because they can see the whole edifice they have helped construct along with CNN, the Guardian, New York TImes, Washington Post, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Sky and ITV is falling apart and about to come crashing down. They have no idea how to deal with it.They could find no time for the FBI-FISA scandal, but they found a lot of time for someone with a very tenuous connection to the world of education to pontificate about the value of music and arts education (which probably hardly anyone in the country disputes in theory). It's an important issue, but you don't just let some dippy individual witter on at will for several minutes - you have a proper discussion. Bias was very evident elsewhere. Leaving aside the rights and wrong of abortion (I am not personally against women having access to abortion within legal limits), the BBC describe the Irish PM to "liberalise" abortion laws. Liberalise is a nice word as far as most people go. From a pro-life point of view they could have said the plan was to "dehumanise" Ireland's abortion laws ie no longer treating the foetus as human. As an impartial broadcaster they should have said "make it much easier for women to obtain abortions within the Republic", or "remove the legal limits on abortion" or something like that. But the BBC has always been a cheerleader for abortion. (Strangely though, they have still never shown an abortion taking place, despite being only too keen to show all other medical procedures.)
Morning MB, that BBC News Headline item that Ireland was to "liberalize" abortion laws jumped out for me too. Especially as it went on to say that the current law gives the mother and the baby equal rights. But just that word "liberalize" gives away the entire BBC mindset.As for the FBI-FISA scandal, my guess is that the ultra-rich Humphries has no idea or much interest what's going on. He's just an overpaid "voice" not a brain or investigator. I've noticed that one of his big skills is to end an item with a "thank you Norman" in a sort of far away shout to indicate someone is leaving. Worth 600k a year that is.
Hi Ozfan, Yes, there is a definite collective BBC mindset that says "there's nothing wrong with abortion...but 'memo to all staff' we are NEVER actually going to broadcast an abortion even though there is nothing wrong with it..."I think you are probably right about Humphries. To me, he doesn't appear "on top of" the news at all in any respect. There needs to be a public inquiry into why he is being paid this ludicrous amount when he, or someone just as good, would do the job for a quarter of that sum (not least because off the back of it they can make a cool £100k just from 15 public appearances).
There is a story on the Leicestershire page of the BBC News website:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-42862237The same photo has been on that same page for five days now. The original story was there for four days, followed by an update yesterday - but no change in the photo. Is this a record?
Well the Trump-Putin double headed photo has been showing on the BBC website under various photos for several days now. :) It's a common bias tactic they use. It's deliberate ploy to put the doctor over the child.
For those of you who are interested in the huge FBI-FISA scandal which the BBC is refusing to report on properly if at all, here's the Hannity programme on You Tube which will bring you up to speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNJMYfzuB5oMeanwhile on the BBC Website, I see they have changed the headline on this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42865202Previously it was a marvellously obfuscatory something like "FBI deputy director McCabe resigns after Trump criticism". Now it's "FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe quits ahead of agency review". Notice the difference. A true headline would be "FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe quits after 'unconstitutional acts' ". BBC are bricking themselves.
The BBC are so pathetic...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39826934Firstly the headline: a "revolving door" refers to situtation where a person leaves an organisation (e.g. where they served as a civil servant) and returns under another guise (e.g. consultant to the private sector). Secondly, because the BBC are embarrassed about the McCabe departure as they realise it is not good news for them, they are camouflaging the scandal by making out his departure is part of a damaging pattern of Trump's inability to hang on to senior staff.
PM Radio 4 - nothing on the FBI-FISA scandal or the memorandum release! Amazing...It wouldn't be so bad if the BBC hadn't previously given us saturation coverage of the Trump-Russia collusion fandago at every possible opportunity. I wouldn't complain if they just ignored American domestic politics, but they don't - quite the reverse. Oh well, it will just make the BBC's news censorship all the more obvious. They are just dropping in a few CYA (Cover You A*se, not CIA) stories so far, so if they get a complaint they can point to those...even though the stories themselves are a journalistic joke, missing key elements and offering up a very confused narrative, with disjointed detail. The BBC News: Fake News, Deliberate Bias.
Incidentally, the story on the memo release gets lower billing and half the space on the BBC's US-Canada page compared with a trivial bit of Trump-baiting about a typo in the State of the Union invitation! Remember, this - the BBC - is the organisation that totally covered up Obama's ballsup when he got the Inauguration swearing in wrong and had to be re-sworn in afterwards. For Obama they would excuse anything (including the suppressed photo with Farrakhan, which they have not mentioned) while for Trump, no criticism is too trivial, too unbecoming, too unfair or too petty-minded.
I've noticed that today, for the first time in ages, there is no mention of Donald Trump on the BBC News website Homepage. Could this be due to the Piers Morgan Show in which DT appeared? The BBC must be sore that they didn't get the interview. Their coverage concentrated on what Brendon Cox had to say about the interview - not on what he had to say. That was a huge mistake.A lot of open-minded people will have seen the interview without recognising the Donald Trump as characterised by the BBC. After all, he would be eligible for a British passport wouldn't he? He appears proud of his Scottish roots.Can we hope for an end to the negative portrayal of Donald Trump from now on?
Hi Loondon Calling, Personally I think this change is because the tipping point has been reached. From now on it is all bad news for the FBI secret society of Democrat partisans, Clinton, the Clinton Crime Family, all associated with the Clinton Foundation, and Huma Abedin. That's why the broadcast has suddenly been cut. At the same time I think a bit of finessing and nuancing is taking place. Is it entirely coincidence that suddenly in the week it is agreed the FISA memo is going to be released we suddenly have Gordon Carera telling the BBC audience that the Chinese are just as big a threat and we have Emma Barnett suggesting that perhaps in light of the Piers Morgan interview we should reconsider "our" (ie the BBC/Guardian/Labour orientated) position on Trump? It could be I guess - just coincidence - but after a year or more of relentless Trump-Russia collusion propaganda? This may be more about damage limitation. I have never suggested the BBC higher ups are unintelligent. Most went to Oxford or Cambridge and obtained good degrees. They will know when things have turned and how to limit damage.
Has anyone been following the story lines on The Archers recently? Once a great radio soap of everyday country folk it is now a bastion of politically correct nice people. The story of two gay guys, Adam and Ian, longing for a baby. Adam was made gay by being sent off to boarding school for about 28 years at the end of the 1970's at least he disappeared from about 1980 until 1998. Sweet Leksi from Bulgaria steps in to be the surrogate mother. Leksi has just started a relationship with Roy who use to be a good guy but since giving Elizabeth one in a tent at a festival has become a bit beyond the pale, he probably voted for Brexit.Anyway Roy doesn't fancy his new girlfriend carrying someone else's baby which is very unreasonable of him. Sad bloke that I am I have listened to the Archers for years and now my main enjoyment is spot the BBC virtue signalling.
The Archers is so PC now it hurts! But it also makes you laugh...so I do drop in now and then for a good laugh...
Joe Kennedy III may be "worryingly white"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42862939...but for the BBC hope springs eternal and he will do for now until Michelle or some other like candidate comes along...What a puff piece! In a nation of literally 300 million plus they couldn't find a single individual who had a bad word to say against him! lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoPDLYRnILgAt around 1:20 - there is plenty of criticism of the choice of Kennedy as the official rebuttal...just seems the BBC ($5 billion organisation) can't find it anywhere...
The Drool and the Clown.Bet Katty still wants to have his (blonde) babies.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/958436558390128640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiasedbbc.org%2Fblog%2F2018%2F01%2F30%2Ffrit%2FWell Brillo's got hold of one of the dots...now he needs to see what is going on on the other side of the pond.
He is so off reservation now I think he has started his own independent state somewhere in W1A
Whether or not you like Trump and his policies, Trump's State of the Union address was a faultless tour de force (in an American context, that is - they love their sugary sentimentality!) - one which is driving the left-liberals nuts!! Zurcher's latest effort: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42867965There you'll find:"Last year in his address to Congress, Trump laid out an ambitious agenda, but aside from tax reform, many of his big-ticket legislative directives were either derailed in Congress or languished without ever becoming concrete proposals."Rubbish English..."Aside from one thing...many others..." - no, if it's "Aside from one thing" then everything else - not "many" - should be otherwise. But of course we've seen the Executive Orders he's been signing every day (or so it seems). They are legislation under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. He's been pumping those out and there's little the Democrats can do about that. Zurcher is trying to make out that Trump has done virtually nothing legislatively apart from get through his tax reforms. That is classic BBC Fake News. Still there are signs that (as others have noted) the BBC is in the process of changing its tune, recalibrating its views on Trump - call it what you will. Zurcher says: "The president has a list of accomplishments of which he can - and does - boast" Well you wouldn't have picked that up from BBC coverage during 2017 would you? But I think the BBC and other left-liberal media outlets are now panicking: they can see the nightmare shaping up - Trump presiding over a booming American economy, Obama-Clinton-FBI coruption being exposed, and Trump becoming a popular President. The Zurcher gives us this odd para:"Outlook: Just a few days after his last congressional speech, Mr Trump tweeted about his suspicions that Barack Obama had his "wires tapped" during the campaign. The "kinder, gentler" Trump was gone in a flash. How long can this one last?"Well Trump was completely right wasn't he, allowing for the antique phrase? Then, referring to immigration, Zurcher concludes:"Outlook: An open hand can be a gesture of kindness or the prelude to a slap. The chasm between the two sides is just as wide as it was yesterday. In fact, it may be wider. " Is that the best he can do in terms of analysis? I really don't expect senior BBC correspondents to analyse Presidential actions in terms of whether they are being kind or not.
They seem to be getting more mental every day. As regards Pres. Trump they simply have a default knee jerk and cannot get past it even when any sensible review of social media would show them they are getting more mocked every time they side with CNN.And here they are 'reporting' on Crapita when social media and their own HYS sees them mocked for women earning less than a quarter of what BBC women are sulking about getting as an INCREMENT, are sent to jail for not uniquely funding this profligacy. Not covered by Cathy and Lord Tone I would imagine.
Katty Kay asks the question of the FBI (in a lengthy tweet for her): "Incompetent or biased?" It's a very good question that could also be directed at the BBC. https://twitter.com/KattyKayBBC/status/956523318668034050
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42894292I decided to analyse this article para by para. marking them with F= Factual D = Democratic or other talking points critical of TrumpR = Republican talking points supportive of TrumpThis was my analysis, para by para:FFFDFRFDDFDDFive Ds to one R, the rest being factual reporting on state of play re release of the document. Pretty standard for the BBC.
It was a pleasure to hear Caroline Wyatt on PM last Saturday. Beautiful pronouncing, well formed vowels, all 'Ts' were heard. I understand that recently she has been very unwell, I hope that her health is restored and we can hear more of her.
The BBC is now in full Fake News mode: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42902537Faced with the prospect that their whole "Russia-Trump-St Hillary-Messiah Obama" edifice is going to come crashing down, the BBC is desperately grasping at straws heading up a nothing story as "Trump Russia:Republicans accused of tampering with FBI memo". The story references a pathetic attempt at obstruction by the Democrats which I can guarantee will amount to nothing and will not prevent release of the memo. But what would a casual reader of the headline think it was about? They would think this related to an FBI memo (fake: the memo is from a Chairman of a House committee) and that Republicans plural engaged in a conspiracy (fake: in fact, even the Democrats are only accusing the Chairman, singular of making amendments). Lastly, by leading with the "Trump Russia" tag, this makes it sound like this is all about Republicans trying to cover up Trump-Russia collusion (fake: this is really all about the Democrats using the intelligence services and legislation to spy on and destroy their opponents' campaigns).
They can't help themselves! BBC US-Canada page now leading with a non-story spat over TV viewing figures for the State of the Union (how many people watch in on websites after the event, BBC? are those people captured by audience analysis?)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42897622
I am just amazed that the BBC and other MSM in the UK seem completely uninterested in a story that involves FBI, CIA and military intelligence (with a "fight to the death" between the two former and the latter), politicians paying for the creation of a dossier on a political opponent, involvement of an ex MI5 agent to create the dossier, texts between FBI/DoJ officers talking about bringing down a President as an insurance policy and of a "secret society" operating within the FBI, the imminent release of an explosive memo on attempts by a political party in the USA to use intelligence service processes for political advantage, a mysterious "deep throat" leaking details of what is going on(Q Anon - google if you haven't already)...And that is just to scratch the surface...This is probably the biggest earthquake of a story ever, and the BBC/MSM have no interest in it whatsoever!
I've been watching this story during the day on the BBC News website. The headline ...FBI and White House clash over controversial Republican memo... - appeared for a short time on the Homepage with very low prominence, but was removed completely leaving another headline only on the World page ... Trump Russia: Republicans accused of tampering with memo on FBI .... At the moment, the world page is showing ...Trump Russia: Republicans 'materially altered' memo on FBI.... nothing on the Homepage.The familiar trick is there using matching images of Donald Trump opposing Putin against black backgrounds as the eye-catching photos.My impression is that the BBC are hoping the whole story will go unnoticed - a routine exercise in water muddying.
That last headline ... Trump Russia: Republicans 'altered' memo on FBI ... is back on the Homepage - with a photo now, but without the word 'materially'.
And what was the Trump reference in the Radio 4 PM headlines while all these momentous wheels are turning? Er - trashing Trump's claim that he had the biggest TV audience ever for his State of the Union address. Unbelievable for a "serious" news organisation.
I make no apologies for referencing events in the USA...normally (apart from election time) I don't bother too much with American politics but that's changed over the last months and I think what is happening there (a kind of crocodile v. lion fight, where both camps have each other by the throat)is of the utmost importance to this country as well. One thing that might emerge if Trump is triumphant and sees off the Obama-Clinton-FBI alliance is that the USA may bring in an internet bill of rights to protect free speech on the web...that is of vital important as the print media dies and as Google, You Tube and Twitter have become virtual monopolies controlling what is to all intents and purposes a public space. Contrast that with what is happening here...I truly believe that sites in the UK like this, which occasionally re-post or allow comments critical of Islam, race-baiting, Transgenderism, and Uber-Feminism, will within a few years (I mean 3 to 5) be designated "hate" sites and closed down. But if the USA becomes again a voice for freedom this may have a positive effect on developments in the US.
Lack of net neutrality is a considered as an imminent danger in the USA. It's time that we, here in the UK, woke up to the dangers of the time when commercially and/or politically arrived at decisions over content dictate what we see or cannot see on the web.
Yes net neutrality would be one element of an internet bill of rights but there would be lots more: eg you couldn't ban someone from the internet (via You Tube, Twitter etc) for lawful speech. Also you (or rather You Tube etc) couldn't demonetise someone's site just because they don't like what they are saying. Of course all this sounds like pie in the sky in Fear Speech UK but I think in a Trumpian America it could happen...
Latest Fake News from the BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42910377Just read the first paragraph for a Fake News blast:"A Republican-drafted memo alleging FBI bias against US President Donald Trump will be released on Friday, a senior White House official says."That is NOT what the memo is about! The memo is about systematic abuse of intelligence gathering/judicial processes for unconstitutional political purposes. Far more important than saying nasty things about Trump. But the BBC will be desperately trying to make this all sound like a partisan Dems v. Republicans spat. Whereas it is about how the most important organs of the state conduct themselves. It is very fundamental, all about whether the US is a democracy or a one party state.