Sunday, 21 January 2018

The Open Thread With The Gigantic Hare

Yes, I know it's a rabbit, but if it was good enough for the creators of Bugs Bunny...

Thank you all so much for your comments. Please keep them coming.

And if you prefer reindeer to rabbits, please read this from News-watch's David Keighley:

It tells of how Lord Lawson achieved a victory against the BBC over inaccurate reporting and how the BBC then mangled their 'apology' so much as to make it seem like a Pyrrhic victory. 


  1. That is a hare-raising photo.

    1. 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!'

    2. 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.

  2. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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".

    3. The more awards the better as far as I am'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?

    4. Samira is often quite subtle in pushing her agendas...

  3. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. BBC Editorial Integrity means there is often not enough space and/or limited time to feature news that does not suit the BBC

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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?

    1. Oedipus appears on a Long Lost Family special hosted by Davina McCall being reunited with his father and mother and living happily ever after.

  6. It was ridiculous that the BBC decided to highlight the Toronto Hijab Scissors attack in the first 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:

    So the BBC now admits it helped spread Fake News - not surprising since it is a Fake News operation.

    1. Better screen-shot it now because it won't be there for long!

    2. 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.

  7. 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...

    Difficult 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.

  8. 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.

    1. 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.

  9. What a shame we don't have any academics like this in the UK.

  10. 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.

  11. Replies
    1. It's a shame Trans American Airlines went bust. That would have been funny, watching them deal with that.

  12. You’re etc we need an edit button

  13. 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.

  14. 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....

    1. 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.

  15. 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 title
    Misrepresentation of what was said in an interview
    Complaint description
    By 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.

    1. "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.

    2. 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

  16. 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.

    I 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).

  17. 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.

    1. OCS = OCD Yes we need an edit function!

  18. So much is being covered up by the MSM in both the USA and the UK...please take a look at this:

    BTW I think Newt Gingrich is probably the best American politician of the last 50 years.

  19. 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!

    1. 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.

  20. I see the Guardian and New York Times have both reported on the Fake News Awards (not an indulgent way, of course):-

    But 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.

    1. Apparently they have been discussed on Radio 4 (Today?)...but then, that is a relatively small audience.

    2. 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.

  21. 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.

    1. 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.

  22. 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.

    1. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. I didn't realise he was married to Jane Garvey. Sounds like she's working on completely detestoronising him with veganism. :)

  23. 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...

    I 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?

  24. Nick Robinson showing (a) he's not as clever as he thinks he is and (b)he likes to spread Fake News.

    Robinson 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."

    Norway 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.

  25. Zurcher is normally quite clever at leaving some wriggle room so he can deny bias...but on this occasion he's slipped up.

    He 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.

  26. 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.

    1. 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.

  27. Ranty rant part 1

    The 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) :

    It 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’s
    nonsense 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).

  28. 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 presenter
    declares "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 do
    we 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.

  29. 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.

    1. 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 him
      palatable. 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.

      What I find dangerous is the sort of diatribe that was present in this week's QT.

      Dustin Lance Black (fresh faced screenwriter and director) spouted a series of uber moral Obama-esque platitudinous opinions consisting
      entirely 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 without
      coming 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.

  30. 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.

    1. 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.