...and any other matters that take our fancy
The BBC have chosen to publicise white poppies way beyond their importance. It’s another ‘let’s tell both sides of the story and give equal space and words to each’.It’s a classic BBC case of false equivalence at its worst because red poppies sell 40,000,000 and white poppies sell 100,000. That’s just 0.025%.I shouldn’t be surprised that the very liberal BBC are taking a supportive line to pacifist poppies that could leave them open to criticism of undermining a key part of remembrance to our war dead.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45971456
The BBC are a bit torn on this aren't they...on the one hand they can see the importance of having one or two occasions each year when there can be some well policed "licensed patriotism" (to go with Last Night of the Proms and the occasional Royal Wedding or World Cup.But their anti-war, anti-imperial instincts make it difficult for them to shut up even on Remembrance Day.
Yes. I wonder how long it will be before we see the first BBC newsreader wearing a white one.
Things they don't tell you on the BBC...things that make Anthony Zurcher have palpitations or wake up in a cold sweat...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA48ITDLJX8
With fingers crossed, attempting a post... Looks like there are 'events, dear Katty, events' unfolding on the media 'heaven is a pipe bomb' front.It will be interesting whether colleagues Jon and Anthony also maintain their scrupulous professional journalistic standards as they unfold.
No chance, I just listened to Nick Bryant on BBC One 6 o'clock news.
The BBC have a very strange relationship with billionaires. Their muted response to the Philip Green story is a case in point. They haven’t gone after him with all guns blazing as they usually do for those in the public eye who do something seriously non-PC. Instead, they have made the story about parliamentary privilege wheeling out Dominic Grieve to attack ’arrogant’ Peter Hain. So for now Philip Green seems to have been saved by BBC diversion tactics and their deference to very rich people.It reminded me of their subservient, almost sycophantic approach to anything uttered by Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.Mind you, to argue against myself - they aren’t too keen on James Dyson (right wing and pro-Brexit) and positively hate the most famous of them all, Donald!
Yes, but Peter Hain is an elder statesman of the Blair years. When, belatedly the BBC do mention conflicting interests it is in the context of a defence:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45989404... 'Lord Hain identified the retail tycoon on Thursday using parliamentary privilege, which protects MPs and peers from being prosecuted for libel over statements made in the Commons or Lords...... It has since emerged the peer is a global and government adviser at Gordon Dadds, the law firm used by the Telegraph........ In a statement, Gordon Dadds said Lord Hain had not obtained any information from them regarding the case, "including any information which would enable him to identify Philip Green as having any involvement in it"....... Lord Hain "categorically" denied that he was aware of the law firm's work with the Telegraph and said the firm played "absolutely no part" in his decision to name Sir Philip.' ...It's not surprising that Parliament in both Houses is viewed suspiciously by the voting public. Peel away one layer, and there's another one below.
... Peel away one layer of intrigue and conflicting interests (that is Peter Hain being answerable to parliament through his position in the HoL and also eager to earn his corn as consultant to Gordon Dadds), and there's another one below...
Why BBC go easy on billionaires whilst knifing Tommy Robinson etc.is cos billionaire have funds for lawyers but TR has now suddenly amassed a legal fund of £2m and is talking toughDid the BBC spend £4m on just the Cliff Richard case or something ?
Chris Cook from BBC Newsnight has written a very odd article about a painting hanging in a obscure junior ministers office from 2012-15.What are his motives? Why raise something of little interest about an art choice 6 years ago?Is he trying to make a political point or a #MeToo point? Or just virtue signalling his solidarity with women who feel uncomfortable?Is he trying to mischief make or entertain? It’s liberal claptrap. Why am I paying my licence fee for such rubbish? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45979850
Lord knows what the point of that piece is. Has Dan Poulter MP done something to annoy the BBC? He was recently the target of another very unhelpful BBC News piece about his second job. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-45904279
He's annoyed quite a few people, going back to 2010, if this Sun article is to be believed. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4849580/dan-poulter-probed-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour/
There was a definite nasty streak in the BBC reports of Glenn Hoddle's unfortunate health problems in the way they choose to continually repeat the inaccurate quotes from 20 years ago, when the BBC and MSM at the time ridiculed him for his personal Christian beliefs. This was largely forgotten, but the BBC was quick to dredge this up as he lies seriously ill in hospital;https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46002170
I don't think they were Christian beliefs - more Hindu-influenced reincarnation beliefs. As I recall they were controversial because he suggested people born with diseases were suffering karma for previous bad actions. The BBC would never criticise such beliefs if expressed by a Hindu or Buddhist...but Hoddle was considered fair game because he was not born into such beliefs.
How can Jon Sopel write this ostensibly serious analysis of divisive political rhetoric and possible connections to political violence without referencing the "call to arms" of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Dem) urging people to harrass Republican leaders wherever they find them - on the garage forecourt, in restuarants and so on...or the assassination attempt on Donald Trump by a young Briton radicalised by anti-Trump vitriol in the left-green media,the various comedic and theatrical events built on the premise of Trump being assassinated or Hillary Clinton's recent statement that there can only be a return to civility in political discourse if the Democrats win? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46012626?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbcnews
... Hillary Clinton's recent statement that there can only be a return to civility in political discourse if the Democrats win? ...The nature of this comment is equally true in the UK. From the BBC's point of view there can only be a return to civility once the Brexit vote has been overturned and the likes of Boris, Farage, TR and JRM have been forever banished and their inconvenient views deposited into Orwell's memory hole.
Ditto from the BBC: Donald Trump. ... 'there can only be a return to civility in political discourse'... once he 'leaves' office - by any means - the more the dramatic the better - so that Sopel and the the North American BBC contingent's opinions can be seen to have carried the day. Just why the USA's politics are of so much interest to the BBC when EU members' isn't remains a complete mystery. I put it down to laziness as the copy is on a plate, and that the Washington lifestyle is attractive to the BBC corporate mindset.
Jon Sopel can’t write serious analysis anymore (if he ever did) because he is now partisan and unable to say or write anything without showing his distaste at Trump and his policies. Just report Jon, we don’t want to hear your personal opinion.
Arthur - yes I have often wondered why the BBC are so obsessed with American politics. The number of staff they have over there seems to be at least 20 but possibly a lot more. The BBC are quite happy to use African, Arab and Indian reporters but when it comes to a large advanced country with a common language they need to send over a load of UK origin reporters! I am sure the BBC would answer that the USA is a very important country. Well indeed, but so is China, and so is Russia and so is India, and so is the would-be EU superstate. But in comparison we get virtually no reporting from those places. I think there is a combination of things going on:1. Laziness. It's just so easy to report from the USA - same language, similar culture and advanced technology. There is a lazy aura about the staff over there: Sopel, Sackur, Bryant and so on. 2. Fun. These are plum jobs. As far as I can see the BBC reporters have a whale of time, being well plugged into the party scene in the big cities of the USA. Also because there are so many BBC reporters over there, they don't have to work much and so have lots of time left over for writing lucrative books.3. Sub-Marxist Americophobia. There is a kind of dim ideology at work that states the USA is top capitalist/imperialist nation and has to be opposed on that basis...kind of taking the fight to the top. But it is interesting how little the BBC reports on EU matters. Where are the regular, breathless reports from Brussels, the searching interviews with EU power brokers, the doorstepping of EU politicians? In comparison with the USA, there's hardly anything and yet the BBC wants us to believe we belong in the EU.
I guess that the BBC output on USA politics is only ever handed-down cold content. There is no way in which Sopel and his friends can get anywhere near the heart of the power game. That's what makes his 'insight' so false, knowing he hasn't found a way of gaining access to the main players. Sopel's BBC smug delivery lacks authenticity.
Yes Arthur, I get that impression as well. I suspect they read the New York Times and Washington Post, turn on CNN and talk to a few friends in the American media and in the Democratic Party. They could do all that from the UK.
And not content with the 20 or more in the US, they also send others over to do special reports or programmes, e.g. James Naughtie or John Sweeney.
I see the BBC are using ‘far-right’ and ‘populist’ to describe the winner of Brazil’s election. The Guardian have gone one step further calling him ‘extreme-right’. The BBC are also running a story to say MI5 have taken over the fight to counter Britain’s ‘far-right’ extremist threat. These words are now in common usage across the BBC output as a ‘catch all’ for any right wing politics they don’t agree with and as a means to discredit.In the BBC world, If you are not a paid up member of their brand of PC liberalism you are a supporter of populism and on the far-right and therefore nasty, bad and wrong.
I believe this is intentional - whether consciously or sub-consciously: deliberate mixing of conservative (sometimes applied to the most brutal of Islamic regimes like Iran), right wing, right, nationalist (in the pejorative non SNP/Sinn Fein sense), populist, identitarian, nativist, racist, Far Right and neonazi. This BBC "confuse-a-cat" policy works in several ways to their benefit:1. It helps to continue toxification of the UK Conservative brand - despite it being now a thoroughly PC, pro-welfare and non-nationalistic party. 2. It signals disapproval of populism as a movement, even populism which is centrist or left of centre. 3. It focusses attention away from the Far Left who use violence to disrupt free assembly, who have abolished free speech, who use race as a divisive tool of political discourse and who are secretly looking to impose a Bolshevik-style dictatorship on the country.
I’m very much against the kind of ridiculous hyperbole that brands anyone outside of the liberal/left bubble as far right or a fascist but I’m not so sure about Bolsonaro. He claims that he is not on the far right, but he has made some pretty alarming statements in the past, particularly with regard to the twenty years of militant dictatorship and the use of torture. I’m not too comfortable with his opposition to secularism either. Lets hope he has moved on from the 90’s when he threatened to instigate a military coup if he ever became President.
Bolsonaro may well be on the far right but the BBC have devalued the word and confused the public when they label everyone to the right of mainstream conservatism as far- right. So when they need to apply it correctly it has lost it’s true meaning.
Terry - I agree Bolsonaro is an alarming figure. I wouldn't personally trust him with a democracy. But rather than labelling parties and political leaders, it would be better to describe what they wish to do or are doing. For instance the Danish government gets a free pass from the BBC even though it has introduced very tough pro-integration policy (involving removal of welfare benefits where people are unco-operative) which are clearly aimed at migrants from Islamic countries. If Trump or Orban brought in such policies, they would be described as far right, nationalistic, racist etc .
From the little I've heard, he sounds like an old-fashioned dictator, a throwback to a Franco. There were military types who wanted to restore that sort of regime in Spain after Franco died. The explosion in violent crime and other social ills was such that there were ordinary people who supported that. This man may be there by corrupt means or he may be in answer to some perceived need. It sounds backward but I hope he turns out to be of some use to the people now that they've got him.
Yes I heard a world service report in which the winner was “far right” and the opponent “leftist. Hmmm ... seems to me that anything not leftist is now far right at the Beeb.
There's an issue at the moment with the BBC News channel live budget broadcast from Westminster. EU flags are being waved and anti-Brexit placards are being placed to encroach on every camera angle. Imagine what the BBC's response if these flags were UKIP or EDL flags.
... Imagine the BBC's response if these flags were UKIP or EDL flags....
...or just Union Flags!
On Twitter people noticed BBC and Sky filmed with EU flags in background..but no one put photos up
This morning, when covering the "end of austerity" budget, the BBC has been working overtime to big up the Resolution Foundation report which focussed on people on low incomes, and came to some suitably gloomy conclusions...There is much to detest about the BBC but one of the most annoying features is the way they promote some groups as objective arbiters of the truth. "Who are the Resolution Foundation?" you may ask. Its chief officer is Torsten Bell, who was Ed Miliband's key adviser (yes, that good!). It is funded by billionaire or multi-millionaire Clive Cowdery, a globalist businessman,...who, along with George Soros, has been a big backer of the "Best for Britain" group. That group has been fighting a rearguard action to overturn the democratic pro-Brexit vote. The group's Executive Chair is pro-Remainer David Willetts.These sorts of "think tanks" are political players, not scientific research bodies. If any further proof were needed, Cliver Cowdery has been one of the prime movers to set up a new centrist political party. Incidentally, it was interesting to hear the BBC's analysis of the budget...apparently the Chancellor "got lucky", in terms of larger than expected tax revenues. Would they have said the Chancellor had got "unlucky" if things had gone the other way? Of course not - then it would have been a direct result of government policies. There is no doubt left wing Conservative Nick Robinson, presenting Today this morning, wanted to press the mute button on any trumpet fanfare for the "end of austerity". Not because Phil isn't a mate, but because of the wider Brexit picture. How can Project Fear work properly if people are buoyed up by good economic news that the Remainers told us would never happen after a Brexit vote? Going back to Mr Cowdery I see he is a member of the governing council of The Institute for New Economic Thinking. The Institute was founded with $50million funding by George Soros. As far as one can tell, Mr Cowdery would appear to be a globalist backer of free movement...and there is lots of independent research to show free movement exerts downward pressure on incomes among poorer people in the UK, the people that his Resolution Foundation claims to be most concerned about.
I meant David Willetts is Chair of the Resolution Foundation...
This from Guido re Willettshttps://order-order.com/2018/10/30/victory-guidos-think-tank-transparency-campaign/
Yes - thanks John...it's making very much the point I was.
Cowdery should be all right after the de-radicalization he has been told to undergo.
Woman's Hour is always keen to have women from the USA on their programme to give their views on Trump's America. Could I suggest they invite over DeAnna :)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZsXBbCK4E0
Can I add Heather MacDonald and Janice Flamengo, neither of whom are rabid polemicists, but thoughtful and highly articulate commentators.
There has been a change to the BBC News website today. No longer are we invited to select a local news section. The position has been taken over by a summary of the England pages (I live in England). In its way, this change can be seen as another step towards centralising all 'local' news coverage.An example of such might be:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-45978271... 'Boeing Sheffield: Aircraft firm opens European factory' ...In my opinion, this is an important story about a USA inward investment - a UK US trade deal. The facility is for the manufacture of aircraft wing parts. So, why wasn't this featured on the BBC News Home pages, Business pages, or Politics pages?And, where might it be found? On the Sheffield and South Yorkshire local pages - those that from today need careful navigation of the BBC website to find.Transatlantic trade deals should be high on the list of public interest stories. That is unless the news doesn't fit the BBC narrative and they might wish to bury it. Incidentally, we saw a JCB loader being used to remove a damaged F1 car from the track at the USA race recently.
The local pages have reappeared - it must have been a blip. However, to find important stories when they are buried like the above in one of the many local pages is difficult.
Arthur - This is a common BBC trick...if there is some news of national importance that they don't wish to publicise for some reason, it often appears on the England only (or other national pages) only - or, alternatively, will appear on the UK Home Page for about a nanosecond, so they can later claim they didn't hide it, even though they did.
There are some 42 local BBC News web pages. It would take some exceptional diligence to look through them all to see what news of potential interest was being buried.
42! The answer to life etc.! Is someone joking? What a waste of time and our money. Typical bloated state organisation.
Jeremy Vine being was very hostile to James Cleverly when talking about the budget today. “So, you seem to have given the magic money tree a big shake” he asked sarcastically “Come on - you’ve just got lucky (with tax receipts)”“Oh really - it’s all down to you, is it (governments management of the economy)” he said incredulouslyI’m all for holding the government to account, but Vine was accusing, aggressive and not balanced.He really is one of the worst of the BBC. SJWs displaying faux empathy with his irritating voice, anti- Brexit, a champagne socialist earning 40x the average wage. A Sh1t stirrer using false equivalence with ‘both sides of the story’ in every programme. Always taking sides to support the key BBC issues and values. I could go on....
Blocking anyone trying to hold such of abuse of power is another nasty trait.
Vine has blocked me on Facebook and Twitter, several times. He is quick to dole out criticism but really does not like it when given to him.
I’m not surprised he blocks people. Typical of those with BBC liberal views. Freedom of speech only if you agree or support their agenda. That’s the future if the liberals stay in control of the media, government and key institutions.
Amazing how the BBC can report in its Radio 4 7am news on the Asia Bibi case in Pakistan without once mentioning Islam, Muslim, Mohammed or Sharia...There was reference to "the blasphemy laws", potentially giving the impression (wrongly) that that they applied equally to all religions. There was a reference to a "dispute" but not what about (it was allegedly about Mo).I caught the end of a "two way" just before the news between the BBC's Mishal Hussain and Secunder Kermani. The biggest issue for them seemed to be whether there was any "evidence" of blasphemy.Re Secunder Kermani - ex Newsnight, whose laptop was once of interest to our security services - he is now Pakistan-based and therefore subject to these laws. It is absurd to have people discussing these laws from Pakistan when if they speak honestly they could be subject to a death sentence. The BBC will do anything to protect its favoured religion - it has to, in order to ensure the survival of "the project" which is PC multiculturalism. If it were to concede some religions are better than others, the whole pack of cards would come falling down. Here's the actual judgement:http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Crl.A._39_L_2015.pdfThe BBC website's version of the story states: "The ruling heavily referenced the Koran and Islamic history. It ended with a quote from the Hadith, the collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, which calls for non-Muslims to be treated kindly." Treated kindly!! Read pages 8 and 9 of the judgement which makes it clear that anyone who actively opposes Islam is to be killed. The judgement makes clear that it is "opposition" that leads to the death sentence. "Blasphemy" is simply one example of "opposition". The BBC - enabling Sharia since 1923.
I neglected to mention as well that I am pretty sure I heard Kermani state that "Far Right Clerics" (I'm seeing Fsscist supporing Spanish priests in my mind) stil supported Asia's execution. Yes "Far Right" meaninglessly applied to "clerics" with no further explanation. Note how the BBC are normally so keen to ensure we use the correct Arabic terms when it comes to Islam...but as soon as we have a negative story, then that rule goes out the window. Imams become "clerics" and fundamentalist becomes "Far Right", while Sharia becomes "law". BBC - you can't fool all the people all the time.
Polly Toynbee attacks 'despicable' George OsborneThe BBC chose the above headline after Polly Toynbee and George Osborne appeared on Newsnight.I’m not surprised at all that the BBC chose a line of attack that was anti Austerity, anti-Conservative and anti-Osborne. Pure propaganda, once again.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46040086/polly-toynbee-attacks-despicable-george-osborne
Interesting how that BBC link does not carry 'quotes' but likely does convey the message they intended better.
If anyone's despicable it's Toynbee. Posing as an intellectual off the back of one A level, when she had all the advantages of coming from an elite academic family and being educated at the private Badminton School. Shedding crocodile tears for poor people while supporting policies such as mass immigration and free movement which make them poorer. Helping found the centrist SDP, but now fellow-travelling with the Far Left Trotsyites, Stalinists and Maoists of the Corbynista, the very people the SDP was founded to leave behind. Despicable her! I don't like Osborne, but he did very well to dismiss her inflammatory verbal assault with a fine display of upper class insouciance.
I'd been thinking lately that we hadn't seen anything on the BBC News website Home page of our blue-collar factory worker. He had become the poster-boy dragged out to symbolise all that the BBC detests: He is white, English, male, straight, uneducated (by inference), misogynist, racist, patriotic, intolerant of immigration, anti Islam etc etc. He was usually photographed in a factory setting, with sparks flying either from a welding operation or from an orbital grinder.Well, he's back today with accompanying 'Full Story' prominent image, and the headline: 'The men having penis fillers to boost their self-esteem'. The article features mainly Asian men and an Asian Doctor - but it's our pale stale male who appears prominently displayed (in his overalls) on the Home page.
Oh, and he was of course one of the 52% majority who voted to Leave.
And is probably Christian and from somewhere Up North.
I don’t really care too much about William Sitwells resignation because he offended a vegan.What offends me more is the way the BBC takes sides on so many stories. As is the case so often with the BBC , it is very clear who is in the dock. The evidence is laid out in a particular way so that there is a brief defence (for balance) but the prosecution is given prominence. In the end you can be in no doubt who is in the wrong and guilty as charged.In this article vegans have been wronged and Sitwell is the guilty party.As I’ve said before, this classic BBC ploy is used time and time again on TV, radio on online.Quadrilla and Fracking is another topical news item given the same treatment at the moment. There are many other examples where someone has crossed a BBC values redline and been put in the dock. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46050890
Veganism is based on the idea of not causing any animals (or even insects) any suffering through one's eating habitats. What could cause more suffering for animals than for farmers to destroy natural habits and plant soy beans? Deprived of their natural habitats, animals suffer slow starvation, stress and persecution by humans. The only way to help animals is to stop taking away their natural habitat. That requires first population stabilisation, not a change in dietary habits.
Excellent article by Mark Lawson 'Radio 2 - a station in meltdown?' in this week's Radio Times. This is a must read expose of how the BBC is bending to reflect the diversity agenda and the debacle surrounding the Simon Mayo Drivetime show. The article shows the BBC at it's worst where the diversity agenda trumps quality broadcasting, entertaining the viewers and selecting p the talent on merit. The part played by James Parnell in this debacle is exposed fully but what is most illuminating is the role of our favourite Woman's Hour beauty, the ex Mrs Adrian Chiles, Jane Garvey in stirring the pot to create this social engineering on Radio 2. Mark Lawson has written a powerful view of the future BBC which, as we can all see and hear, is happening right now on our screens and across the airwaves. Read it and weep!
And Today haemorrhaging listeners too. Lucky the funding model and market rates are not based on delivering to the audience.
Outright political partisanship now on display at the BBC. Zurcher the Berserker and friend telling us why the pro Republican African-American movement (Blexit) is wrong. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-46051886/what-america-s-blexit-gets-wrong-about-history
I made myself watch this piece of propaganda from Zurcher. His American accent and patronising delivery belie his radicalisation by the BBC to their PC ideology. The thrust of his video clip was that: 'Some of you may have heard that Democrats were slave owners and KKK supporters, but let me assure you - you have mistakenly interpreted the story. History shows us only a distorted view. Whatever the origins of racism were, these days it is the Republicans and in particular the Trump supporting rednecks who continue to hold these menacing opinions'.
In complement to misquoting President Trump on purpose, they really are excelling at putting any doubts on the type of ‘news’ they peddle to test.
A headline on the website caught my eye this morning on Business Live.It said something like ‘Sterling recovers as Brexit looms’.Now there’s an interesting word for the BBC to use. ‘Looms’ means something menacing or frightening doesn’t it? I’m pretty certain it isn’t a positive word for Brexit.It probably describes how most at the BBC Feel about Brexit. But it’s not impartial.
Yes there's been a lot of "looming" and a lot of "crashing out" and a lot of "concern", "fears", "anxiety"...don't think they've ratcheted up to "dread" yet, but why not? Perhaps they're holding that in reserve.
Yes, ‘crashing out’ is a favourite of the BBC, The Guardian, most of the MSM and the newly liberal leaning Daily Mail. It’s a dead giveaway, those who use it are definitely remainers.
Oh and so is ‘grooming’ and ‘child exploitation’ to save them from saying ‘child rape’.Grooming is only applied to one section of society.
Well while we're on the subject, "Asian" is not an exemplar of exactitude is it? Also when it comes to migrants, 17 year olds are children, but when it comes to extending the franchise in order to stop Brexit, then 17 years olds are not children. "May the False Be With You" as they used to say in the Star Wars movies, I think...
Yes! and to quote Mark Easton - ‘some communities’
Oh yes: From the Chambers Dictionary: loom2 verb (loomed, looming) intrans 1 to appear indistinctly and usually in some enlarged or threatening form. 2 said of an event: to be imminent, especially in some menacing or threatening way. loom large to take over a major part of someone's thoughts, life, etc • The exams were looming large. ETYMOLOGY: 16c.
Then there are the words used only in one context. We hardly ever hear the word "provinces" on the BBC except in one context: left behind, backward towns and villlages where people obdurately are committed to supporting Brexit. Suddenly, the Mark Easton and his mates at the BBC feel the need to contrast the rest of the country with all us get ahead Londoners (you know - the ones who a survey found had the least progressive social attitudes in the UK towards gays and women...wonder why that is, don't ask say the BBC). And then "provinces" sounds just right...you can almost see those Brexiteers sucking on their straws in their smocks.
‘Fear is a more potent message than hope’ was Jon Sopel’s last sentence when summing up his BBC main news report on Trump campaigning. It was aimed at his immigration message.I would suggest that is blatantly biased opinion from Sopel ...again.
Indeed. And also a very accurate description of the BBC policy on reporting Brexit.
The BBC NA team seem to be seeing how much they can get away with. Possibly due to only mixing with those who agree with them and they find agreeable. Odd way to build credibility and trust.
Sky News Live 10.30pm press preview...I was impressed by Brendan O'Neil. He gets better every time he comes on...firm and principled. We need more people like him in public life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOacA3RYrXk
The BBC lead story is very supportive of Amber Rudd this morning, saying she was wronged by civil servants.Very odd, I can’t think of a time when a Conservative politician has enjoyed such a rehabilitation of her character. Especially surprising because her downfall was about letting down Windrush immigrants, another BBC hot topic.I can only think they now fancy her for PM instead of May and this is the beginning of a campaign. Rudd’s Blairite politics will suit the BBC.
"A shield for your friend, a stiletto for your foes." would be my description of how the BBC operates. Contrast with how they treat Johnson. And note how Gove went from being a number one target to being treated much more kindly after he despatched Boris in the last leadership election.
Remember, remember, It now is November. Though the thread says OctoberThat month is now over. :)
Yesterday During QT, whilst announcing the list of panelists for the next programme Dimbleby, with the usual dimbebyesque smirk described Jordan Peterson as the Professor of piffle. Of course he qualified it with standard BBC “some say”, but I have never in all the years I have watched QT heard a guest disrespected in such a blatant manner. I am by no means an uncritical supporter of Peterson. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but certainly not all. I also find the cultish nature of his following a bit disturbing, but from the BBC this is beneath unprofessional. Who does Dimbleby think he is? He is not even a proper journalist.
With luck a footage grab of that exists, as how Samira explains that away will be impressive.
I can’t watch QT anymore, the bias is just too much for my blood pressure. Dimbleby's introduction doesn’t surprise me at all, he is just showing his true colours and lack of manners and respect. (With a bit of virtue signalling to his colleagues thrown in.)There is no way that a left leaning journo from the BBC or MSM could possibly introduce Peterson without having a dig, their reputation would be in tatters with colleagues. In fact their job would be on the line. This peer pressure and mindset means that BBC presenters continue to push the boundaries to see how much they can get away with. There is no one disciplining them or applying the rules so just about anything goes. Traditional fact based journalism and honest reporting went out of the window years ago but the change is accelerating rapidly as the liberal PC culture has taken such a firm hold over the corporation. You can see it all over the BBC and their programmes, it’s a war against those not on the liberal left or of their worldview.I used to see it first hand with print unions in the 70s and 80s. It was one of their golden rules - continue to push the boundary to win more concessions and never give an inch of ground that has been hard won. They got away with blue murder for years and were completely out of control until management finally saw the light, took them on and got seriously tough.
Who does he think he is? The scion of privilege...Yes, I've pretty much given up on Question Time as well. The unbearable virtue signalling of most of the panellists is quite vomit-inducing. The panels have a built in liberal-left preponderance that does not reflect real opinion in the country. The bias is enhanced by Dimbo's hand pressing down on the scales at key moments in his role as "impartial, free and fair" Chairman.
6pm BBC1 News - I have just watched, with growing disbelief, the BBC squander the second five minutes or so of the main news on the non-story of a paraplegic athlete who, on finding his own wheelchair had not been off-loaded at Luton, refused the offer of an upright chair and somebody to push it, preferring instead to drag himself across the airport floor on his backside. The man felt that to be pushed in a wheelchair would rob him of his independence and dignity and plans to sue the airport - now, I have the greatest sympathy for anyone who has lost the use of his legs, but the loss of independence was only going to be temporary, and there is really very little dignity to be had propelling oneself along as he chose to do. It seems that, to the BBC the opportunity to combine banging the diversity drum with a spot of virtue-signalling is irresistible. This one was up there, or rather, down, with Jeremy Corbyn walking past empty seats on a train in order to be filmed compaining that there was nowhere for him to sit.