Wednesday 2 September 2015

'Hot' women and children first

The last two posts reflect a feeling which I know some of you share: that the BBC is disproportionately (and emotively) focusing, visually-speaking, on the plight of women and children in the present migrant crisis... contradiction to the apparent fact (widely agreed upon as far I can see) that the vast bulk of those 'invading' Europe at the moment are adult males.

I've seen a lot of those protesting comments.

And I've also seen lots of BBC News website articles which back them that the photos used in those BBC articles do indeed appear to tend heavily towards including upsetting/cute images of women and children.

Whether that's a specifically BBC thing I rather doubt, but a 'BBC thing' it certainly appears to be - despite the BBC's claims to be the absolute epitome of impartiality. 


I've been thinking about such things since last night's PM on Radio 4 - which began with an absolute bombardment of emotionally-upsetting reports, highlighting the plight of people heading towards Northern Europe.

For the fourth time...(and I've actually listened to very little of the BBC in the past fortnight, so there may have been many such reports)...I've heard the BBC's Hungary reporter, Nick Thorpe, reporting the calls of migrants and foregrounding the same Hungarian woman from the same Hungarian charity in support of them.

The cynical (or romantic) side of me suspects - given that he seems to turn up wherever that particular female Hungarian charity worker turns up - that he's fallen head over heels in love with her and is following her around and broadcasting her views (critical of the Hungarian government, in support of the migrants) like a love-lorn, puppy-eyed teenager. 

But I could be wrong. 

Maybe it's just a coincidence that the lady with a name that sounds like a Hungarian version of 'Georgina' just keeps re-appearing in his reports. 

Or maybe, given that she represents a pro-migrant charity. this is just a biased BBC reporter doing what biased BBC reporters do.


And talking of romance and cynicism...

That evening's PM also featured a remarkable report from the BBC's James Reynolds - a report which also appeared on BBC TV:

I heard it and then watched, enthralled.

I really would like your opinion on this: Am I being unfair to James Reynolds and the BBC in protesting that the BBC chose and then very closely followed, from Turkey through Central Europe to Sweden, what seems to be a completely untypical migrant: namely a young, charming, intelligent, very pretty {despite Laura Bates & Co, something absolutely not to be underestimated}, non-jihab-wearing, English-speaking, female migrant from Syria (who, by the by, it seems, left her widowed mother behind in Turkey)?

My thoughts last night, as I was lying awake, awaiting sleep, were to post something satirical (at the BBC's expense) from the young woman's 'point of view', suggesting that James Reynolds was stalking her all the way across Europe (which he was, in a nice way).

For those of you who didn't watch the report...

...James Reynolds really did follow her all the way from Turkey to Sweden: talking to her in Turkey, interviewing her in the Balkans, contacting on her mobile phone at she neared Central Europe, being with her as she boarded a bus on the borders of Central Europe, reporting her avoiding the police (via bribery) in Hungary, relaxing with her on a train across Germany, and seeing her arrive safe and safe in Sweden.

Was that appropriate for a BBC reporter?


  1. Not if the BBC paid for her travel. That would be creating the news. But have we any way of knowing that she is genuine and not just an actress paid by the BBC ?

  2. Media production professionals are very aware of the visual impact of what they do. Period. The previous post was about waving crying children in everyone's faces and making them the face of mass illegal immigration. Any journalist who denies this is a liar and can't be trusted.

  3. Apologies for being off topic, but I'm just now accidentally watching/listening to Victoria Derbyshire's show where we're presented two people labeled 'radical' and 'extremist'. The political activists posing as journalists who produce her show thought they were cleverly juxtaposing two 'radicals': one is a Muslim scholar who preaches that God hates homosexuals, and the other is the woman who organized an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". Oh, the irony, right?

    Sickening. Beeboid Katrin (sp?) Nye (the reporter doing the 'interviews') told the woman that she should consider standing up for free speech but engaging in self-censorship anyway. She also questioned if wanting to ban halal met was free speech, in the context of the position she was advocating that criticizing any Muslim belief was offensive, full stop. This is, of course, a lie, as vegetarians and RSPCA types have a completely different reason.

    While questioning the Muslim scholar, she set him up - inadvertently perhaps, but they left it in - to make the case that social justice warriors like Beeboids should allow him to practice Islam however he likes because it's important to his children that they feel that Islam is really part of the European mosaic, and not to be targeted all the time". Brilliant, and I am so quoting that in future.

    The political activist posing as a journalist also gave a clear, open, personal opinion. She was trying to tell her Muslim guest that his saying that leaving Islam is punishable by death was "insulting". He deflected that by saying he wasn't aware of that, and she said, "Well, I think it's insulting."

    Clear opinion. A violation of the BBC's remit for impartiality.

  4. "foregrounding" isn't a real word. There is no such word. "Foreground" is a noun.

  5. The anti-mass immigration side in politics is being subjected to some "hard pounding" as they used to call it in WW1, by the pro-mass immigration side.

    The dead baby pic is of course the ultimate weapon in the media world, as those of you who remember Drop the Dead Donkey may recall.

    It is difficult to get traction for the other side in these circumstances. It's difficult to ask "how many of those so called refugees are actually IS terrorists coming to Europe to kill innocent civilians including babies in our countries?".

    But no responsible government can ignore the impact of this Islamic battering ram that has punched holes through Europe's defences.

    This is actually probably one of the most dangerous moments in Europe's history since WW2.

    There can be no doubt that Merkel (who up until now I had thought of as a consummate politician) has made a mistake of gargantuan proportions in putting out the welcome sign. That "welkommen" message is going to travel back to the Islamic heartlands as quick as a text message.

  6. Conflation. Most people probably couldn't give you a definition. But the media are luvving it.

    As this site notes - it has an increasingly pejorative meaning these days.

    The media (including Nicky Campbell on R5 today) keep telling us that about how some poor saps are "conflating" asylum seeking with economic migration.

    Such saps aren't we?

    But are we really?

    As this site has exposed, huge numbers of the "refugees" are actually from quite peaceful (but economically stressed) Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia. Their flow to Germany obviously just makes things far worse back home as all the young men leave.

    Moreover, I have heard many "refugees" claim that they could not support their families in Turkey for one reason or another, having originally fled Syria. They aren't being persecuted there, but they are suffering economic stress.

    Another point is that it's not anti-immigration people who conflate the two - so too do most asylum seekers. It seems that 72% of such claimants to the UK misunderstand their status and find out the government rejects their claims. If they can conflate without criticism from the BBC - why can't we?

    The truth is as we all know there is no clear moral or semantic difference between asylum seeking and economic migration. Would all these Syrian migrants be taking the risks they are if they were millionaires living in Turkey? No. Is there any reason why an untouchable (daljit) from India should not be eligible for asylum here as things stand under the treaties? Answer: no, but our government would no doubt mount a legal war to stop them coming here.
    How does one distinguish between the effects of abject poverty on a domestic servant (virtual slave) in either Mali or Saudi Arabia and the effects of persecution of them as an identifiable social group? You can't.

  7. The sad thing about our society is that there is no one (not even UKIP or Migration Watch* in this context) prepared to mount a robust challenge to the pro-migration lobby.

    If there was I think it would say:

    1. We have a moral imperative to ensure that genuine refugees are identified and helped. It is best that is done close to their homes where possible. However, if not, it is best that such claims from people who reach our shores are dealt with in a slow and methodical fashion far away from our metropolitan centres i.e. in places far enough away so as not to encourage illegal economic migration.

    2. It is morally irresponsible to encourage highly dangerous illegal trafficking routes across seas and mountains for instance. So it is vital that such routes are closed down e.g. by returning boats to Libya and Turkey ,destroying traffickers' boats and arresting/extraditing traffickers. Where they are operating out of failed states, unilateral military action may be necessary.

    3. We should actively seek refugees - up to a certain quota - whose values
    accord with our own e.g. atheists, secularists, Christians and Buddhists fleeing persecution in Islamic countries who (a) accept and wish to support our system of democracy (b) want their families to learn English and integrate into society and (c) one hopes will be able to contribute something to the UK.

    4. The refugee treaties do NOT require us to settle people in the UK even if they have a good asylum claim. It should therefore be our policy to resettle migrants in countries that accord with their values. Practicising Muslims who value Sharia over democratic law making should therefore be resettled in Sharia-based countries. We should be prepared to pay for their resettlement.

    *A pro-Tory body, don't ever forget.

  8. Such a ridiculous farce if I ever saw one, these individuals share a common mentality and if thats the best the BBC could find out of the swarm, then we should all really be concerned.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.