Parts of today's Mail on Sunday/Survation poll didn't surprise me in the slightest.
Those bits were the ones suggesting that the vast majority of British people still don't want to take in lots more migrants/refugees; indeed that a significant minority don't want us to take in any at all (not even a single one of them).
Very few, it appears, want to go above 10,000 here in the UK [somewhat lower than Mrs Merkel's 800,000 in Germany and the figure of 15,000 being mooted by the papers/the government here in the UK!], despite Anita Anand & Co's best efforts.
Very few, it appears, want to go above 10,000 here in the UK [somewhat lower than Mrs Merkel's 800,000 in Germany and the figure of 15,000 being mooted by the papers/the government here in the UK!], despite Anita Anand & Co's best efforts.
After all the emotive, manipulative reporting from the BBC (and others), it seems that most people in this country are still refusing to buy it...
...i.e. refusing to be emotionally blackmailed into going along with the 'consensus' - namely the 'consensus' of the BBC, other parts of the media, the leftists on Twitter and those signing petitions (probably the same people as the leftists on Twitter) calling for the migrants to be let in en masse.
(Politicians, like our present PM, appear to be much less immune to such reporting.)
...i.e. refusing to be emotionally blackmailed into going along with the 'consensus' - namely the 'consensus' of the BBC, other parts of the media, the leftists on Twitter and those signing petitions (probably the same people as the leftists on Twitter) calling for the migrants to be let in en masse.
(Politicians, like our present PM, appear to be much less immune to such reporting.)
That, of course, won't stop BBC reporters and presenters from keeping up their 'efforts' though.
Of that I'm quite sure. The 'onslaught' will continue.
Incidentally, both of the 9 am BBC programmes today mentioned this particular survey.
On The Andrew Marr Show Andrew Marr himself, introducing the Mail's headline, dismissed it with a quip about the reliability of opinion polls in the wake of the election.
Both of the selected paper reviewers (CNN's Christiane Amanpour and the Guardian's Owen Jones), later returning to the story, spoke from a strongly pro-immigration perspective. Andy briefly put in one point from 'the other side', as a question but the prevailing view of the assembled panel was plain to see - and, if that poll is correct, completely ignore.
On Radio 4's Broadcasting House the results were mentioned and Gaby Hinsliff of The Guardian sounded a worried but sceptical note about them. A Conservative peer confined herself to praising her leader.
Broadcasting House also gave us a report from Paddy O'Connell about a very nice chap who loves taking in 'asylum seekers'. That nice chap suggesting that those who oppose mass immigration are selfish. And his latest 'guest', a Muslim, was full of praise for him.
And on Radio 4's Sunday, earlier on, we had a "respected" Austrian cardinal (in Ed Stourton's words) promoting the migrants' cause...
...followed by a glowing tribute to Bradford Pentecostal pastor Benjamin Ayesu (an asylum seeker who fled Ghana in the 1990s), who devotes himself to helping other asylum seekers - 95% of whom are Muslim (who'd have thunk it in Bradford, eh?)
From all of this you could easily be forgiven for thinking that the BBC is very biased.
However, to be fair, Broadcasting House did also invite on David Goodhart, director of the left-leaning think tank Demos. David Goodhart is a rare public left-leaning intellectual who worries about the downsides of mass immigration. Here, however, he and Paddy pretty much stuck to recalling the past - Enoch Powell, etc.- on the issue of how to treat refugees. Old Enoch (my gran's favourite politician) didn't come too well out of that (perhaps intentionally).
So, on that basis, I think I'm not being wholly unfair in describing the BBC as displaying bias here.
Of that I'm quite sure. The 'onslaught' will continue.
*******
On The Andrew Marr Show Andrew Marr himself, introducing the Mail's headline, dismissed it with a quip about the reliability of opinion polls in the wake of the election.
Both of the selected paper reviewers (CNN's Christiane Amanpour and the Guardian's Owen Jones), later returning to the story, spoke from a strongly pro-immigration perspective. Andy briefly put in one point from 'the other side', as a question but the prevailing view of the assembled panel was plain to see - and, if that poll is correct, completely ignore.
On Radio 4's Broadcasting House the results were mentioned and Gaby Hinsliff of The Guardian sounded a worried but sceptical note about them. A Conservative peer confined herself to praising her leader.
Broadcasting House also gave us a report from Paddy O'Connell about a very nice chap who loves taking in 'asylum seekers'. That nice chap suggesting that those who oppose mass immigration are selfish. And his latest 'guest', a Muslim, was full of praise for him.
And on Radio 4's Sunday, earlier on, we had a "respected" Austrian cardinal (in Ed Stourton's words) promoting the migrants' cause...
...followed by a glowing tribute to Bradford Pentecostal pastor Benjamin Ayesu (an asylum seeker who fled Ghana in the 1990s), who devotes himself to helping other asylum seekers - 95% of whom are Muslim (who'd have thunk it in Bradford, eh?)
From all of this you could easily be forgiven for thinking that the BBC is very biased.
However, to be fair, Broadcasting House did also invite on David Goodhart, director of the left-leaning think tank Demos. David Goodhart is a rare public left-leaning intellectual who worries about the downsides of mass immigration. Here, however, he and Paddy pretty much stuck to recalling the past - Enoch Powell, etc.- on the issue of how to treat refugees. Old Enoch (my gran's favourite politician) didn't come too well out of that (perhaps intentionally).
So, on that basis, I think I'm not being wholly unfair in describing the BBC as displaying bias here.
You're not even remotely unfair here, Craig. The agenda is clear. Marr's show was nearly a case study from start to finish. I think the only moment where the agenda wasn't front and center was when Vince Cable was talking about some economics paper he co-wrote with slick Chukka. And if that doesn't give you nightmares....
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to draw your attention to the fact that two reports on BBC TV news (Friday 4th Sept) were changed dramatically between the 6pm and 10pm news slots.
ReplyDeleteOne from Caroline Whitehead with the Archbishop Welby ended with her paraphrasing him in a straightforward propagandising way: let them all in (this was at 6pm) . But by 10 pm she seemed to have interpolated some concern for the effects on people in this country from unrestrained migration!
Likewise the posh James political correspondent (the one who interviewed Cameron before the election) asserted boldly that the government had fallen behind the curve of public opinion on the migrant issue. As you righly point out, that is just BBC PC bllx and by 10pm he had changed his tune - - no mention of being behind the curve of opinion.
Sadly it seems you can't fact check these things via I-Player.
Thank you for pointing this out. I've found a video of James Landale saying just that, which I'll post now.
DeleteYouGov came out with another poll showing even more anti immigrant views among the people than the first one. BBC finally opened Have Your Say to comments about taking refugees and promptly went into melt down with all the highest rated comments strongly opposed.
ReplyDeleteSyrian refugees who left their homeland only five minutes ago are deemed to have no prospect of return & so must be resettled elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteSo why is it that the great-grandchildren of Palestine's 1948 refugees cannot be resettled but must instead have a right of "return" to a place where they have never lived?