Sunday 29 January 2017

On and on

It's worth noting that Sky News tonight is leading with:

...based on Boris's clarification:

,..which should take some of the hysteria out of the reporting over here, but probably won't, given that certain other broadcasters, namely the BBC, are doggedly sticking with their own inflammatory agenda: 

...complete with the following additional BBC website homepage stories:

British foreign secretary Boris Johnson's significant-seeming intervention is missing from the BBC website's homepage (and main article), remarkably. 


P.S. That 'Amateur hour at the White House?' article may come with a question mark but its BBC author, Anthony Zurcher, leaves his readers in no doubt that the answer is 'yes' and ends by opining:


P.P.S. A Twitter exchange tonight between an MP and a BBC presenter:
BORIS JOHNSON: Statement on what the Presidential exec order on inbound migration to US means to Brit nationals/dual nationals.
DOUGLAS CARSWELL: Seems some of the broadcasters' analysis of the US visa EO issue has been based on the content of their twitter timeline, not facts.
NIHAL (BBC): As someone who has been forthright in your condemnation of "angry nativism" what do you make of Trump's EO re immigration?
DOUGLAS CARSWELL: I'm still finding out about what the new US policy on visas actually means because I cannot rely on broadcasters to explain it. 

  • 1/2  - Trump's ban - Section 1 - 'US should not admit those who engage in acts  of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings)'...
  • 2/2  - ...'other forms of  violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own)'.
  • It would have been helpful if the White House geniuses had spelt out the dual nationalities exemption detail in advance....


  1. It's worth noting

    1. the word "Muslim" does not appear anywhere in the executive order. Ironically, this link to the full text of the EO from the NYT states "Refugee-Muslim-exectuive order" How about that for sleight of hand? ps://

    2 The list of countries is not Trump's. The list was complied by President Obama last year.

    3. The word "temporary" seems not to be included in any reports.

    I feel the need to point these out because the BBC won't.

  2. The BBC is like Mrs Doyle on Father Ted: "Go on, go on, go on..." will you have a cup of tea or rather Kool Aid in this case...the Kool Aid meaning you abandon Brexit, go full on anti-Trump, believe that Islam is a religion of peace and agree that any undocumented migrant should be allow entry into your country. Go on, go on, you know it's good for you.

  3. An unnecessary distraction? Zurcher is a fool. This is a very necessary distraction for Trump. Actually it's not a distraction to him, it's a distraction to the media, who he's got running around chasing greased pigs like children at a county fair. It's a major incident of him doing exactly what he said he was going to do, and immediately. This is one of the two main reasons people voted for him.

    Zurcher wouldn't understand that, of course, as he's only an 'expert' on US affairs.

  4. In the last few days, BBC News have crossed the Rubicon to a land where 'facts' are not adequately checked before hysterical shrieks from the likes of Laura and Marr are broadcast. One 'fact' after another has been found to be false. Now, News has become no more than a stream of biased opinion, and can no longer be relied upon.

    1. Oh I think it's been building for awhile. The post Referendum coverage and the US election campaign coverage also was largely hysterical and propagandist.

      The usual BBC claim for declining standards in any public service these days is "lack of resources" (i.e. money, i.e. the UK needs to pay more tax). But this is clearly not true of the BBC, with its enormous guaranteed budget every year.

      So the reason is managerial. Weak, ineffective, self-serving management. Or politically motivated conniving management.

    2. Highly paid management. Who seem to have the budget for more staff to 'check facts' in that unique way the BBC has, egged on by the bubble heads in the DCMS and Westminster. Ignoring a savvy public now have other options.

  5. Couple of observations:

    1. BBC bias seems to have become pathological. I can't hardly turn on the radio and not hear something ludicrously biased. Poetry Please on Radio 4 was a kind of sombre religious service designed to help us through these "dark times"! Women's Hour this morning speculating about post-Brexit loss of women's rights as though it were fact when it's just groundless speculation. Radio 5 Live had the useless Chiles opining that the "world" opposed Trump's travel ban. Neither Indian Hindus, Japanese, most Filipinos, Russians, sub-Saharan Animist and Christian Africans nor Han Chinese - between them a total population of over 3 billion - are that well disposed to the religion the BBC claims is the target of the ban. Has he consulted all 3 billion? Or has he just read the Guardian that morning?

    2. We need to call out the BBC on what I would call "Narrative Construction". Take the latest outrage in Quebec. We've no idea who the killers are yet - although some hints are emerging in the media. But the BBC is framing it as an "anti-Islam" crime, using photos of an alleged "hate crime" incident (pork recipe book left outside). The BBC must know that several such incidents in North America have been revealed later to be bogus but, regardless it prominently pushes this interpretation. If it does turn out to be an anti-Islamic terrorist incident we will have huge amounts of coverage going forward. If it proves to be an internecine dispute we won't hear much if anything more about it. It's a win-win for the BBC because either way it remains in the minds of the casual visitor to the website a violent hate crime. Also consider the difference in how Trudeau and Trump will be treated in these circumstances - no questinos of the type such as "Isn't it shameful that an incident like this can happen in your country under your leadership?"

  6. Latest Fake News on BBC Newsnight tonight. A female reporter I have not seen before (Yalda Hakim possibly?) did an emotive report informing us about her own feelings on the flight over, being nervous because, although an Australian citizen, she had been born in Afghanistan. (Was this an attempted set up).

    But what was really amazing was her claim that today Trump had reminded people that "a crackdown on Muslims" was part of his election campaign. I don't think I misheard it - "a crackdown on Muslims". She's claiming that's what Trump said today.

    I find that very difficult to believe so I call this out as FAKE NEWS.

    1. More than Fake New, it's a lie, actually. Nothing to do with where you were born, but where you just came from. The BBC has returned to being a deceitful propaganda outlet for left-wing ideology.

    2. You didn't mishear. That was very poor reporting.


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