...and any other matters that take our fancy
TWTW with Mark Mardell was laughably biased. Began with what basically a Vote Lib Dem segment that went on for an eternity (well, 10 mins at least). Mardell might as well have directed appealed to the listeners to vote tactically in order to defeat the Tories. Ashdown was not ashamed to shout "Vote Lib Dem" twice into the mike...absurd. That was followed up with much more unfriendly stuff casting a cold eye over Lynton Crosby, one of the BBC's hate figures. They didn't even examine the sceptical case, that perhaps Crosby and other political witch doctors don't actually have much effect. He didn't win the election for the Tories in 2005 when up against Blair. If it had been Blair in 2010, it would have been much closer than it was (and even with Brown it was pretty close).
That's much as I heard it too. I groaned when I heard TWTW is being extended to an hour for the next four weeks.
This morning on Radio 4 The Few Not The Many...The agenda-bending is supercharged today! 1. First off the Radio 4 ideologues decide that in order to "heal a divided Britain" (as they would put it)they should run with the "you selfish old bastards have ruined everything and should get out of the way" line. So we get the usual old bull about the old v. the young: Tories = Old = Tight Fisted Fascists. The idea that the problems of the young (lack of housing, larger class sizes, fewer job opportunities, insecure work and poor pay) might be related to mass immigration and consequent population growth doesn't get a look in. 2. Start the Week with Andrew's Mate Amol (failed newspaper editor). Yep straight into Trump and Brexit bashing with a fake Post Truth Fake News show. At no stage did anyone show the slightest cognisance of the following facts:(a) The Government, Guardian, BBC and Independent wanted to fool the people of Britain that the "child" migrants coming from Calais were nearly all under 18 when it was quite clear that the vast majority were not. (b) The German government tried to suppress news of the event in Cologne on NY Eve events in 2015/16. The BBC, despite having a German-based correspondent took 5 days to report on the events. (c) The truth about the impact of mass immigration on our public serices and welfare system is being hidden. Had we been back in the late 15th century they could have been a bunch of monks complaining about how the introduction of the printing press had led to dissemination of fake news lacking the approval of Pope.
It’s not bias as such, it is more, I don’t know, stupidity? Or the BBC thinks that we-the-public are stupid. But twice today on Radio 4, just before the news, they ran an advert for the new, smart, BBC app that finds you more of the programmes that you like. This is the thing that you sign up for when you create an account on-line to listen to or watch BBC programmes on t’internet. The sign-up process requires your name, address and date of birth. Then, and this is why I’m posting, the lead story on the news was the current worldwide IT security breaches. When you sign up, the BBC has little explainers as to why they need your date of birth. It is all to do with adult content. Why can’t you just tick a box to say that you’re an adult?The BBC likes binary yes or no questions. My question to them would be – do you think we’re stupid enough to give you the information or are you stupid to ask for it. Unfortunately the answer might be ‘both’.I’m going to try and enrol using the W1A 1AA post code and a date of birth 20th July 1889 (same as Lord Reith).
One of Sue's previous postings was quite shocking- that just only over 1000 people complained to the BBC about their biased and manipulative reporting this year . The BBC must answer fully for their propaganda and realise that a public body cannot get away with fake news. Individuals who know it's wrong should complain directly to the BBC instead of chatting amongst themselves.
I watched 6 pm reports of party action and opinions. All I got was Labour and SNP all critical of Tory policies. There was no balance, in fact no reporting of Conservative responses except by the politically biased reporters such as Laura C, who must be the most personally opinionated of all. I do not want the opinions of her and other "reporters" who think their own opinion is more important than actual facts. Please let news be news and bring back points of view named as such.
I am getting increasingly irritated by the use of "Tories" in formal news reports e.g. Kemal Ahmed was at it today. Tory has always had the whiff of epithet about it, as it referred originally to supporters of the displaced Stuart monarchy. They don't refer to Labour as "the Reds" or "the socialists" or even "the Left" in their news reports. I accept Tory is not inappropriate in discussion, but surely during a formal campaign period, they should be sticking to formal names for all the parties, or abbreviations.
Just watching a programme about Morocco on BBC. Interesting but not exactly warts and all. The woman presenting it gives the impression that a youngish woman can share a taxi with the local men and have no fear of molestation...we don't see the male guards I am guessing she is travelling with. She is pumping in lots of positive references to the Religion That May Not Be Criticised...frequent references to trading and history...but oddly not a single mention of slavery so far - such an important element in trade in centuries past - or the position of women in modern Morocco.
Interesting how differently Macron is treated from Trump. Macron's words are simply reported with no reporting of opposition statements or negative vox pops. He is taken at his word. No suggestion is made that he might be insincere. No investigations are carried out into his somewhat weird private life going back over the years. There is no suggestion that he might find it impossible to keep to his wild campaign promises. There is no focussed reporting on the real challenges facing France as part of the EU, not least the 600,000 illegal migrants heading to Western Europe every year as the EU continues to fail to police its borders. But we know that Trump has never been allowed such kid glove treatment. The BBC report oppositional statements, make insinuations about his private life, suggest hi can't keep his campaign promises and question his sincerity or integrity.
More of the same from the BBC News website. Corbyn's photograph is again prominently displayed with red backcloth as the banner headline, and then (slightly smaller) Corbyn photographed at Manifesto launch. And, Corbyn with huge banner headline in the Live Election Latest section - in this section, anything about the Conservatives is way, way down the page. But where is Mrs May and the Conservatives? Nowhere to be seen - just a black and white photo of Mrs Thatcher in her early days with the tagline 'What pro-Tory Facebook really wants'. How does Mrs Thatcher fit in with Facebook? Where is the 'balance'?
This afternoon Laura K interviewed Corbyn on BBC News Channel. Very cosy it was too. Jeremy told us of his plans for the nationalisation of railways, water and energy. There was no mention of how this might play out in the Corbyn/Kuenssberg world of their preferred soft (if at all) Brexit. Laura Kuenssberg never asked any searching questions which might have put her new best friend Corbyn on the spot.
I came across how the BBC reports the strange case of Tanveer Hussain, the muslim athelete fighting the Trump travel ban http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-39138083 , who after being admitted to America, became an Indian paedophile sex attacker http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-38824358. Is the bBC trying to get him accused of apostacy too?