Radio 4 has become an unrelenting PC Propaganda Station...more akin to Radio Moscow of the Soviet era than the Home Service, albeit that fascinating stories about how the tractor production quota in Irkutsk is being met have been replaced by fascinating stories about how the quota for ethnic minority actors in TV commercials is being met.
Virtually any time you tune in whether it's the Archers, Woman's Hour, a drama, a comedy programme or the news (especially), you are going to be hit over the head with the lead pipe of political correctness.
I tuned in to Today just before 9am today and heard the most supportive interview ever of some baiter from the Runnymede Trust telling us that Islamophobia is a form of racism...yep, no challenge whatsoever on that clearly bonkers proposition. Then after the news at 9 we had Douglas Alexander moralising about British people's failure to welcome migrants sufficiently or put their children into failing comps. Whites got a good going over whereas migrants' fears about their children mixing with the degenerate local folk was kindly referred to as concern for their children's educational prospects. It was so coded that a lot of it was probably going to be missed by the audience, but of course it had to be coded since to have been open and honest about things would have been incendiary.
I gave up at the bit where the current Pope (you know, the one who told us he will punch you on the nose if you insult his mother, and that goes for insulting people's religion as well) was treated as a font of wisdom on cultural, class and race mixing in modern Britain. He's from Argentina for gawd's sake where the biggest cultural divide is between people of Spanish and Italian descent. Big deal! He lives in an isolated city surrounded by a huge wall, where the legal system is based on the beliefs of a single religion and where there is no democracy. I really don't think he's got anything to teach us. If he wants an "encounter" he can just let into the Vatican the equivalent number of Sharia followers that we have.
Most of the people there looked like they were born well before social media was invented and in any case it is a fact (not a BBC Fict) that there was and always has been since Galileo a small minority of "flat earthers" i.e. before we had PCs and the internet was invented.
The purpose of this and all the other "mood music" stories is to get people to stop thinking for themselves and devolve to the BBC their capacity for determining the truth of things - in other words to sign up to the full PC, multiculturalist, degenderised, globalist wishlist of the BBC.
Radio 4 PM headlines a few minutes ago: A seventeen year old terror suspect in Cardiff is : "..white and British" Compare and contrast with numerous other reports.
Also in the 5 PM headlines: A Barbie doll wearing a hijab has been produced......
Debate on EU Withdrawal debate, 6pm News. Unbelievably the BBC devoted only 3-4 minutes to this and was very selective about whom we were allowed to see: the division in the Tory ranks was highlighted with footage of prominent rebels like Ken Clarke & Dominic Grieve, but of the rift in the Labour ranks there was no sign. Frank Field arguing in favour of the time limit was very effective so was edited out - a pity because his reminder to Benn that he, Field, had had to buy his house, whereas... was very funny. I only caught 20 minutes of the debate, but what I saw was a strong argument in favour of abolishing the Whip System: there was none of the usual baying & heckling & with MPs free to support like-minded members of the party opposite, the atmosphere was altogether more workmanlike than what we are used to.
10pm news - Tory rebels like Clarke and Grieve featured prominently as did a pro-Remain Labour MP. But Frank Field - prominent Brexiter in Labour ranks (likely to defy the Labour Whip) - was ignored.
I was also thoroughly p'd off to hear Huw "Curly Lip" Edwards refer to the bill as being "contorversial". How can bill that is simply implementing the Referendum decision, in line with the original EU Referendum Act be "controversial"? It is enough to say that the opposition parties are likely to attempt to wreck the legislation. It is only "controversial" to them...and the BBC of course.
Re: What I said above, I've just read the Telegraph's report on the debate from which it seems that Field was, in fact, subjected to baying & heckling from his own benches. It just goes to show the danger of watching only 20 minutes of the full debate...or, worse, the parts allowed through the BBC News filter.
Spent 5 hours in a car today. I’m cursed to not like listening to music for that long, nor do I have a DAB radio, much of an interest in football or podcasts which leaves me R4......
Don’t usually listen after PM and the “news” - OMG it’s like one continuous left wing PC multicultural fest. Which got me wondering who’s the target audience? Or do they not care? I can’t imagine much of it being popular with the grey vote.
Yep, I was writing above that the modern Radio 4 is more like Radio Moscow of old but with tractor quotas replaced by ethnic minority quotas and Marxist-Leninism replaced by PC Multiculturalism. The problem is that there isn't much to compete with Radio 4. There should be.
I do a fair amount of longish (2 hour) drives and have same problem. Music bores me. But R4 drives me mad. I often end up listening to "Talksport" - they talk complete nonsense, but it's usually good natured banter as opposed to the R4 diet of perpetual moaning from right-on feminists and liberals.
On you final point, double yes! The BBC really, really don't care about the audience. That's the beauty of the license fee system. There is no need for them to please their audience (which is on average over 60). They just please themselves!
And that's also why blogs like this one exist - so we can sympathise with each other!
It's always puzzled as to why the BBC and other media likes to feature tearful people quite so often. Whether it's on Remembrance Day, the London Marathon, the One Show, DIY SOS, Strictly and all other Talent Shows, in the aftermath of 'attacks', after court cases, in migration lines etc. - you name it, and someone will be welling up, saying 'I'm sorry', as the camera pulls away just a little bit too slowly.
I think the reason for this routine outpouring of emotion is in order to portray the BBC as a dependable emotional prop - a sympathetic ear -a man for all seasons, there when people are stressed or worried. The cynic in me says that at a time when interviewees are at their most vulnerable and tearful is just the right time to strike home with reinforcement of BBC core values - and we all know what those represent.
I'm reminded of a line from Monty Python taking the p out of those old documentary series like Man Alive (that's a title that wouldn't be allowed now!) which used to encourage its participants to shed some tears: "That's all right love, you go ahead and cry - just remember this film is bloody expensive...". You young uns will have to google on Man Alive.
On Remembrance Day, the featured (now deceased) ex-servicemen from WWI shown in black and white grainy film showed no emotion as they related the horrors of war, other than by the use of a hushed voice. Most returning servicemen from both world wars said very little about their experiences.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg with the corrupt and corrupting Clintons - there are also the assault allegations, lying under oath, Epstein, Podesta, rigged Democrat debates, the influence of Huma Abedin (from an extreme pro-Sharia Saudi family) and electoral fraud to name a few.
So why, given also this murky stuff, which they will have been well aware of, did the BBC decide to treat Hillary Clinton like something between Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc on her recent visit? No hard questions - just big lurv all the way.
It's shocking - knowing collusion on a Savile-like scale.
There have always been transnational or multinational group interests e.g. the Roman Empire, the Christian Church, the Hapsburgs, the Holy Roman Empire, banks, the Metternich system, the European Empires, oil companies...
It should hardly surprise us that in an age of computers, the internet, jet travel, mass migration, digital currency movements, moveable HQs, financial derivatives, hedge funds and so on, there should be an identifiable "globalist elite" with huge financial power that wants things done in ways that serves its interests: mass immigration, no borders, ability to move companies like chess pieces, PC multiculturalism to eradicate nationalisms, industrial production moved to cheap labour areas...etc etc.
Trailers are appearing for a BBC TWO programme next week: 'Labour: The Summer that Changed Everything'. This is typical of the BBC groupthink attitude of seeing only what they want to see.
Everything Changed? What changed exactly? Labour are still in opposition. Brexit is going ahead.
Everything changed for the BBC. They had to abandon their plan of replacing Corbyn with a Soggy Leftist more to their liking like Chuka or Yvonne. They are now having to try and turn Corbyn into a Soggy Leftist. Good luck with that.
Today on Today. Mishal Husain interviewing John McDonnell.
She tried to sound tough but it was the equivalent of demanding of an astrologist: "But you've got the moon rising in the 8th degree of the house of Capricorn! Surely it should be the 7th degree!"
In other words, she didn't challenge the basis of all his assumptions and predictions - McDonnell's basic assumption is that the economy will carry on delivering while he and Corbyn introduce Venezualan-style socialist policies. One thing the rich know how to do is move their money very quickly out of a country if they think the money is at risk. McDonnell's assumption is so foolish as to negate every other claim he makes.
I recall passports used to have a space to itemise how much money was being taken out of the country. Perhaps I'm misremembering much as exchange controls?
Think you're right about the passports...back in the days when people put a few quid extra in the children's socks when packing. But that was long before the days of digital currency flows. Corbyn and co. could of course still implement strict currency controls but then they would soon find the country starved of investment. Playing at being a Marxist is not easy these days starting from where we are. Of course they could go down the Chinese Communist route but that's a kind of state-sponsored crony-capitalism.
Yes a BBC survey, something the BBC Press Office manage to obscure with their overlay. And in any case can someone explain what "even with our eyes closed" is meant to mean? Odd phrase, or am I being a bit dense?
Yes, the survey really just confirms the BBC monopoly position on news thanks to the licence fee, proving the need to break it up.
Good to see though that Murdoch's news outlet, Sky, is doing better than the Guardian.
I would prefer to ask questions such as the following:
Do you now agree with the BBC's assessment that the Arab spring was a wonderful democratic unfolding across the Middle East?
Do you now agree with the BBC's assessment that Hillary Clinton is a wonderful inspirational figure for women everywhere?
Do you know agree with the BBC's assessment that the migrant wave of 2015 was composed largely of well meaning families whose members had much needed skills in our ageing societies?
Do you agree with BBC Newsnight's assessment that the housing crisis has absolutely nothing to do with mass immigration?
Rob's welcome preparedness to engage, albeit evasively from the off, has inspired me to again engage with the BBC, in the form of the seemingly trusted and transparent DPA department, who one can only hope is not going to make Rob look silly in their responses:
I know as he is tweeting like a good 'un, rallying support for the latest Marr shallow show.
Oddly, despite telling me to get back to him on my thoughts on dubious BBC Press office tweets about dubious BBC polls now and then, and me obliging, he has gone uncharacteristically quiet.
Hope I have not been reassigned, as can happen with the BBC for asking questions whose answers do not suit.
EU Council President Donald Tusk: ....Theresa May has been told she has two weeks to put more money on the table if the EU is to agree to begin Brexit trade talks before the end of the year....
Why do the BBC immediately dance to the tune of the EU in their reporting of Brexit negotiations?
It's almost as if we were being softened up to see failure as an inevitable consequence of not behaving like dutiful Europeans. We are such a disloyal people and deserve the beating we are surely going to get at the hands of the EU.
Anyone want to give up our pathetic bid for freedom and remain?
The BBC likes to keep the Milibands in mind and present them to us from time to time, lest we should forget. Late last night / early morning the World Service had the elder Miliband on Hard Talk about migration but in case anyone missed it, there is a repeat on the same station tonight at 11 06. https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl9p#on-now
As if that's not enough, while scrolling this evening, I had the misfortune to come across him on Channel 4 news, rabbiting about the EU. The little bit I heard, he said no one sensible would start the Article 50 process until they knew what they wanted and that it was reversible but it would be difficult to reverse it, having had the vote. Also we would be stronger in the EU than outside it.
Craig: May be of interest, if you haven't already spotted it. A programme on Radio 4 tonight about a poet from Cumbria.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09drl7v
It has been noted how the BBC like to take possession of events such as the RHS Chelsea Flower Show or the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, or sporting occasions. During the Strictly Come Dancing show from Blackpool there was a double stretch of credibility with regard to Northern Soul.
Not only did the BBC take possession of Blackpool for the weekend as they do once each year, but then, because of a tenuous link to a minor venue there, they are suddenly in ownership of the Northern Soul legend - applying their glitz and glamour treatment inappropriately.
Some half-hearted BBC News website coverage of Mrs Merkel's problems
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42057108
....German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she would prefer new elections to leading a minority government, after a breakdown in coalition talks plunged the country into political crisis.....
This sounds to me like a potential problem at the helm of the EU. We were all puzzled when the BBC announced a fourth term for Mrs M - when it was pretty obvious that a successful coalition was needed first.
Surely this is a huge issue for the EU. Where is the BBC's analysis - still at the groupthink scripting dept probably.
The BBC is careful to minimise negative news on the EU mainland. There was hardly anything about the French state of emergency that went on for two years. The Catalonian separatist referendum was declared to be "illegal" by the BBC. You hardly hear about the internecine Walloon v Flemish problems. The Commission v Poland/Hungary. The rise of the Far Right in places like Austria gets played down these days (whereas it used to be played up - difference is it no longer suits the BBC narrative now...it's the UK that's supposed to be seeing the rise in the Far Right and hate crime). Who would have thought that whole towns in Italy are now controlled by Nigerian mafia (subletting from the local mafia) - they are completely lawless places?
Merkel and the German Coalition story has all but disappeared from the BBC News website. Nothing on UK Home page, nothing on World Home page - just yesterday's article on the European Home page.
A crisis at the heart of the EU? The BBC doesn't think so apparently. Have the Beeb made yet another poor political judgment call in their unconditional support of Merkel?
It changed the BBC - previously cheerleader for a curiously snobby soggy left political position (probably descended from the Webbs and passing through Atlee, Gaitskell and Tony Blair)...now, following the election, in uneasy alliance with hardline Marxists who have a genuine interest in dismantling capitalism as opposed to the globalist welfare-dependency Blairite version of PC multiculturalism.
Really, really frightening...what's happening to our free culture - across what we used to call The Free World. This poor woman is being persecuted for exposing students to the ideas of a Toronto Professor.
And here's the BBC on Newsnight doing its bit to destroy a free press as well, giving full support to Stop Funding Hate's anti-free speech campaign ably abetted by Paperchase (from whom I will never again buy any tat). In its "impartial" report it's clearly validating this anti-free speech campaign.
The problem here is the "internet left" can call on large numbers who've never heard of paperchase or paid for a copy of the daily mail to create a "twitter storm" and panic paperchase's young liberal management team into capitulation. Whereas the majority who probably pass a paperchase shop and call in as they need a pen simply can't be bothered. Still the next time I need some overpriced writing paper I'll never use and a £16 pen to do the crossword I'll never use paperchase again, until I've forgotten all this nonsense, which will probably be Thursday....
Another day at the anti-Brexit office as far as Today is concerned.
A feature on Yes Prime Minister...what's that? Some nice piece of nostalgia for the oldies? Of course not. OK, a searing indictment of its sexist, transphobic and xenophobic narratives? Er, no actually. No, someone connected with the programme has written up a book about Hacker's perplexed musings on Brexit...cue 5 minutes of undiluted and unchallenged (rather, facilitated)second referendum propaganda.
Then an interview with two journos about a call from a couple of Tory MPs for the government to take advantage of German difficulties and not make an improved financial offer...No voice in support of the Tory MPs. What's the point? The BBC will tick this as representing pro-Brexit views!
I was only half listening to Newsnight towards the end...I could have sworn I heard Emily Maitlis babbling on about the Queen marrying in 1937 when Spain was riven by division...as now... But then I suffered one of those cognitive dissonance episodes...no, couldn't be - I might disagree with the Soggy Left PC Multiculturalism of the Newsnight folk but they are intelligent people and there is no way they could make such an error...
So it was true! - they had got the date of the Queen's wedding wrong by ten years. What does that say about the Newsnight Team general lack of knowledge or indeed concern for getting facts right. And how has Emily Maitlis wandered through life not realising that the Queen was only just out of girlhood in WW2 and that she married in the late 40s? And how could the producer and all the rest of the team not know?
And if they don't know simple facts like that what else don't they know? Maybe they just don't realise net migration contributes to the housing crisis, because they are very, very thick, rather than deliberately covering up the fact.
Either way, I feel this is the final death knell for Newsnight that has spent so long lecturing us about Fake News, Fake Facts and Donald Trump's tendency to fictionalise the narrative.
At the least it calls into question why Emily Maitlis thinks she is worth another £50k a year.
Emily Maitlis: That's all from us, but before we go, on the 20th November 1937, under grey skies and cheered on by thousands of well-wishers, Princess Elizabeth married Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten. Today, exactly 70 years later, the Queen and Prince Philip are celebrating their platinum wedding anniversary. Back then remember, Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe was about to change dramatically. The Conservative Prime Minister was engaging in crucial talks on the continent while facing mutiny from his own ranks back home. And Spain was in crisis as warring factions fought for control. But some things don't change, including these grey skies. Here are some pictures from that 1937 day. That's all from us here. Goodnight.
It's doubly embarrassing for her as she has whinged previously that "veteran broadcasters complained that [her appointment] was one more example of the rise of the “autocutie.’ "
Well, the kindest interpretation of this debacle is that she was reading the autocue without realising what she was saying.
I have to mention as well that earlier in the programme she referred to "the Crocodile" as one of the Generals in Zimbabwe. Her interviewee had to point out to her that he was not a general or indeed a member of the military. That's another pretty basic error.
It's time we stopped giving our elite the benefit of the doubt. Let's start with the assumption they can't add up, they don't know when the Queen got married, they can't keep track of political events and they have no insights to offer. Blair, Merkel,
Was he behind the infamous 9-1 pro-Remain Newsnight Panel of ordinary voters which they were so happy to feature during the Referendum campaign? Only on the BBC.
What other news agency apart perhaps from the New China News Agency or TASS would headline an article about Mugabe with "Hero or Villain".
The BBC once said it couldn't be neutral on apartheid...quite right and I'd say the same goes for violent tyrrany. Remember this guy literally starved people to death, had women assaulted, set vicious North Korean-trained troops on his people, to massacre them, presided over hyperinflation. The only thing I would say is the Zimbabwean people seem to rise above their leaders. One can only hope that Mugabe will be replaced by something a little better...
I turned on the Radio this morning and heard the end of an item on Radio 4's Today regarding religion and spirituality...I couldn't make head or tail of it for some seconds. There was a guy with an American accent blabbering on about religiose stuff like an Anglican Clergyman on speed. But he was being interviewed. This wasn't TFTD...so what was it? After all, the Today Team have very recently been complaining about how there is TOO MUCH religion on the programme! Now they are filling the rest of the programme with flaccid, or properly perhaps vaccuous, spirituality. Ah...but then I heard Mishal Husain intone the magic words: "Now of course, you're a Muslim..." and all became clear as if by a flash of light on the road to Damascus. The guy went on to indicate how Islam didn't dehumanise people - always treated the human being as human and an object of compassion. Hmmm...Taqiyya Radar on!!! I'm a Kaffir and I'm human and I know what Islam says about Kaffirs - e.g. calling us cattle (Mehdi Hasan's quotation from the holy writings). Then it was all over and they gave the guy's namne: Reza Aslan. Oh...him...
He is a notorious misrepresenter of Islam and Sharia and was sacked from CNN (yes even CNN couldn't stomach him) for his unpleasant remarks about Trump following the London Bridge terrorist attack (probably at that point he became a poster boy for the BBC).
There is I am afraid that the BBC is a deliberate facilitator of the spread of Sharia in this country in many different ways. The soft soap interview with Taqiyya merchants is one such way.
Radio 4's Feedback is now officially a JOKE. Supposedly an opportunity for listeners' feedback, this week it included a five minute advert for a comedy duo - Lazy Susan (who sound like the usual actresses pretending to be comics) - who have been awarded their own programme with no real explanation for what it was doing sat in the middle of the programme. Then they had that p-poor Head of Comedy previously referenced on this site (probably one of many) flirting with the interviewer. I almost expected the guy to say "My, you're a spirited little minx aren't you?" the way it was going. As for answering listeners' legitimate concerns it was a pathetic non-starter.
She did insist she was listening though. And Roger Bolton gave her a "Hallelujah" for that.
Of course, she'd actually spent this week's and last week's interviews basically saying that every listener criticism put to her was wrong, but still she SAYS she's listening, so that's all right then!
She didn't even bother with the "we've got it about right". It was "we've got it right." He only made things worse by cravenly suggesting there should be a 50% female-male comedy quota for Radio 4. Why is such an absurd idea even mentioned? And what about the trans in any case? Where are the trans comics these days? There used to be more in the past, thinking about it. No - they're cross-dressers you reply...they need their own quota...aaaaarrrgh!!! political correctness can and will drive you mad.
The answer to our new photo quiz (photo supplied by a loyal reader) is the Daily Express.
The foyer, he tells me, was designed by Owen Williams, and built in the 1930s, and it represented a change in newspaper printing in the Beaverbrook days, whereby as at Manchester and Glasgow, the news printing business was put on public display - courting openness.
It's relevance here, he writes, is:
"Those were the days when you could trust what you read, knowing that news stories had been properly investigated and faithfully reported.
"At present, you can’t trust what is written, said or photographed. Just consider the above image as representative of an era when we could believe in the media."
Not sure we could ever trust the media...always use your own judgement in assessing what you are being told would be my approach. I think more people do that than has ever been acknowledged. But it's a lovely foyer!
For the sake of accuracy, the reception area of the Daily Express building in Fleet Street was decorated in an extravagant Art Deco style and includes a dramatic oval staircase, all the to the (interior)design of Robert Atkinson. Polished metal wall panels, sculpted ceilings, serpentine handrails and contrasting bright reflective and black finishes all combined to replicate the exuberant style of an American skyscraper lobby. The sculpted murals were designed by sculptor Eric Aumonier.
Of the building itself: this, one of the first examples of 'glass box' architecture in Britain, was one of three similar buildings Owen William's worked on for Beaverbrook Associated Newspapers - preceding those in Manchester and Glasgow. Originally envisaged as a neo-classical design by architects H.O. Ellis & Clarke, the Fleet Street scheme that was built was a Williams redesign.
Interestingly, the BBC have recreated a similar hierarchical organisation of main centres in London, Manchester and Glasgow, but without any autonomy being granted to the latter two. I had high hopes when the announcement was made that Radio 5 Live and the Sports broadcasting services were to be switched to Manchester. In reality, 5 Live news and non-sport output has become a soft-centred outpost manned by the London Left recruits who sound as if they wish they could be brought back in from the cold, and return to the bosom of the Beeb in London. It might be interesting to see expense accounts for travel to and fro to the outpost.
Interviews are routinely conducted over the phone with 'stars' who also prefer to stay in London. Topics are pretty much liberal left, with appreciative interviewers gushing over the replies of their carefully selected guests.
When the planned move to Manchester was first announced, I remember relishing the thought that the BBC might be split into more of a regional structure - until, that was, they opened their upsized super plush New Broadcasting House in London thereby consolidating their predominance there.
Thus the Liberal Left culture of London pervades the Manchester establishment, denying any regional identity - endorsing the BBC belief put out to the world that London is the UK and the UK is London. The BBC cannot accept that there is an English identity that differs from the London Left model. In fact, as they do with any group that doesn't fit their pattern, they deride anyone who might disagree as racist, uneducated, far-right, or, old and out of touch. This, their mission, alienates huge swathes of the population, whose opinions are routinely disregarded - or polarised into a throw-away clip.
ps I forgot to add that the purpose of the glass-box design was to create an interface with, and involve the newspaper reading public of the day. Built in the 1930s, it represented a change in newspaper printing, whereby as at Manchester and Glasgow, the news printing business was put on public display - courting openness. I remember in Manchester when you could get a copy of the next day’s paper shortly after the pubs closed. The enterprise stood out in rainy dark Manchester. The lights were bright. You could look down into the basement where the presses were purring. Distribution wagons were standing by ready to rush the print copies to the railway stations and other distribution points. It was a hub of activity - buzzing with news.
This of course is in stark contrast to the BBC in Manchester or London, who give the impression of a strong message - Keep Out.
There is a paradox between the way in which the BBC sees itself, and a more widely held general view of their identity.
In the run-up to news broadcast on the hour, the BBC News Channel show a sentimental idealised view of New Broadcasting House portrayed as a global hub for digital streaming - with coloured lines representing links to near and far, to cities throughout the world. This must be the BCC as it sees itself.
Alternatively, New Broadcasting House can be seen as fortress London - inaccessible to all but invited visitors, who will support the BBC narrative, who are friends not foe.
Their building itself would be a design match to the Bank of England, which was designed originally by Sir John Soane as a self-sufficient fortress with its own water supply shortly after the Gordon Riots, so that its occupants could resist the siege tactics of aggressors. More recently it might resemble the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) Building at Vauxhall Cross, where the day to day business within its walls are by their nature, not to be shared with the public.
The image of fortress London is stronger in my mind. The entrance of that tuning-fork plan shape is quite suitable for a draw-bridge.
There is a contrast between the original Broadcasting House, which employed contemporary designers and artists to work on the building and which was intended to be accessible to the public, and New Broadcasting House, which cost £1 billion and is not.
The ex BBC TV Centre at Wood Lane also offered a welcome to visitors with a splendid reception area featuring a mural by John Piper.
The identity of the BBC as demonstrated by New Broadcasting House is introspective and secretive. The old Broadcasting house was built upon Modernist principles employing the likes of Coates, Maufe and Mendelsohn to design studios etc. In turn, Modernist design had some of its origins in European socialist ideas of community, equality, and as an instrument of social improvement.
It's true to say that these Modernists were also forerunners of the London Elite - Champagne Socialists - particularly Erich Mendelsohn whose house Bentley Wood was described at the time in the Architects Journal as 'a regular Rolls Royce of a house'.
Nick Robinson in the Mail on Sunday writing about - er - "Fake News".
This guy's unprofessional bias towards Remain even down to the built-in deniability of the "Of course I'm not suggesting that the Russian subterfuge swung the Referendum vote to Brexit but..."
And he's definitely in mote and beam territory. He comments darkly that in plain sight Russia has set up its own state funded TV station - RT - to influence opinion around the world. Er - yes, OK. But then what about BBC America and the BBC World Service and the BBC Pidgin Service?
And whilst he was happy to point to Russian interference in the Referendum he makes no mention of the direct interference of the US President and the Irish PM (who was actually going around campaigning in the UK!).
Most sickening when you look back over the years is that this "Russian interference" is not a new phenomenon. The fact is that the BBC never, as far as I can recall, exposed Soviet attempts to influence policy in the UK, through subsidising newspapers and magazines, recruiting agents of influence and creating subversive links with organisations like CND. In fact the BBC used the boo word "McCarthyism" to actively oppose attempts to expose such influence.
Another beam in the BBC eye is their Fake News refusal to address the serious social issue of mass immigration and its effects on our lives. For many years they peddled the idea that concern about immigration is per se racist. Now they refuse to accept any linkage between mass immigration and the housing crisis, the increased security threat, the pressures on the education system, pressures on the health system and the pressures on the welfare system...to name but a few issues.
The One Show had a feature on street cricket showing what appeared to be a hurriedly put together impromptu game on a patch of ground somewhere amongst derelict surroundings. Mention was made of the history of street cricket and how Moeen Ali was a product of this form of the game. I don't believe there is any such history to draw upon. It sounds like another fake news story.
And then on Radio 2 this morning was a trailer for a BBC Asian Network internet programme about ' ... Beards, Bails and Boundaries: England's Muslim Cricketers...
Cricket above all other sports has always been inclusive irrespective of colour or creed. It doesn't need any more of a push towards the BBC's Utopian dream. Why should the BBC be pushing fake news in this way?
Also, I found another reference
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/get-inspired/38963029
Why try to promote the idea that street cricket might gain the players access to the top level. Far better that they work their way up through the existing Club and County channels. That route is available to all - but only if the player has sufficient talent.
So Street Cricket is played in the main by Muslim men. Where is the equivalent women's version.? Now I guess you have to search long and hard to find that. Where is the BBC's balance by which they insist that the women's sport has equal coverage to the men's? Has it been dispensed with because of cultural issues surrounding a Muslim man's game?
Reminds me of the bollox stuff I read in comics in the dying days of Empire before the 60s properly kicked in...stuff about how British football players were so much better than the rest of the world because our children kick tiny tennis balls around rather than proper footballs...this in the era when England was recovering from being trounced by teams like Hungary and USA! lol
The worst of this ensemble of stories was that it was given a title within the Get Inspired label, a BBC initiative that they tag onto most sporting event coverage intended to get youngsters playing sport. Get inspired to do what? To play a corrupted version of cricket with partakers drawn only from just one minority ethnic group.
This can't be passed off as inclusivity - it's not even PC - it is the promotion of a group favoured by the BBC whereby in this case the BBC feel justified in ignoring their own standards of race and sex equality.
Yep...the BBC have made clear they will report you to your employer or school or whatever if they don't like your comments. Nick Robinson is right that the BBC is a dedicated news organisation - dedicated to stamping out free speech in the UK.
John Humphries introducing an item on Radio 4's Today this morning referred to the recent Islamic terrorist attack in Egypt as an example of "barbarism".
Quite right too.
But that made me think...has he or any other Today presenter ever referred to a UK terrorist incident as an example of "barbarism"? I'm not sure I've ever heard that.
Here's an example about a similar event in Enniskillen:
Only references are to a "bombing" and an "cxplosion".
Then here's the BBC on the 7/7 events:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33328716
"bomb attacks" and "extremist violence".
Again, nothing about barbarism.
It's interesting, if rather horrible, to think about what scale of attack in the UK would inspire John Humphries or anyone else at the BBC to call it "barbaric".
Call me cynical but I think there is a double standard in play here.
There is: deep down they loathe their own country (and the mugs who are obliged to pay their inflated salaries). Anyway, never mind, we have another royal wedding on our hands and television is going to be unwatchable (even more so!) for months on end. The only consolation is that lots of BBC journos are going to have to stand around outside in the cold waiting for the odd glimpse or soundbite of the happy couple. Has anybody commented on the similarity between 'Merkel' & 'Markle?'- good job Harry isn't dyslexic, isn't it?
Emily Maitlis seemed to be struggling again tonight on Newsnight during her "interview" or "interruptview" with the DUP spokesperson. She didn't seem to understand the points being made about electronic monitoring of the border as far as trade went, obviating a need for a "hard border".
Her sentences were garbled...she talked about "an imagination" as you might about "a fantasy" or "a chimera" which sounded very odd. Then she turned to Nick Watts who basically said everything she had thought impossible, the product of wishful thinking, was quite possible eventually given good will.
Newsnight has lost all credibility and is on its last legs.
Brexit Bias a-plenty on Today, Radio 4 this morning. Simon Jack - reporting on the great news that for the first time all banks have passed the annual stress test with flying colours - shows how to play Rules 12, 23 and 145 of the BBC Bias Code:
12. When it is good news for a Tory Government or indeed the country as a whole, do not use the words "good", "welcome", "reassuring", "excellent", "confidence-boosting". Such words are only to be used when there is a Soggy Left government in power and then they can be applied even if the news is not that good.
23. Where you don't wish to give credit for good news, find some area of concern however marginal (you can always find one if you look hard enough) and build it up into the biggest element in the story.
145. Always associate Brexit with unpleasant words and concepts. If necessary blur categories and definitions to achieve this result.
So for Rule 12, Jack managed to restrain himself marvellously, not uttering a single positive adjective.
For rule Rule 23, he was energetic in pumping areas of concern - including some frankly absurdist scenarios e.g. where the UK fails to bring in continuity legislation requiring insurance companies to pay up on policies previously sold under the EU. Does he for one moment think that likely?
For Rule 145, there was of course so much use of phrases such as "disorderly Brexit" and "armageddon scenario" etc that the idea there could be anything other than a disorderly armageddon-provoking Brexit appeared off the table.
Then we had "Nasty" Nick Robinson, the prominent Remain columnist in the Mail on Sunday, conducting a soft soap interview with Keith Starmer, the equivalent of giving the baby a bath. Despite the "I ask you again...", he let pass Starmer's pathetic wriggling on the question of whether some members of the select committee on Brexit would leak confidential information. It was interesting to note in passing how delicately Nasty Nick referred to Remainers on the Committee - some circumlocution like "those who oppose the government's policy on these issues". Can you imagine him being so politely obtuse if he was discussing Brexiteers likely to leak?
Nick Robinson - dedicated newsman, dedicated to stopping Brexit in its tracks.
BBC Local Radio, Radio Leicester recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of its opening. On a visit to Leicester, a few months ago, I found the whole concept of openness and accessibility to the local public had been somewhat neglected. The cafe and the shop were closed. There were disused rooms in evidence, with unused studio equipment on view.
This led me to believe that the BBC as a whole is becoming less welcoming in its dealings with the public - the licence payers. As I commented above in this record-breaking open thread, New Broadcasting House appears as a fortress to which access is limited. The 'public face' of the BBC is an amorphous grey mist which must be treated with suspicion.
When asked to register with i-player, we are looked down upon by images of Sir David Attenborough or Graham Norton. These must be the faces that are least distrusted by the licence payers in the view of the BBC. I refuse to watch i-player now online.
It's always been a good point. Who is "The BBC"? If I think who is "BP" for example do I think of the customer-facing staff at the petrol station or do I think of the CEO and his board. Who is "The Government", do I think of the staff at the Job Centre or Mrs May?
So yes, "The BBC" hides it's decision makers behind the dummies it puts in the shop window.
Behind every news item is a narrative and the narrative is decided at countless senior management meetings within the BBC that we never hear about (not just specific news narratives...but wider narrative about where society is going, what is the "good" society and so on). This is why the BBC is so dangerous because there is not a range of narratives on offer.
Yes, agreed. It’s quite simple really. Over the years bBBC has become a political organisation using its broadcasting remit to publish propaganda. Like any political parties it has a position and policy on the key issues facing the country and electorate. Hence the narratives. It is better organised and funded than the main political parties, recruits only like minded liberals and pays its key people very well. As a result, it can communicate its messages in a disciplined matter across its entire output.
The BBC are becoming a replica of the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, enotes.com tells us:
...Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)—This government ministry is concerned with creating propaganda, controlling the media, manipulating historical documents, and producing Newspeak dictionaries. It is where Winston Smith works and is responsible for supplying the citizens of Oceania with various forms of media, which support Big Brother and the Party's agenda...
The only slight confusion might be in 'Party agenda'. The BBC agenda is able to outreach the agenda of any singlempolitical party due to the unlimited funds that are available to them.
If you think about it, the BBC occupies a position above party political debate, looking down and seeking to control what is said and what the electorate is able to hear. They work as Puppet Masters. Whether you like Trump and his policies or not, he has been able to bypass the established MSM and go direct. All MSM including the BBC find this hard to take, and are doing their utmost to discredit him. Theresa May could take a leaf out of hid book - not in terms of policy, but to replicate his insticts as a shrewd tactician.
Thanks WW - it really will make it much easier to follow complex exchanges! I agree with what you say about the BBC as a political organization - perhaps they should just become a political party; they could call themselves the 'Anti-Democracy Front.'
How about the "The Soggyleftist Virtue Signalling but Tax Dodging Party" The SVSBTDP. No, on second thoughts, the Anti-Democracy Front is probably better. :)
Question Time: The usual balanced panel, with the one Brexiteer outnumbered 4 to 1 - 5 to 1 if you include Dimbleby. Our impartial Chairman has just observed with a disingenuous little smirk that 'There seem to be a lot of Remainers here tonight!' From the applause, the audience appears to be reasonably balanced BUT the choice of members invited to give an opinion has NOT - again, the majority have been Remainers. It looks as though the BBC/Remainer alliance is gearing up for one last determined push.
Dimbleby comes from a long line of Liberals...so there is no reason not to think that he is an extreme Remainiac. The Dimblebys had their own little media empire in SW London...David Dimbleby sold the papers in 2001. I recall they were viewed as sympathetic to the Lib Dems.
I see there's a profile of Priti Patel on Radio 4 this evening at 5 40. Presenter is Luke Jones. Who he? Could be interesting to see how they do it.
ReplyDeleteRadio 4 has become an unrelenting PC Propaganda Station...more akin to Radio Moscow of the Soviet era than the Home Service, albeit that fascinating stories about how the tractor production quota in Irkutsk is being met have been replaced by fascinating stories about how the quota for ethnic minority actors in TV commercials is being met.
ReplyDeleteVirtually any time you tune in whether it's the Archers, Woman's Hour, a drama, a comedy programme or the news (especially), you are going to be hit over the head with the lead pipe of political correctness.
I tuned in to Today just before 9am today and heard the most supportive interview ever of some baiter from the Runnymede Trust telling us that Islamophobia is a form of racism...yep, no challenge whatsoever on that clearly bonkers proposition. Then after the news at 9 we had Douglas Alexander moralising about British people's failure to welcome migrants sufficiently or put their children into failing comps. Whites got a good going over whereas migrants' fears about their children mixing with the degenerate local folk was kindly referred to as concern for their children's educational prospects. It was so coded that a lot of it was probably going to be missed by the audience, but of course it had to be coded since to have been open and honest about things would have been incendiary.
I gave up at the bit where the current Pope (you know, the one who told us he will punch you on the nose if you insult his mother, and that goes for insulting people's religion as well) was treated as a font of wisdom on cultural, class and race mixing in modern Britain. He's from Argentina for gawd's sake where the biggest cultural divide is between people of Spanish and Italian descent. Big deal! He lives in an isolated city surrounded by a huge wall, where the legal system is based on the beliefs of a single religion and where there is no democracy. I really don't think he's got anything to teach us. If he wants an "encounter" he can just let into the Vatican the equivalent number of Sharia followers that we have.
The BBC never stop, do they? It seems that Flat Earthers have been "convinced by social media" that the Earth is flat.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/must_see/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat
Most of the people there looked like they were born well before social media was invented and in any case it is a fact (not a BBC Fict) that there was and always has been since Galileo a small minority of "flat earthers" i.e. before we had PCs and the internet was invented.
The purpose of this and all the other "mood music" stories is to get people to stop thinking for themselves and devolve to the BBC their capacity for determining the truth of things - in other words to sign up to the full PC, multiculturalist, degenderised, globalist wishlist of the BBC.
Radio 4 PM headlines a few minutes ago:
ReplyDeleteA seventeen year old terror suspect in Cardiff is : "..white and British" Compare and contrast with numerous other reports.
Also in the 5 PM headlines: A Barbie doll wearing a hijab has been produced......
They have had a go at Morecambe...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/BBCRadio4/videos/1365199256922572/
Not going well in the comments.
Debate on EU Withdrawal debate, 6pm News. Unbelievably the BBC devoted only 3-4 minutes to this and was very selective about whom we were allowed to see: the division in the Tory ranks was highlighted with footage of prominent rebels like Ken Clarke & Dominic Grieve, but of the rift in the Labour ranks there was no sign. Frank Field arguing in favour of the time limit was very effective so was edited out - a pity because his reminder to Benn that he, Field, had had to buy his house, whereas... was very funny. I only caught 20 minutes of the debate, but what I saw was a strong argument in favour of abolishing the Whip System: there was none of the usual baying & heckling & with MPs free to support like-minded members of the party opposite, the atmosphere was altogether more workmanlike than what we are used to.
ReplyDelete10pm news - Tory rebels like Clarke and Grieve featured prominently as did a pro-Remain Labour MP. But Frank Field - prominent Brexiter in Labour ranks (likely to defy the Labour Whip) - was ignored.
DeleteI was also thoroughly p'd off to hear Huw "Curly Lip" Edwards refer to the bill as being "contorversial". How can bill that is simply implementing the Referendum decision, in line with the original EU Referendum Act be "controversial"? It is enough to say that the opposition parties are likely to attempt to wreck the legislation. It is only "controversial" to them...and the BBC of course.
Re: What I said above, I've just read the Telegraph's report on the debate from which it seems that Field was, in fact, subjected to baying & heckling from his own benches. It just goes to show the danger of watching only 20 minutes of the full debate...or, worse, the parts allowed through the BBC News filter.
DeleteI have captured an iconic image from this scene, like something out of a Renaissance mural. Looking for an App to convert it to paint.
DeletePlease ignore the 'what' in my last sentence!
ReplyDeleteSpent 5 hours in a car today. I’m cursed to not like listening to music for that long, nor do I have a DAB radio, much of an interest in football or podcasts which leaves me R4......
ReplyDeleteDon’t usually listen after PM and the “news” - OMG it’s like one continuous left wing PC multicultural fest. Which got me wondering who’s the target audience? Or do they not care? I can’t imagine much of it being popular with the grey vote.
Yep, I was writing above that the modern Radio 4 is more like Radio Moscow of old but with tractor quotas replaced by ethnic minority quotas and Marxist-Leninism replaced by PC Multiculturalism.
DeleteThe problem is that there isn't much to compete with Radio 4. There should be.
I do a fair amount of longish (2 hour) drives and have same problem. Music bores me. But R4 drives me mad. I often end up listening to "Talksport" - they talk complete nonsense, but it's usually good natured banter as opposed to the R4 diet of perpetual moaning from right-on feminists and liberals.
DeleteOn you final point, double yes! The BBC really, really don't care about the audience. That's the beauty of the license fee system. There is no need for them to please their audience (which is on average over 60). They just please themselves!
And that's also why blogs like this one exist - so we can sympathise with each other!
It's always puzzled as to why the BBC and other media likes to feature tearful people quite so often. Whether it's on Remembrance Day, the London Marathon, the One Show, DIY SOS, Strictly and all other Talent Shows, in the aftermath of 'attacks', after court cases, in migration lines etc. - you name it, and someone will be welling up, saying 'I'm sorry', as the camera pulls away just a little bit too slowly.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason for this routine outpouring of emotion is in order to portray the BBC as a dependable emotional prop - a sympathetic ear -a man for all seasons, there when people are stressed or worried. The cynic in me says that at a time when interviewees are at their most vulnerable and tearful is just the right time to strike home with reinforcement of BBC core values - and we all know what those represent.
"reinforcement of BBC core values"
DeleteNot so much a core value though keeping the Licence Fee at all costs is the core requirement for this showcase of woes to go on.
I'm reminded of a line from Monty Python taking the p out of those old documentary series like Man Alive (that's a title that wouldn't be allowed now!) which used to encourage its participants to shed some tears: "That's all right love, you go ahead and cry - just remember this film is bloody expensive...". You young uns will have to google on Man Alive.
DeleteIn sport as well, tears are expected from winners, their families, losers, and their friends and families, and spectators alike.
DeleteOn Remembrance Day, the featured (now deceased) ex-servicemen from WWI shown in black and white grainy film showed no emotion as they related the horrors of war, other than by the use of a hushed voice. Most returning servicemen from both world wars said very little about their experiences.
DeleteThanks to Not A Sheep who has highlighted this buried-away story from the BBC...finally admitting that the Clintons are under investigation:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41985863?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cmj34zmwxwjt/hillary-clinton&link_location=live-reporting-story
This has been around for ages! Even the NY Times was on the case two years ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
And this is just the tip of the iceberg with the corrupt and corrupting Clintons - there are also the assault allegations, lying under oath, Epstein, Podesta, rigged Democrat debates, the influence of Huma Abedin (from an extreme pro-Sharia Saudi family) and electoral fraud to name a few.
So why, given also this murky stuff, which they will have been well aware of, did the BBC decide to treat Hillary Clinton like something between Mother Theresa and Joan of Arc on her recent visit? No hard questions - just big lurv all the way.
It's shocking - knowing collusion on a Savile-like scale.
Collusion indeed. It may be paranoid, but harder and harder not to believe there's an organised globalist group that has the BBC as it's media arm.
DeleteThere have always been transnational or multinational group interests e.g. the Roman Empire, the Christian Church, the Hapsburgs, the Holy Roman Empire, banks, the Metternich system, the European Empires, oil companies...
DeleteIt should hardly surprise us that in an age of computers, the internet, jet travel, mass migration, digital currency movements, moveable HQs, financial derivatives, hedge funds and so on, there should be an identifiable "globalist elite" with huge financial power that wants things done in ways that serves its interests: mass immigration, no borders, ability to move companies like chess pieces, PC multiculturalism to eradicate nationalisms, industrial production moved to cheap labour areas...etc etc.
Trailers are appearing for a BBC TWO programme next week: 'Labour: The Summer that Changed Everything'. This is typical of the BBC groupthink attitude of seeing only what they want to see.
ReplyDeleteEverything Changed? What changed exactly? Labour are still in opposition. Brexit is going ahead.
Everything changed for the BBC. They had to abandon their plan of replacing Corbyn with a Soggy Leftist more to their liking like Chuka or Yvonne. They are now having to try and turn Corbyn into a Soggy Leftist. Good luck with that.
DeleteToday on Today. Mishal Husain interviewing John McDonnell.
ReplyDeleteShe tried to sound tough but it was the equivalent of demanding of an astrologist: "But you've got the moon rising in the 8th degree of the house of Capricorn! Surely it should be the 7th degree!"
In other words, she didn't challenge the basis of all his assumptions and predictions - McDonnell's basic assumption is that the economy will carry on delivering while he and Corbyn introduce Venezualan-style socialist policies. One thing the rich know how to do is move their money very quickly out of a country if they think the money is at risk. McDonnell's assumption is so foolish as to negate every other claim he makes.
I recall passports used to have a space to itemise how much money was being taken out of the country. Perhaps I'm misremembering much as exchange controls?
DeleteThink you're right about the passports...back in the days when people put a few quid extra in the children's socks when packing. But that was long before the days of digital currency flows. Corbyn and co. could of course still implement strict currency controls but then they would soon find the country starved of investment. Playing at being a Marxist is not easy these days starting from where we are. Of course they could go down the Chinese Communist route but that's a kind of state-sponsored crony-capitalism.
DeleteLarks.
ReplyDelete@RobBurley :You can have the last word, has found a new poll he likes, and it is explosive!
Ok, that it is simply another from the BBC, by the BBC, about the BBC may to some err on the dampsquibesque, but Rob is OVER THE MOON!!!!!!
Said poll is worth tracking down, not least for how it is laid out, which in itself is 'interesting'.
https://twitter.com/bbcpress/status/931117259791241216
DeleteYes a BBC survey, something the BBC Press Office manage to obscure with their overlay. And in any case can someone explain what "even with our eyes closed" is meant to mean? Odd phrase, or am I being a bit dense?
Yes, the survey really just confirms the BBC monopoly position on news thanks to the licence fee, proving the need to break it up.
Good to see though that Murdoch's news outlet, Sky, is doing better than the Guardian.
I would prefer to ask questions such as the following:
Do you now agree with the BBC's assessment that the Arab spring was a wonderful democratic unfolding across the Middle East?
Do you now agree with the BBC's assessment that Hillary Clinton is a wonderful inspirational figure for women everywhere?
Do you know agree with the BBC's assessment that the migrant wave of 2015 was composed largely of well meaning families whose members had much needed skills in our ageing societies?
Do you agree with BBC Newsnight's assessment that the housing crisis has absolutely nothing to do with mass immigration?
And so on...
I think you'd get a different answer.
Rob has entered the fray with yours truly.
DeleteI wonder if I ask him too many questions he can't answer he'll block me too?
https://twitter.com/PeterHoskinsTV/status/931054653969784832
DeleteThat guy is obviously suffering from a surfeit of impartiality. :)
It's not very seemly for our world class national broadcaster to get involved in a spat with the Sun...but still, it's very amusing.
I might have to get Manflu more often.
DeleteJust a few exchanges in and he is already pulling every BBC trick in the book, and looking bonkers in the process.
I may have to take a deep breath of Olbas Oil and sleep on round two,
The BBC Press Office thread in complement is also 'feisty'.
Beats chicken soup.
Rob's welcome preparedness to engage, albeit evasively from the off, has inspired me to again engage with the BBC, in the form of the seemingly trusted and transparent DPA department, who one can only hope is not going to make Rob look silly in their responses:
Deletehttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_bbc_and_the_twitter_blue_ver
Boom.
Small update.
DeleteRob Burley is around.
I know as he is tweeting like a good 'un, rallying support for the latest Marr shallow show.
Oddly, despite telling me to get back to him on my thoughts on dubious BBC Press office tweets about dubious BBC polls now and then, and me obliging, he has gone uncharacteristically quiet.
Hope I have not been reassigned, as can happen with the BBC for asking questions whose answers do not suit.
Boom boom.
More of the same here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42027859
EU Council President Donald Tusk: ....Theresa May has been told she has two weeks to put more money on the table if the EU is to agree to begin Brexit trade talks before the end of the year....
Why do the BBC immediately dance to the tune of the EU in their reporting of Brexit negotiations?
"Theresa May has been told" sets a bullying tone.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as if we were being softened up to see failure as an inevitable consequence of not behaving like dutiful Europeans. We are such a disloyal people and deserve the beating we are surely going to get at the hands of the EU.
Anyone want to give up our pathetic bid for freedom and remain?
The BBC likes to keep the Milibands in mind and present them to us from time to time, lest we should forget. Late last night / early morning the World Service had the elder Miliband on Hard Talk about migration but in case anyone missed it, there is a repeat on the same station tonight at 11 06. https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl9p#on-now
ReplyDeleteAs if that's not enough, while scrolling this evening, I had the misfortune to come across him on Channel 4 news, rabbiting about the EU. The little bit I heard, he said no one sensible would start the Article 50 process until they knew what they wanted and that it was reversible but it would be difficult to reverse it, having had the vote. Also we would be stronger in the EU than outside it.
Craig: May be of interest, if you haven't already spotted it. A programme on Radio 4 tonight about a poet from Cumbria.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09drl7v
ReplyDeleteI hadn't spotted it. Thank you. I hope it's going to include stuff like this:
DeleteHaving been to Cockermouth
I decided to go further south,
Walking with a heart that's never healed,
And found myself at Sellafield.
I'd rather be a poet from Cumbria
DeleteThan one from Umbria.
The job of the Umbrian bard
Is very hard
As he has t'
Find rhymes for pasta.
It has been noted how the BBC like to take possession of events such as the RHS Chelsea Flower Show or the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, or sporting occasions. During the Strictly Come Dancing show from Blackpool there was a double stretch of credibility with regard to Northern Soul.
ReplyDeleteNot only did the BBC take possession of Blackpool for the weekend as they do once each year, but then, because of a tenuous link to a minor venue there, they are suddenly in ownership of the Northern Soul legend - applying their glitz and glamour treatment inappropriately.
Some half-hearted BBC News website coverage of Mrs Merkel's problems
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42057108
....German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she would prefer new elections to leading a minority government, after a breakdown in coalition talks plunged the country into political crisis.....
This sounds to me like a potential problem at the helm of the EU. We were all puzzled when the BBC announced a fourth term for Mrs M - when it was pretty obvious that a successful coalition was needed first.
Surely this is a huge issue for the EU. Where is the BBC's analysis - still at the groupthink scripting dept probably.
The BBC is careful to minimise negative news on the EU mainland. There was hardly anything about the French state of emergency that went on for two years. The Catalonian separatist referendum was declared to be "illegal" by the BBC. You hardly hear about the internecine Walloon v Flemish problems. The Commission v Poland/Hungary. The rise of the Far Right in places like Austria gets played down these days (whereas it used to be played up - difference is it no longer suits the BBC narrative now...it's the UK that's supposed to be seeing the rise in the Far Right and hate crime). Who would have thought that whole towns in Italy are now controlled by Nigerian mafia (subletting from the local mafia) - they are completely lawless places?
DeleteMerkel and the German Coalition story has all but disappeared from the BBC News website. Nothing on UK Home page, nothing on World Home page - just yesterday's article on the European Home page.
DeleteA crisis at the heart of the EU? The BBC doesn't think so apparently. Have the Beeb made yet another poor political judgment call in their unconditional support of Merkel?
The Summer that Changed Everything...really?
ReplyDeleteIt changed the BBC - previously cheerleader for a curiously snobby soggy left political position (probably descended from the Webbs and passing through Atlee, Gaitskell and Tony Blair)...now, following the election, in uneasy alliance with hardline Marxists who have a genuine interest in dismantling capitalism as opposed to the globalist welfare-dependency Blairite version of PC multiculturalism.
Delete...and unfortunately the very fact that the BBC saw fit to make this programme is testament to all of that.
DeleteReally, really frightening...what's happening to our free culture - across what we used to call The Free World. This poor woman is being persecuted for exposing students to the ideas of a Toronto Professor.
ReplyDeletehttps://globalnews.ca/video/3867811/extended-excerpts-from-secretly-recorded-meeting-between-wilfrid-laurier-university-grad-student-and-faculty/?utm_source=Homegnca-national&utm_medium=MostPopularVideo&utm_campaign=2017
h/t to JimS on Biased BBC
And here's the BBC on Newsnight doing its bit to destroy a free press as well, giving full support to Stop Funding Hate's anti-free speech campaign ably abetted by Paperchase (from whom I will never again buy any tat). In its "impartial" report it's clearly validating this anti-free speech campaign.
DeleteThe problem here is the "internet left" can call on large numbers who've never heard of paperchase or paid for a copy of the daily mail to create a "twitter storm" and panic paperchase's young liberal management team into capitulation. Whereas the majority who probably pass a paperchase shop and call in as they need a pen simply can't be bothered. Still the next time I need some overpriced writing paper I'll never use and a £16 pen to do the crossword I'll never use paperchase again, until I've forgotten all this nonsense, which will probably be Thursday....
DeleteAnother day at the anti-Brexit office as far as Today is concerned.
ReplyDeleteA feature on Yes Prime Minister...what's that? Some nice piece of nostalgia for the oldies? Of course not. OK, a searing indictment of its sexist, transphobic and xenophobic narratives? Er, no actually. No, someone connected with the programme has written up a book about Hacker's perplexed musings on Brexit...cue 5 minutes of undiluted and unchallenged (rather, facilitated)second referendum propaganda.
Then an interview with two journos about a call from a couple of Tory MPs for the government to take advantage of German difficulties and not make an improved financial offer...No voice in support of the Tory MPs. What's the point? The BBC will tick this as representing pro-Brexit views!
The BBC has got into a small fix over 'what they might have said' before.
DeleteThis is a logical progression and solves the misrepresentation part.
If not the total lack of impartiality.
THE END OF NEWSNIGHT?
ReplyDeleteI was only half listening to Newsnight towards the end...I could have sworn I heard Emily Maitlis babbling on about the Queen marrying in 1937 when Spain was riven by division...as now... But then I suffered one of those cognitive dissonance episodes...no, couldn't be - I might disagree with the Soggy Left PC Multiculturalism of the Newsnight folk but they are intelligent people and there is no way they could make such an error...
Then today I read this:
https://order-order.com/2017/11/21/newsnights-royal-farce/
So it was true! - they had got the date of the Queen's wedding wrong by ten years. What does that say about the Newsnight Team general lack of knowledge or indeed concern for getting facts right. And how has Emily Maitlis wandered through life not realising that the Queen was only just out of girlhood in WW2 and that she married in the late 40s? And how could the producer and all the rest of the team not know?
And if they don't know simple facts like that what else don't they know? Maybe they just don't realise net migration contributes to the housing crisis, because they are very, very thick, rather than deliberately covering up the fact.
Either way, I feel this is the final death knell for Newsnight that has spent so long lecturing us about Fake News, Fake Facts and Donald Trump's tendency to fictionalise the narrative.
At the least it calls into question why Emily Maitlis thinks she is worth another £50k a year.
Oh dear, yes. Here's the transcript:
DeleteEmily Maitlis: That's all from us, but before we go, on the 20th November 1937, under grey skies and cheered on by thousands of well-wishers, Princess Elizabeth married Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten. Today, exactly 70 years later, the Queen and Prince Philip are celebrating their platinum wedding anniversary. Back then remember, Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe was about to change dramatically. The Conservative Prime Minister was engaging in crucial talks on the continent while facing mutiny from his own ranks back home. And Spain was in crisis as warring factions fought for control. But some things don't change, including these grey skies. Here are some pictures from that 1937 day. That's all from us here. Goodnight.
So poor EMs maths is very poor too ... ah these Arts Graduates just can't add up!
DeleteIt's doubly embarrassing for her as she has whinged previously that "veteran broadcasters complained that [her appointment] was one more example of the rise of the “autocutie.’ "
DeleteWell, the kindest interpretation of this debacle is that she was reading the autocue without realising what she was saying.
I have to mention as well that earlier in the programme she referred to "the Crocodile" as one of the Generals in Zimbabwe. Her interviewee had to point out to her that he was not a general or indeed a member of the military. That's another pretty basic error.
It's time we stopped giving our elite the benefit of the doubt. Let's start with the assumption they can't add up, they don't know when the Queen got married, they can't keep track of political events and they have no insights to offer. Blair, Merkel,
Sorry - I meant to say Blair, Merkel, May have all demonstrated very serious misjudgement in office.
DeleteOh dear again, and she couldn't even get the Croc's name right:
DeleteEMILY MAITLIS: So you will be prepared to swear in General Emmerson Mangawa if...
NICK MANGWANA (Zanu PF): He's not a general.
Maybe Newsnight should hire Emily's son?
DeleteHe also runs the kind of poll they like.
Was he behind the infamous 9-1 pro-Remain Newsnight Panel of ordinary voters which they were so happy to feature during the Referendum campaign? Only on the BBC.
DeleteNot sure he is yet in his teens.
DeleteBut it seems Maitless Minor was running political polls at school when more normal boys were likely playing footy or Xbox.
So yes, probably.
As if by magic:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/mister_kaay/status/933459223555473408
HERO OR VILLAIN?
ReplyDeleteWhat other news agency apart perhaps from the New China News Agency or TASS would headline an article about Mugabe with "Hero or Villain".
The BBC once said it couldn't be neutral on apartheid...quite right and I'd say the same goes for violent tyrrany. Remember this guy literally starved people to death, had women assaulted, set vicious North Korean-trained troops on his people, to massacre them, presided over hyperinflation. The only thing I would say is the Zimbabwean people seem to rise above their leaders. One can only hope that Mugabe will be replaced by something a little better...
This is the BBC who discussed dietary tips with a cannibal rebel commander 'to understand his motivations'.
DeleteYum, as Katty Kay, Rob Burley or Laura K may say.
Oddly the BBC News Website can't find room for this survey putting the Tories 4 points in the lead over Labour.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5108713/New-poll-puts-Tories-four-points-ahead-Labour.html
Narrative dislocation syndrome? They should be ten points behind, the way the BBC tells it.
Just had a bizarre exchange on Twitter with rob burley.
ReplyDeleteSaw he was active so mentioned I was looking forward to continuing the poll discussion.
He then seems to have had a mental breakdown.
Did he delete the exchange? I can't see it there.
DeleteNo. All still there for now as far as I can see.
ReplyDeleteSynopsis: he wanted to move our poll discussion off public to DMs. I felt that defeated the object of a debate.
He said he didn't have time to debate in public. But did in private?
He also introduced the notion it was 'an online fight', but it was he who told me to come back to him, which I did, politely.
He then claimed he couldn't remember what it was about.
FIN.
I have had this happen before with BBC staff and departments.
At least I am not banned or blocked. Yet.
In light of the two stories below, it's time to rename the blog:
ReplyDeleteIS THE BBC BIASED, INCOMPETENT OR BOTH?
Or is the BBC MENDACIOUS?
ReplyDeleteI turned on the Radio this morning and heard the end of an item on Radio 4's Today regarding religion and spirituality...I couldn't make head or tail of it for some seconds. There was a guy with an American accent blabbering on about religiose stuff like an Anglican Clergyman on speed. But he was being interviewed. This wasn't TFTD...so what was it? After all, the Today Team have very recently been complaining about how there is TOO MUCH religion on the programme! Now they are filling the rest of the programme with flaccid, or properly perhaps vaccuous, spirituality. Ah...but then I heard Mishal Husain intone the magic words: "Now of course, you're a Muslim..." and all became clear as if by a flash of light on the road to Damascus. The guy went on to indicate how Islam didn't dehumanise people - always treated the human being as human and an object of compassion. Hmmm...Taqiyya Radar on!!! I'm a Kaffir and I'm human and I know what Islam says about Kaffirs - e.g. calling us cattle (Mehdi Hasan's quotation from the holy writings). Then it was all over and they gave the guy's namne: Reza Aslan. Oh...him...
He is a notorious misrepresenter of Islam and Sharia and was sacked from CNN (yes even CNN couldn't stomach him) for his unpleasant remarks about Trump following the London Bridge terrorist attack (probably at that point he became a poster boy for the BBC).
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/what-took-them-so-long-cnn-fires-reza-aslan-after-he-called-trump-piece-of-st
There is I am afraid that the BBC is a deliberate facilitator of the spread of Sharia in this country in many different ways. The soft soap interview with Taqiyya merchants is one such way.
Radio 4's Feedback is now officially a JOKE. Supposedly an opportunity for listeners' feedback, this week it included a five minute advert for a comedy duo - Lazy Susan (who sound like the usual actresses pretending to be comics) - who have been awarded their own programme with no real explanation for what it was doing sat in the middle of the programme. Then they had that p-poor Head of Comedy previously referenced on this site (probably one of many) flirting with the interviewer. I almost expected the guy to say "My, you're a spirited little minx aren't you?" the way it was going. As for answering listeners' legitimate concerns it was a pathetic non-starter.
ReplyDeleteShe did insist she was listening though. And Roger Bolton gave her a "Hallelujah" for that.
DeleteOf course, she'd actually spent this week's and last week's interviews basically saying that every listener criticism put to her was wrong, but still she SAYS she's listening, so that's all right then!
She didn't even bother with the "we've got it about right". It was "we've got it right." He only made things worse by cravenly suggesting there should be a 50% female-male comedy quota for Radio 4. Why is such an absurd idea even mentioned? And what about the trans in any case? Where are the trans comics these days? There used to be more in the past, thinking about it. No - they're cross-dressers you reply...they need their own quota...aaaaarrrgh!!! political correctness can and will drive you mad.
DeleteSome light entertainment, with requisite sinister undertones.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MECcIJW67-M
The answer to our new photo quiz (photo supplied by a loyal reader) is the Daily Express.
ReplyDeleteThe foyer, he tells me, was designed by Owen Williams, and built in the 1930s, and it represented a change in newspaper printing in the Beaverbrook days, whereby as at Manchester and Glasgow, the news printing business was put on public display - courting openness.
It's relevance here, he writes, is:
"Those were the days when you could trust what you read, knowing that news stories had been properly investigated and faithfully reported.
"At present, you can’t trust what is written, said or photographed. Just consider the above image as representative of an era when we could believe in the media."
Not sure we could ever trust the media...always use your own judgement in assessing what you are being told would be my approach. I think more people do that than has ever been acknowledged. But it's a lovely foyer!
DeleteNot for nothing is the Express building nicknamed The Black Lubianka.
DeleteFor the sake of accuracy, the reception area of the Daily Express building in Fleet Street was decorated in an extravagant Art Deco style and includes a dramatic oval staircase, all the to the (interior)design of Robert Atkinson. Polished metal wall panels, sculpted ceilings, serpentine handrails and contrasting bright reflective and black finishes all combined to replicate the exuberant style of an American skyscraper lobby. The sculpted murals were designed by sculptor Eric Aumonier.
ReplyDeleteOf the building itself: this, one of the first examples of 'glass box' architecture in Britain, was one of three similar buildings Owen William's worked on for Beaverbrook Associated Newspapers - preceding those in Manchester and Glasgow. Originally envisaged as a neo-classical design by architects H.O. Ellis & Clarke, the Fleet Street scheme that was built was a Williams redesign.
Interestingly, the BBC have recreated a similar hierarchical organisation of main centres in London, Manchester and Glasgow, but without any autonomy being granted to the latter two. I had high hopes when the announcement was made that Radio 5 Live and the Sports broadcasting services were to be switched to Manchester. In reality, 5 Live news and non-sport output has become a soft-centred outpost manned by the London Left recruits who sound as if they wish they could be brought back in from the cold, and return to the bosom of the Beeb in London. It might be interesting to see expense accounts for travel to and fro to the outpost.
Interviews are routinely conducted over the phone with 'stars' who also prefer to stay in London. Topics are pretty much liberal left, with appreciative interviewers gushing over the replies of their carefully selected guests.
When the planned move to Manchester was first announced, I remember relishing the thought that the BBC might be split into more of a regional structure - until, that was, they opened their upsized super plush New Broadcasting House in London thereby consolidating their predominance there.
Thus the Liberal Left culture of London pervades the Manchester establishment, denying any regional identity - endorsing the BBC belief put out to the world that London is the UK and the UK is London. The BBC cannot accept that there is an English identity that differs from the London Left model. In fact, as they do with any group that doesn't fit their pattern, they deride anyone who might disagree as racist, uneducated, far-right, or, old and out of touch. This, their mission, alienates huge swathes of the population, whose opinions are routinely disregarded - or polarised into a throw-away clip.
ps I forgot to add that the purpose of the glass-box design was to create an interface with, and involve the newspaper reading public of the day. Built in the 1930s, it represented a change in newspaper printing, whereby as at Manchester and Glasgow, the news printing business was put on public display - courting openness. I remember in Manchester when you could get a copy of the next day’s paper shortly after the pubs closed. The enterprise stood out in rainy dark Manchester. The lights were bright. You could look down into the basement where the presses were purring. Distribution wagons were standing by ready to rush the print copies to the railway stations and other distribution points. It was a hub of activity - buzzing with news.
DeleteThis of course is in stark contrast to the BBC in Manchester or London, who give the impression of a strong message - Keep Out.
There is a paradox between the way in which the BBC sees itself, and a more widely held general view of their identity.
DeleteIn the run-up to news broadcast on the hour, the BBC News Channel show a sentimental idealised view of New Broadcasting House portrayed as a global hub for digital streaming - with coloured lines representing links to near and far, to cities throughout the world. This must be the BCC as it sees itself.
Alternatively, New Broadcasting House can be seen as fortress London - inaccessible to all but invited visitors, who will support the BBC narrative, who are friends not foe.
Their building itself would be a design match to the Bank of England, which was designed originally by Sir John Soane as a self-sufficient fortress with its own water supply shortly after the Gordon Riots, so that its occupants could resist the siege tactics of aggressors. More recently it might resemble the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) Building at Vauxhall Cross, where the day to day business within its walls are by their nature, not to be shared with the public.
The image of fortress London is stronger in my mind. The entrance of that tuning-fork plan shape is quite suitable for a draw-bridge.
There is a contrast between the original Broadcasting House, which employed contemporary designers and artists to work on the building and which was intended to be accessible to the public, and New Broadcasting House, which cost £1 billion and is not.
DeleteThe ex BBC TV Centre at Wood Lane also offered a welcome to visitors with a splendid reception area featuring a mural by John Piper.
DeleteThe identity of the BBC as demonstrated by New Broadcasting House is introspective and secretive. The old Broadcasting house was built upon Modernist principles employing the likes of Coates, Maufe and Mendelsohn to design studios etc. In turn, Modernist design had some of its origins in European socialist ideas of community, equality, and as an instrument of social improvement.
It's true to say that these Modernists were also forerunners of the London Elite - Champagne Socialists - particularly Erich Mendelsohn whose house Bentley Wood was described at the time in the Architects Journal as 'a regular Rolls Royce of a house'.
Trick question. It is of course one of the private lifts for publishers of The Independent, which is not a newspaper. But don't tell the BBC.
ReplyDeleteFAKE NEWS ALERT:
ReplyDeleteNick Robinson in the Mail on Sunday writing about - er - "Fake News".
This guy's unprofessional bias towards Remain even down to the built-in deniability of the "Of course I'm not suggesting that the Russian subterfuge swung the Referendum vote to Brexit but..."
And he's definitely in mote and beam territory. He comments darkly that in plain sight Russia has set up its own state funded TV station - RT - to influence opinion around the world. Er - yes, OK. But then what about BBC America and the BBC World Service and the BBC Pidgin Service?
And whilst he was happy to point to Russian interference in the Referendum he makes no mention of the direct interference of the US President and the Irish PM (who was actually going around campaigning in the UK!).
Most sickening when you look back over the years is that this "Russian interference" is not a new phenomenon. The fact is that the BBC never, as far as I can recall, exposed Soviet attempts to influence policy in the UK, through subsidising newspapers and magazines, recruiting agents of influence and creating subversive links with organisations like CND. In fact the BBC used the boo word "McCarthyism" to actively oppose attempts to expose such influence.
Another beam in the BBC eye is their Fake News refusal to address the serious social issue of mass immigration and its effects on our lives. For many years they peddled the idea that concern about immigration is per se racist. Now they refuse to accept any linkage between mass immigration and the housing crisis, the increased security threat, the pressures on the education system, pressures on the health system and the pressures on the welfare system...to name but a few issues.
The One Show had a feature on street cricket showing what appeared to be a hurriedly put together impromptu game on a patch of ground somewhere amongst derelict surroundings. Mention was made of the history of street cricket and how Moeen Ali was a product of this form of the game. I don't believe there is any such history to draw upon. It sounds like another fake news story.
ReplyDeleteAnd then on Radio 2 this morning was a trailer for a BBC Asian Network internet programme about ' ... Beards, Bails and Boundaries: England's Muslim Cricketers...
Cricket above all other sports has always been inclusive irrespective of colour or creed. It doesn't need any more of a push towards the BBC's Utopian dream. Why should the BBC be pushing fake news in this way?
Also, I found another reference
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/get-inspired/38963029
Why try to promote the idea that street cricket might gain the players access to the top level. Far better that they work their way up through the existing Club and County channels. That route is available to all - but only if the player has sufficient talent.
So Street Cricket is played in the main by Muslim men. Where is the equivalent women's version.? Now I guess you have to search long and hard to find that. Where is the BBC's balance by which they insist that the women's sport has equal coverage to the men's? Has it been dispensed with because of cultural issues surrounding a Muslim man's game?
DeleteReminds me of the bollox stuff I read in comics in the dying days of Empire before the 60s properly kicked in...stuff about how British football players were so much better than the rest of the world because our children kick tiny tennis balls around rather than proper footballs...this in the era when England was recovering from being trounced by teams like Hungary and USA! lol
Delete... Beards, Bails and Boundaries: England's Muslim Cricketers...
DeleteThis title itself is misleading. When playing for 'England' players are actually representatives of the England and Wales Cricket Board.
The worst of this ensemble of stories was that it was given a title within the Get Inspired label, a BBC initiative that they tag onto most sporting event coverage intended to get youngsters playing sport. Get inspired to do what? To play a corrupted version of cricket with partakers drawn only from just one minority ethnic group.
DeleteThis can't be passed off as inclusivity - it's not even PC - it is the promotion of a group favoured by the BBC whereby in this case the BBC feel justified in ignoring their own standards of race and sex equality.
I wouldn't fancy putting a complaint into the BBC on this. Who knows where it might take you.
DeleteYep...the BBC have made clear they will report you to your employer or school or whatever if they don't like your comments. Nick Robinson is right that the BBC is a dedicated news organisation - dedicated to stamping out free speech in the UK.
DeleteThe great Peter Kay from a very recent Republic of Ireland appearance...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqRdqjVR_2A
I don't think he could actually do this on BBC or other MSM in the UK.
It's called censorship folks and eventually it will kill you.
John Humphries introducing an item on Radio 4's Today this morning referred to the recent Islamic terrorist attack in Egypt as an example of "barbarism".
ReplyDeleteQuite right too.
But that made me think...has he or any other Today presenter ever referred to a UK terrorist incident as an example of "barbarism"? I'm not sure I've ever heard that.
Here's an example about a similar event in Enniskillen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20248737
Only references are to a "bombing" and an "cxplosion".
Then here's the BBC on the 7/7 events:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33328716
"bomb attacks" and "extremist violence".
Again, nothing about barbarism.
It's interesting, if rather horrible, to think about what scale of attack in the UK would inspire John Humphries or anyone else at the BBC to call it "barbaric".
Call me cynical but I think there is a double standard in play here.
There is: deep down they loathe their own country (and the mugs who are obliged to pay their inflated salaries).
DeleteAnyway, never mind, we have another royal wedding on our hands and television is going to be unwatchable (even more so!) for months on end. The only consolation is that lots of BBC journos are going to have to stand around outside in the cold waiting for the odd glimpse or soundbite of the happy couple. Has anybody commented on the similarity between 'Merkel' & 'Markle?'- good job Harry isn't dyslexic, isn't it?
Emily Maitlis seemed to be struggling again tonight on Newsnight during her "interview" or "interruptview" with the DUP spokesperson. She didn't seem to understand the points being made about electronic monitoring of the border as far as trade went, obviating a need for a "hard border".
ReplyDeleteHer sentences were garbled...she talked about "an imagination" as you might about "a fantasy" or "a chimera" which sounded very odd. Then she turned to Nick Watts who basically said everything she had thought impossible, the product of wishful thinking, was quite possible eventually given good will.
Newsnight has lost all credibility and is on its last legs.
Brexit Bias a-plenty on Today, Radio 4 this morning. Simon Jack - reporting on the great news that for the first time all banks have passed the annual stress test with flying colours - shows how to play Rules 12, 23 and 145 of the BBC Bias Code:
ReplyDelete12. When it is good news for a Tory Government or indeed the country as a whole, do not use the words "good", "welcome", "reassuring", "excellent", "confidence-boosting". Such words are only to be used when there is a Soggy Left government in power and then they can be applied even if the news is not that good.
23. Where you don't wish to give credit for good news, find some area of concern however marginal (you can always find one if you look hard enough) and build it up into the biggest element in the story.
145. Always associate Brexit with unpleasant words and concepts. If necessary blur categories and definitions to achieve this result.
So for Rule 12, Jack managed to restrain himself marvellously, not uttering a single positive adjective.
For rule Rule 23, he was energetic in pumping areas of concern - including some frankly absurdist scenarios e.g. where the UK fails to bring in continuity legislation requiring insurance companies to pay up on policies previously sold under the EU. Does he for one moment think that likely?
For Rule 145, there was of course so much use of phrases such as "disorderly Brexit" and "armageddon scenario" etc that the idea there could be anything other than a disorderly armageddon-provoking Brexit appeared off the table.
Then we had "Nasty" Nick Robinson, the prominent Remain columnist in the Mail on Sunday, conducting a soft soap interview with Keith Starmer, the equivalent of giving the baby a bath. Despite the "I ask you again...", he let pass Starmer's pathetic wriggling on the question of whether some members of the select committee on Brexit would leak confidential information. It was interesting to note in passing how delicately Nasty Nick referred to Remainers on the Committee - some circumlocution like "those who oppose the government's policy on these issues". Can you imagine him being so politely obtuse if he was discussing Brexiteers likely to leak?
Nick Robinson - dedicated newsman, dedicated to stopping Brexit in its tracks.
BBC Local Radio, Radio Leicester recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of its opening. On a visit to Leicester, a few months ago, I found the whole concept of openness and accessibility to the local public had been somewhat neglected. The cafe and the shop were closed. There were disused rooms in evidence, with unused studio equipment on view.
ReplyDeleteThis led me to believe that the BBC as a whole is becoming less welcoming in its dealings with the public - the licence payers. As I commented above in this record-breaking open thread, New Broadcasting House appears as a fortress to which access is limited. The 'public face' of the BBC is an amorphous grey mist which must be treated with suspicion.
When asked to register with i-player, we are looked down upon by images of Sir David Attenborough or Graham Norton. These must be the faces that are least distrusted by the licence payers in the view of the BBC. I refuse to watch i-player now online.
It's always been a good point. Who is "The BBC"? If I think who is "BP" for example do I think of the customer-facing staff at the petrol station or do I think of the CEO and his board. Who is "The Government", do I think of the staff at the Job Centre or Mrs May?
DeleteSo yes, "The BBC" hides it's decision makers behind the dummies it puts in the shop window.
Behind every news item is a narrative and the narrative is decided at countless senior management meetings within the BBC that we never hear about (not just specific news narratives...but wider narrative about where society is going, what is the "good" society and so on). This is why the BBC is so dangerous because there is not a range of narratives on offer.
DeleteYes, agreed. It’s quite simple really. Over the years bBBC has become a political organisation using its broadcasting remit to publish propaganda. Like any political parties it has a position and policy on the key issues facing the country and electorate. Hence the narratives. It is better organised and funded than the main political parties, recruits only like minded liberals and pays its key people very well. As a result, it can communicate its messages in a disciplined matter across its entire output.
ReplyDeleteManner
DeleteThe BBC are becoming a replica of the Orwellian Ministry of Truth,
Deleteenotes.com tells us:
...Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)—This government ministry is concerned with creating propaganda, controlling the media, manipulating historical documents, and producing Newspeak dictionaries. It is where Winston Smith works and is responsible for supplying the citizens of Oceania with various forms of media, which support Big Brother and the Party's agenda...
The only slight confusion might be in 'Party agenda'. The BBC agenda is able to outreach the agenda of any singlempolitical party due to the unlimited funds that are available to them.
And the unmatched number and reach of channels - TV, radio, website.
DeleteYes to all of the 'Anonymouses' (Anonymice?), above - perhaps you could have numbers.
DeleteIf you think about it, the BBC occupies a position above party political debate, looking down and seeking to control what is said and what the electorate is able to hear. They work as Puppet Masters. Whether you like Trump and his policies or not, he has been able to bypass the established MSM and go direct. All MSM including the BBC find this hard to take, and are doing their utmost to discredit him. Theresa May could take a leaf out of hid book - not in terms of policy, but to replicate his insticts as a shrewd tactician.
DeleteDONE! Anonymous 15:46 and 17:02 is now WeaselWordsBBC
ReplyDeleteThanks WW - it really will make it much easier to follow complex exchanges! I agree with what you say about the BBC as a political organization - perhaps they should just become a political party; they could call themselves the 'Anti-Democracy Front.'
DeleteHow about the "The Soggyleftist Virtue Signalling but Tax Dodging Party" The SVSBTDP. No, on second thoughts, the Anti-Democracy Front is probably better. :)
DeleteJust need to get some BBC labelling off my chest.
ReplyDeleteThe "DUP" has been replaced on R4 News has been replaced by the less catchy:
"theDUPwhichpropsuptheConservativeGovernment"
Question Time: The usual balanced panel, with the one Brexiteer outnumbered 4 to 1 - 5 to 1 if you include Dimbleby. Our impartial Chairman has just observed with a disingenuous little smirk that 'There seem to be a lot of Remainers here tonight!' From the applause, the audience appears to be reasonably balanced BUT the choice of members invited to give an opinion has NOT - again, the majority have been Remainers. It looks as though the BBC/Remainer alliance is gearing up for one last determined push.
ReplyDeleteDimbleby comes from a long line of Liberals...so there is no reason not to think that he is an extreme Remainiac. The Dimblebys had their own little media empire in SW London...David Dimbleby sold the papers in 2001. I recall they were viewed as sympathetic to the Lib Dems.
Delete