Wednesday 6 December 2017

Donald Trump, Fake news and the BBC

Our minds are being truly boggled by the BBC.

The term "fake news" was popularised by Donald Trump during his presidential election campaign last year. 
He used the term to denigrate the output of the traditional news media, although it is also used to describe news stories that achieve significant traction despite being palpably false. 
BBC journalists including Kamal Ahmed, Tina Daheley, Amol Rajan and Huw Edwards  will be telling students how to identify ‘fake news’. 

This in itself smacks of fakery pokery, but I do have to ask, will they be highlighting the BBC’s own social engineering project, the Today Programme? For example, for Mishal Husain’s oddly gratuitous, sugar-coated reports about British Muslims or Manuel Hassassian’s questionable statements in his entirely foreseeable meltdown.

Okay, so there are some very British Muslim farmers, who say the requisite words in Arabic whilst practicing an entirely humane version of Halal slaughter. Jolly hockey sticks.  
I’m sorry to say that John Humphrys was blatantly hostile to the Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat when he interrogated him this morning, abandoning all pretence of impartiality. (As they do when speaking to Israelis)

Of course Nir Barkat doesn’t understand the true extent of the BBC’s ignorance of the history of Israel nor the hostility with which the BBC approaches all Israeli spokespersons, and he might not be aware of the BBC’s gullibility with regard to the fakery pokery within Palestinian narrative.

John Humphrys reinforces his outrage by listing a cornucopia of hostile Arab States that have reacted badly to the American Embassy's intended relocation, and to Jerusalem being 'recognised as Israel's capital'. 
Those familiar with the non-revisionist history of Israel would accept Nir Barkat’s comments vis a vis Jerusalem as a given, but due to years of the BBC’s bias by omission, John Humphrys, and I’m sorry to say the majority of listeners, well versed in anti-Israel propaganda, will have found them arrogant and offensive. 
As for the threats of violence, which amount to tantrums from the Palestinians when confronted with reality, well, John Humphrys wasn’t afraid to bring the subject up,
The consequences will be massive, won’t they?
I don’t think so. 
You don’t think so?
and he immediately starts using the impatient, staccato delivery he reserves specially for expressing fury and exasperation.
But what they want is a two-state peace process don’t they, and.. This. Will. Destroy that process. Completely

Two-state peace process? Whatever. Move on and let us fast forward to ten past eight when a particularly adenoidal-sounding Jon Sopel joins the programme  to traduce Trump. Sopel is in even more Private Pike mode than usual. I do hope he’s remembered to put on his vest.

Humph and Sopel share the hope that Trump will back away from this. Boris is ‘concerned’.
Manuel Hassassian 'effectively the Palestinian ambassador' thinks ‘it’s going to be repercussions that will be very detrimental,’ and ‘violence will be inevitable’. Now John Humphrys’s indignation is directed at Trump, in sympathy with his interviewee.

Hassassian ups the ante: 
“He’s declaring war in the Middle East, he’s declaring war against one point five billion Muslims and hundreds of millions of Christians that are not going to accept their holy shrines to be totally under the hegemony of the Israelis”

John Humphrys seems to have calmed down.
“The Palestinians don’t have the wherewithal to declare war on the U.S.” says Humph. ”How will they prosecute their war?"
“The Palestinians will go down to the streets,” declaims Hassassian, “Let’s not forget what happened in the summer when the Israelis tried to close down the Al Aqsa Mosque… to the prayers… and you know almost an intifada could happen.”

Can you spot the fake news?

Sorry, but what with Mishal Husain’s saccharine ‘reports’ about British Muslims (why?) and a predicted avalanche of hostility towards Israel, I really do despair.

The only consolation and it’s not much of a comfort, is that some of the Tweets and comments I’m seeing are not wholly on message. 


  1. There is currently one of those rare BBC HYS stories about the 'perfect storm' to the British electoral system, which in Beebworld is one that is whipped up pretty much by Hurricane Vlad alone.

    Looking at the highest rated comments, the BBC may struggle to convince even the kiddies as to their commitment to exposing fake news, given everyone has seen through their blatant attempt to rig this one to suit.

    Not the best of starts.

  2. The BBC teaching you how to spot fake news is like a burglar teaching you how to secure your home.

    1. Surely that's too kind. A burglar might reform themselves and offer home owners genuine security advice. The chances of the BBC giving up on pro-globalist PC multiculturalism and advising the nation how to restore cultural self-respect and stop destabilisation through mass immigration are slim.

  3. If readers have the time to click on Sue's impeccably easy-to-access links, they'll hear the dramatic contrast between Humph's treatment of Nir Barkat and Manuel Hassassian. JH is on his high horse with Nir, while trotting meekly alongside Manuel. And Jon Sopel's disapproval of Trump's actions is plain to hear too.

  4. My dislike of Humphrys grows daily. The anti-Israel bias on the BBC is so relentlessly predicable and so lacking in any kind of critical thought that it’s difficult to find anything to say about it that hasn’t been said before. But it is the lack of any real objective analysis that is most telling. They just react, in order to confirm their SJW credentials - groupthink in action.

    Trump and Israel in the same story must be a gift to Beboids.

    1. It might be their downfall, these news stories display so much blatant bias most fair minded people see through it. bBBC damage themselves far more than the intended target. The majority of their audience is very aware of what is going on.

  5. Fake News from BBC Fake News Central:

    The always-Arabist BBC are claiming that the "world" has "condemned" the US's recognition of an existing reality - that Israel's capital is located in Jerusalem. Really? Well yesterday I heard from the BBC itself that both Czechoslovakia and Philippines were supportive and minded to follow suit. So that makes four countries at least with a total population of perhaps 400 million or so which have not condemned the action. There may be more who follow suit. So the headline is wrong. It might be acceptable to say that the "world" at least purports to condemn the trade in ivory; it is Fake News to claim that the "world" condemns Trump's actions.

    Also, note that the BBC themselves report France and Germany "do not support" Trump's decision. Not supporting is not the same as condemning. Condemning means "expressing complete disapproval of; censuring". To accept someone might have a different take on a tricky issue, but indicating you don't support their approach, is not the same as "condemning" their approach.

    The idea that deluded ego-maniacs like Huw Edwards are going to be teaching our children how to distinguish Fake News from Real News is absurd.

    This Jersualem thing is yet another example of BBC pure wish fulfilment as Fake News. The BBC don't really accept that the USA is solidly behind Trump's actions...they have it that Trump is completely isolated even within his own country, whereas he is simply implementing legislation backed by nearly all Democrat and Republican representatives.

  6. Oh to be a fly in the revolving door as Kamal, Tina, Amol, Huw etc are off out on manoeuvres and happen across James coming in...


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