tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post5978647502921575245..comments2024-01-01T17:21:52.555+00:00Comments on Is the BBC biased?: New Year, Same Old BiasCraighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08741318067991857821noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-75689557646864356962015-01-07T02:06:07.403+00:002015-01-07T02:06:07.403+00:00Indeed, the BBC has continued the journalist pract...Indeed, the BBC has continued the journalist practice of dismissing a story out of hand because the wrong sort of people were talking about it. Both with the Tea Party movement and more recently Mark Mardell's admission that he and they dismissed the Benghazi scandal because only what the disgusting Beeboid referred to as Islamic hate sites were saying there was a problem, and it was difficult for him to discern any facts. All well-documented back at Biased-BBC.<br /><br />The Beeboids believe their job is to change the world, influence the national discussion and thought process on everything, to educate and change minds. Hugh Sykes had admitted (we get a lot of mileage out of that tweet, don't we, Craig?) that the BBC deliberately censors news that might "give permission for prejudice". In other words, the public must not be informed of something important if it leads to unapproved thoughts.<br /><br />The BNP/Muslim grooming gang story and the more recent Benghazi story are just two obvious examples.David Preisernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-41731284681074007372015-01-07T01:34:29.127+00:002015-01-07T01:34:29.127+00:00There's some truth in what you say. The B'...There's some truth in what you say. The B'NP were actually the first to alert to the horrific grooming scandal involving children and the failure of the authorities to deal with that. For a long time the media were resistant to accepting the truth of the accusation because it was seen as a racist, far right complaint. <br /><br />We really need to have a much more focussed debate on some of these issues within our political process. <br /><br />Why on earth is it considered somehow reprehensible to oppose Sharia as a dire threat to your nation and our values? <br /><br />Why on earth would anyone consider it a good idea to import a disparate bunch of people numbering as many as the people of Liverpool every year - some 500,000? The idea that you can carry on doing that year after year after year with no negative consequences is truly absurd. <br /><br />Dan Read <br /><br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-4111982741094076972015-01-06T04:58:56.265+00:002015-01-06T04:58:56.265+00:00I think it's more that they're biased agai...I think it's more that they're biased against people who aren't. Admitting that there might have been one or two negative consequences from rapid, mass immigration from third-world Muslim areas would be acknowledging that a racist was right about something. Can't have that. So they shift the debate to asylum seeker sob stories and other distractions.David Preisernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-90500778347105013572015-01-05T17:50:18.345+00:002015-01-05T17:50:18.345+00:00 The BBC limits immigration concerns by always g... The BBC limits immigration concerns by always giving emotional sympathy to immigrants and in this way anyone who feels otherwise is seen as nasty and callous. There is no room for rational arguments when the emotional strings to a story are played - this is a well calculated strategy and is dangerous to fair minded people who are being manipulated time and time again on this and other issues. It should be exposed as often as it can be for what it is --- biased reporting at its very worst. See http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/second-post-on-broadcasting-house.html Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-12513713336854022122015-01-05T12:46:51.467+00:002015-01-05T12:46:51.467+00:00That article by Richard Hamilton is a very reveali...That article by Richard Hamilton is a very revealing piece. <br /><br />Why would he feel guilty because he plays golf and people from other lands want to get into Europe? So many ethical assumptions. And it leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling on two points:<br /><br />1. Isn't it a kind of "luxuriating" in ethics? Unless you are prepared to take active steps to self-pauperise yourself till you get to the world average income, it's a pretty meaningless observation, from an ethical standpoint. <br /><br />The real ethical imperative is surely to do all we reasonably can to help people in poor countries enjoy better health and wealth. How we do that is of course a whole other debate. It's certainly questionable whether the BBC official policy of (a) support charitable intervention and (b) allow people to migrate from those countries works or whether it exacerbates the problem through a "brain drain and initiative deficit" effect and whether charitable intervention distorts home markets in a bad way. Personally I think we should pursue a strategy of (a) direct employment (how much cheaper it would have been in Afghanistan just to take 5 million young men on to the western payroll rather than fight them) (b) direct aid to poor people e.g. through export of solar power panels and associated equipment, through mobile phones and computers and (c) improving transport links within poor countries. <br /><br /><br />2. Is this what we pay BBC reporters to do: to indulge in some pretty shallow ethical reflections. <br /><br />Dan Read <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-9192435507948940032015-01-03T20:38:33.416+00:002015-01-03T20:38:33.416+00:00If you look at the sort of rubbish pumped out by t...If you look at the sort of rubbish pumped out by the Migration Observatory,one of my favourite "findings" of theirs is that mass immigration reduces house prices! LOL This despite the population increasing by about 400,000 per annum, nearly all as a result of immigration (or previous immigration) - as confirmed by ONS. <br /><br />So why didn't we hear from Migration Watch in programmes like this? <br /><br />Why is absolutely nothing negative ever said about immigration? We hear so much about our reliance on immigrants in the care sector - true enough - but we hear virtually nothing about, for instance, Muslims in the UK prison population being 13.4% - about 3 times their general representation in the population. <br /><br />No mention of bogus marriages, the modern slave industries (how much do you think those Vietnamese girls get paid for working in nail bars?), the benefits racketeers, the beggar and pickpocket rings...Why not? <br /><br />The BBC wants to have it both ways: it wants to appear to be reporting on immigration objectively, but on the other hand likes to put the moral arguments FOR immigration - without allowing any space for rational voices that put the case against mass immigration. <br /><br />Migration Watch has given the current government an easy ride on mass immigration - please note, recently ennobled Andrew Green... and that hasn't helped matters. <br /><br />Dan Read <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com