Why does the BBC go out of its way to advertise the street addresses of Dover protesters but not Extinction Rebellion? Intimidation? Hopes of retribution?
He's comparing this BBC report:
with this BBC report:
It's a striking contrast, isn't it? It certainly shows bias.
It also ties in with the way the BBC's specialist misinformation unit has gone in for heavy, highly focused, critical coverage of the protests against Covid-19 restrictions, with lots of debunking and labelling, but has pretty much let the dangerous misinformation pushed by the XR and BLM protestors go without challenge or criticism.
Mike Wendling's BBC folk are increasingly resembling partisan activists.
Here's a little social media activity from this very afternoon, featuring the aforementioned Mike Wendling of BBC Trending:
BBC Trending: Last week journalist Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) from Vox News posted a video about the anti-gay and racist abuse he was receiving from rival video-maker Steven Crowder on YouTube. Now YouTube says anti-gay slurs do not break its rules.
DB: I see Mike Wendling & his BBC Trending team of SJWs are joining the left-wing media's attempt to shut down @scrowder's very popular YouTube channel. (Note the @BBCTrending tweet doesn't include [Steven] Crowder's twitter handle.)
Iconoclast: For info: Maza's bio: "I write Strikethrough for @voxdotcom. Marxist pig. Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist." Nice huh? Vox is a far left fake news outfit, so support from BBC Trending & Alt-left hunter Mike Wendling not altogether surprising I guess.
Mike Wendling, BBC: Confused. Did you read the story? Is there factual inaccuracy? (Also, why so angry?)
For the purposes of this blog, the question is more 'Is it biased?'
Well, the choice of subject is 'very BBC' (identity politics, bad social media, right-wingers 'in the wrong'), but the story is the story. And the BBC could be reporting it fairly.
Look though at the opening paragraph:
YouTube is one of many companies that has given its logo a rainbow-themed makeover to show support for LGBT rights - but, underneath the colourful veneer, a row has erupted over how the video-sharing site enforces its own hate-speech policies.
And then look at the closing paragraph:
With LGBT Pride Month just kicking off, it will be interesting to see how many other organisations will adopt rainbows across their brands, without necessarily backing the queer communities they are desperately marketing themselves to.
Though the first paragraph comes from the by-line-free main part of the report, the last comes from the closing 'Analysis' by the BBC's LGBT correspondent (oh yes, that really is his job title) Ben Hunte, and the narrative arc of the article is as perfect as a rainbow.
As DB and Iconoclast say, YouTube is surely being pressured by the BBC here to follow their favoured agenda here, don't you think?
That whole closing 'Analysis' from LGBT BBC Ben runs as follows:
Many professional LGBT video-makers will be familiar with uploading material online and instantly being tormented by certain audiences, solely because of their sexuality.
YouTube's take on this will disappoint the LGBT community.
It will surprise them that hurtful things considered hate speech and punishable by law in real life can simply be labelled "debate" online, and not require any repercussions.
With LGBT Pride Month just kicking off, it will be interesting to see how many other organisations will adopt rainbows across their brands, without necessarily backing the queer communities they are desperately marketing themselves to.
You might defend Ben here with 'The Katya Adler Defence'. Just as Katya is tasked with reporting what the EU says, so Ben is surely only reporting what the LGBT community are saying? Unfortunately, he lets himself (and the BBC down) with that word "desperately" in the final paragraph. It betrays his feelings.
As Mike Wendling might say, 'Also why so angry, Ben?'
BBC Trump-hating attention-seeker Emma Barnett is not having a good Trump visit. In her abysmal petulant interview with Sebastian Gorka yesterday, she claimed up to a million would protest Trump. This is from the BBC's website today. "Hundreds":.
T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men ends with his most famous lines of poetry: "This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper."
The Hollow Men of Lord Hall's mainstream media must have been thinking something similar when the news of the Mueller report's findings came through last night.
The New York Times at least didn't try to sugar the pill for its readers this morning:
So is this going to provoke some urgent soul-searching on the mainstream media's part?
I'm very intrigued to see what Paul Wood writes about it next. He's invested so much in ever-so-impartially giving the claims credence that his take on what went wrong with much of the mainstream media reporting on the subject - including the BBC's reporting and his ownreporting - would be riveting to read.
Will such soul-searching take place?
I turn, as we all surely must do, to the beating heart of the BBC - the BBC's World Affairs Editor John Simpson. He's surely the weather vane for the BBC here.
And - alas, not unsurprisingly- we see him reaching for straws and rolling on regardless.
"Being (apparently) cleared of collusion with Russia may help Pres Donald Trump win re-election. But Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal says even if there’s not enough evidence to prosecute him for criminal conspiracy, questions remain over whether Trump has been compromised."
"Anne Applebaum, Washington Post: Russia made extensive efforts, through hacking emails as well as information warfare, to help Trump win in 2016. Members of the Trump campaign knew this in advance. Trump publicly called on Russia to release information that would hurt Clinton."
I suspect he's going to be highly representative of Lord Hall's mainstream media.
I've been following a series of tweets from DB over the past couple of weeks or so, watching and waiting to see how things develop. Unlike much of the mainstream media, including the BBC, DB was onto how this story was likely pan out from the very start. (It broke on 29 January).
His latest tweet posts a thread on the subject by Amy Curtis that is well worth reading, especially after this 'breaking news':
The media won’t ask why, but I will.
He did it because he thought he’d get away w/ it. And he was almost right. The media bought it. Hollywood bought it. The left at large bought it. There wasn’t one ounce of skepticism. Not one hard line of questioning. Not one moment to pause before writing/tweeting support.
It fit the narrative perfectly. ORANGE MAN BAD. MAGA RACIST. No matter how implausible the story. No matter how ridiculous the circumstances. No matter how perfect. The left bought it. Hook, line, sinker. Jussie Smollett did this because he thought he could get away w/ it.
And while the police/DA may not let him (I’m pessimistic they’ll punish him, TBQH), the left won’t hold him accountable. He’ll be excused. “Living under the Trump regime made him do this!”.
You want another look at privilege? It’s Jussie Smollett. He used his privilege — his knowing the media/Hollywood would buy his lie without question — to further a political narrative they do desperately want to be true on a wide scale. They *want* more victims of hate crimes.
And in that privilege, Jussie Smollett has made it SO MUCH harder for the unprivileged ACTUAL victims of crimes to have their story heard and believed. To have something done to change that hatred when it REALLY happens and REALLY matters.
And the people who *should* be most upset about his lies — the supposed, self-appointed firefighter journalists and the leftists who claim to be champions of the little guy (including the Democrat 2020 candidates) — will ignore it. Excuse it. Blame Trump.
They’ll gladly throw real victims under the bus in order to give Jussie Smollet’s false story more weight than it deserves. That’s how much they “care.” About actual hatred. And about actual privilege.
Bearing in mind DB's tweets - including this from yesterday:
- I thought I'd review the BBC website's coverage [including a totals per article of the ways Jussie Smollett's name is used].
The BBC News website began reporting the story on 29 January, with a report headlined Jussie Smollett: Empire star victim of suspected hate crime in Chicago. It began, "Police in Chicago say they are investigating a suspected homophobic and racist attack on a star of the US TV drama Empire."
[Jussie Smollett - 1; Smollett - 4]
Report 2 came on 30 January, headlined Empire's Jussie Smollett: Stars show support after attack. This went through four versions and featured various celebrities reacting on the assumption that the attack was racist and homophobic. The link was made to Donald Trump's campaign. Its final version began:
[Jussie Smollett - 2; Jussie - 2]
Report 3 on 1 February, headlined Jussie Smollett: Police want to question two people over US actor attack, tells us "The suspects are reported to have shouted "racial and homophobic slurs" and Jussie says they referenced MAGA - the slogan Make America Great Again" and features more celebrities saying things like "another brother that has tasted the brutality of hatred and racism and bigotry."
[Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 3]
Report 4, also on 1 February and headlined Jussie Smollett speaks about 'racist and homophobic' attack for first time, begins:
[Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 3]
Report 5, on 3 February, had the headline Empire's Jussie Smollett: I will always stand for love. This began:
[Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 4]
The story then disappeared from the BBC website for twelve days until on 15 February, Report 6 appeared with this headline: Jussie Smollett: 'No evidence' Empire actor attack was staged. This was a piece that sprang to his defence, as you can see from the opening paragraphs:
Go down a bit and you read this:
As time has passed and no progress has been made with the investigation, some have cast doubts about Jussie's version of events.
The article goes into surprisingly little details about those doubts.
Later on the same day came Report 7, headlined Jussie Smollett: Brothers held over 'attack' on Empire actor. This was still on his side, but doubts had evidently begun creeping in:
[Jussie Smollett - 3; Jussie - 1]
With yesterday's Report 8, headlined Jussie Smollett: Suspects held over attack on actor released, the BBC seemed to emit a sigh of relief. This article began:
It's still on his side, isn't it? That said, look at the stats here and spot the change: [Smollett - 1; Jussie Smollett - 2; Mr Smollett - 1; Jussie - 0]
Today's Report 9 was originally headlined Jussie Smollett 'paid Nigerian brothers to attack him but has now changed to Jussie Smollett had no role in own attack, lawyers say. The BBC are obviously not giving up on Jussie (or their narrative) quite yet. The article, almost conceding defeat, originally read:
But, hope seemingly springing eternal, it now reads:
I've written a feature on Ilhan Omar, the first Somali-born US congresswoman, who's drawn praise and criticism since her election in November 2018 https://t.co/m03J5Ste71
The BBC’s Toby Luckhurst; (me neither) Google gives the impression he’s ‘Twitter’s Toby Luckhurst' rather than the Beeb’s since his work seems to be mainly in the form of Tweets.
Anyway, the BBC has given him a platform to express his admiration for Ilhan Omar, Minnesota’s newly elected Somali-American, hijab-wearing, antisemitic Democratic congresswoman.
I was alerted to this puff piece by D.B., who Tweeted a question to the writer on behalf of many of us.
Why have you cited a Guardian article supporting Omar? You don't link to any journalists criticial of her. Interesting use of loaded language on her behalf too - she gave "a powerful rebuke", she "fired back". & you finish by giving her the last word - playing the Muslim card.
Toby Luckhurst’s article shows that the fabric in the BBC’s cloak of impartiality is getting increasingly threadbare.
Ilhan Omar: Who is Minnesota's Somalia-born congresswoman?
Luckhurst has pitched the article in the style of an educational resource - Perhaps the BBC sees it as one of those “all you need to know” pieces that they favour. (Educating, informing and entertaining the masses.)
It’s divided into three sections, with, at number one: “Who is Ilhan Omar?” - “What do her fans think?” at number two, and last but not least, at number three “What do critics say?”.
This (concluding) section is lengthy but please don't be fooled. It doesn’t signify impartiality. Not at all; because a large proportion of it covers her apologies and excuses for her inadvertent (“innocent face”) transgressions and "mistakes". The author might believe that a section featuring criticism of Omar is enough to provide the requisite balance, but as DB points out, the language he uses throughout belies this.
The first two sections are virtually elegiac. 'Diversity!' and 'Racial disadvantage triumphs over racist white privilege’ is the none too subtle message.
"A refugee girl came here and achieved the American dream," Somali refugee Awmam Mahdi told the BBC.
Never mind the antisemitism and chronic “Israelophobia.” Her victory over the “181-year ban on headwear in the House of Representatives, allowing her to wear a hijab for her oath of office, and holds a place on the House Foreign Affairs Committee” is apparently regarded as progress for some reason.
I don’t think Luckhurst will have read 'I was forced to wear a hijab. It wasn’t liberating Why World Hijab Day is an insult to girls like me' by Soutiam Goodarzi, (Spectator(£) otherwise he might not have promoted this as an unequivocal and progressive triumph.
And Omar’s support for BDS is accepted uncritically, even though many of us see it as an abomination; both deeply antisemitic and an inherently hypocritical position for any users of Israeli-invented and manufactured medical and technological resources.
Her overt antisemitism is brushed aside by linguistic sleight of hand:
“She was embroiled in controversy over tweets which some have claimed are anti-Semitic.”
That’s straight out of the BBC’s weaselly “Israel says” formula.
Some have claimed......
“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #”
is antisemitic? Just a claim, then.
As DB has also pointed out, the only article that has been extensively quoted by Luckhurst is an opinion piece in the Guardian by a critic of Israel, and for those extra Brownie points, a notorious “asaJew”
Just from the last few weeks, the pro-Israel press provides a metaphorical bottomless pit of critical articles from which the author could have dipped into just to provide a modicum of balance to this would-be backgrounder.
This is but a mere handful of alarming information about Ilhan Omar's conduct, all picked up via Elder of Ziyon. But there's much more of the same out there, for those of a curious disposition.
Emily O'Reilly, the European Union's chief ombudsman (elected by the European Parliament), has slammed the European Commission for ignoring its own rules when appointing Martin Selmayr as Secretary General of the Commission last year.
She's ruled that the Commission committed four acts of "maladministration" by appointing Mr Selmayr as Mr Juncker's right-hand man in February 2018 and “did not follow EU law, in letter and spirit" and "did not follow the Commission’s own rules”.
Mr Selmayr, as you probably know, is playing a highly controversial role in the Brexit negotiations.
The European Commission has (in the usual way of such things) rejected her findings. Apparently, she's not been fair!
So Big News then about EU maladministration at the very highest level - something that's of obvious relevance to the ongoing EU membership debate here in the UK.
It will be interesting to see how the BBC reports this. So far there appears to be nothing.
The likes of the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express (as well as Politico) have reported it quickly - as you might expect.
So will the pro-Remain media, including the BBC, try to squash this story?
Let's watch and see.
Lead story on tonight's BBC News at Ten anyone? (No, me neither).
With BBC Panorama in the spotlight here's an interesting Freedom of Information request from 2012. A BBC Panorama producer got hold of someone's mobile number. That person wanted to know how. The BBC refused to say, playing the "journalism" clause.
Thank you for your request to the BBC of 09 July 2012, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’):
“My name is Chris Kerrigan and I was called by Andrew Head of the BBC programme Panorama. Can you tell me how my private mobile number was acquired.”
We can advise you that the information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion…
In the circumstances, the job title of the BBC lady who wrote that long refusal made me laugh:
Stephanie Harris
Head of Accountability, BBC News
Ah yes. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. And continually refusing FoI requests is accountability at the BBC.
Yes, the poor "Muslim man's request for an imam to be present at his death in Alabama" is the story for the BBC - another tale of poor hard-done-by Muslims in Trump's America.
And, as DB says, you do indeed have to go to the very final sentence of the BBC report to discover his crime: "He was sentenced to death in 1999 for raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl in 1995."
Less agenda-driven media outlets would have mentioned that earlier.
The "comical" nature of the first few versions of the report is made even more worse by the fact that the first three versions (the ones that don't tell you Mr Northam is a Democrat) mention "the Republican Party of Virginia".
Indeed, reading the original three versions of the report, I suspect most readers unfamiliar with Governor Northam would simply assume he was a Republican from the way the BBC wrote those versions.
Maybe one of that bevy of BBC beauties who DB copied in to his complaint had a hand in the report though, because the next updatedid introduce the word "Democrat". (Coincidence?).
The headline, however, is sticking with 'Virginia Governor Ralph Northam sorry for racist yearbook photo'.
To his credit, one beauty - Jon Sopel - replied to DB's tweet (though quite what he's "disagreeing" with in his first reply isn't clear!):
Jon Sopel: He’s a Democrat. There. And I disagree. I think the fact that he is a Democrat will intensify the pressure on him from liberal groups to fall upon his sword.
DB: It doesn't say so in this online report: https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1732817/diff/1/2 … If he was Republican the headline would say "Republican Governor..." and it would be mentioned again in the opening paragraph.
Jon Sopel: It should be...
Jon Sopel: Just checked on front page of BBC Website. Prominently says he’s a Democrat.
DB: But the actual report doesn't.
At which point the Twitter conversation stopped.
Anyhow, the front page of the BBC website (as accessed here the UK), as of 7 o'clock this morning, does not prominently say he's a Democrat:
The 'Chloe' BBC reporter John McManus was disagreeing with there is young, pro-Brexit Chloe Westley of the Tax Payers' Alliance - a hate figure for many on the Twitter Left.
Chloe was saying, "You know where poverty IS on the rise? Venezuela. Look forward to the Oxfam report on why socialism is an evil ideology".
On reading that the BBC's John felt the need to object and BBCmansplain to the young, white, right-wing, non-BBC female that BBC-style soggy-left Scandinavian social democracy is best.
Tonight may be Burns Night, when we, with our honest, sonsie faces, toast the haggis with YouTube videos of bagpipes and a more-than-wee dram of Aldi red. But others, some named after lesser poets, are busy toasting Nancy Pelosi (of all people):
You'll probably have guessed that Milton is a BBC journalist - to be precise a "BBC News Analyst/Correspondent (Views are mine not of the BBC)". And, yes, he's a proper BBC journalist, featured across BBC outlets.
"BBC News Analyst/Corespondent." They're blatant & they don't care any more because they know there's no chance of punishment. Anyone who claims the BBC is impartial is a liar.
Rabbie Burns, on reading Milton's tweet, might have said, "Ha! whaur ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie? Your impudence protects you sairly."
But, as DB says, it sairly the BBC that protects Milton's crowlin impudence here.
Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips served in the U.S. Marines from 1972 to 1976 but was never deployed to Vietnam
The BBC, which I suspected of largely copying-and-pasting their largely-wrong version of the story from like-minded papers like The Washington Post (plus CNN and Twitter), has been sticking with its original, largely-false narrative, long after it's been discredited (see earlier post and comments).
DB: The noble Native American not only lied about his interaction with the Covington boys, he lied about being in Vietnam. Looking forward to the BBC's report exposing his lies (won't hold my breath).
Jon Sopel: If I didn’t report it, why would I need to correct it?
DB: The BBC report still says "Mr Phillips - a Vietnam War veteran". That's not true. You are BBC North America Editor. What does that title actually mean if you don't take responsibility for what's written on the BBC US page?
*******
I wasn't holding my breath that Mike Wendling & Co. at BBC Trending would chronicle the whole fiasco, which began with mainstream media outlets seizing on an edited, context-free video which went viral (like the plague) on social media.
A perfect BBC Trending story, you'd think.
And it appears to be good thing that I didn't hold my breath, because they don't seem to be touching it with BBC-sized £3.8 billion barge pole.
What a surprise (not)! BBC Trending are very selective in the 'viral' stories they choose to report.
And here's that very The Young Talks video for your delectation, featuring alt-right-obsessed, left-wing, ever-so-impartial, senior BBC Trending guru Mike Wendling. Enjoy!
IV
This preceded the previous example of the BBC leaping on an anti-Trump story from a major US mainstream media source and swallowing and regurgitating it hook, line and sinker (see next-to-last post). Here the BBC, making it their top News Website story, leaped on an anti-Trump Buzzfeed story that, like an insubstantial pageant, dissolved and appears to have left not a rack behind, leaving the BBC scrambling, discreetly, to bury its tracks.
Oddly, Chris's take (and other would-be 'reality checks' across the BBC, and elsewhere) piled on just three examples - two throwaway, somewhat ambiguous comments and one co-authored letter with Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart.
And that was pretty much it. Where was the long, damning list of quotes?
And, to me, this actually, accidentally, showed that Boris had, in reality, made next to nothing of the Turkish EU accession question in the run-up to the EU referendum.
But "latch on" and make "a huge gotcha moment" of it the BBC tried to do nonetheless.
VI
This one was initially prompted by StewGreen:
Well done More or Less! The BBC's BBC Global Gender and Identity Correspondent (yes, really), to give her full official BBC title, certainly did get called out by Tim & Co, there. Ha ha.
For more on Megha from me and Sue, please click here. She's very BBC - not into Ivana Trump, a fan of Naomi Klein, someone who wants to explain explain arranged marriage "to white people", and someone who deleted a tweet damning pro-gay rights Ireland for backing Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest!
VII
And, OMG, here's something about Katty:
Yes, Katty actually just-about, in a roundabout, unspecific way, acknowledged that mainstream media types, leaped in too soon on the Buzzfeed Mueller story. but then - having, as DB noted, evidently learned nothing, was straight in their again on the Native American/MAGA-capped schoolboys media fiasco.
Oh Katty, as we approach Burns Night, please bear this good-natured advice in mind:
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.
.
