"Lame news"

The previous two posts perhaps exemplify a phenomenon that has been christened "lame news" (as opposed to "fake news"), defined as "reporting that is deliberately designed to confuse, mislead and not actually reveal useful information". 

"Imagine what BBC comedy would be like if Trump wins"

Ed West, writing in The Spectator, makes the following point about a Trump triumph in November:

One unquestionably good thing about a Trump victory would be a fourth estate in opposition to the government, which is far healthier than the obsequiousness of the Obama era; this courtly attitude is magnified in Great Britain, where the current US president has almost never been the target of any satire or ridicule. Imagine what BBC comedy would be like if Trump wins.

Very true, though imagining what BBC comedy would be like if Trump wins isn't very difficult as we've had what feels like an endless foretaste of it already.

Just imagine though: the likes of Andy Hamilton, Susan Calman and Jeremy Hardy making 'Trump is stupid and evil' jokes every week for the next four or eight years and all those BBC studio audiences laughing their BBC studio audience heads off every single time. That's a consummation devoutly not to be wished, isn't it?

If the eminently mockable and untrustworthy Hillary wins, of course, Andy, Susan and Jeremy will stand down and stick to sticking it to the Tories, UKIP, Brexit supporters and OMG The Daily Mail instead, and we can all sleep easy in our beds.

"We" and the BBC

Ed West has an interesting article at the Spectator called, What’s the point of the BBC if we no longer share common cultural values?

His argument is that in the days when the BBC produced such marvels as Lord Clark's Civilisation, the corporation was speaking to a country that "had a clearer identity", a national sense of "we": 

There was also an understandable set of cultural values and attitudes shared by the population: attitudes to everyday moral questions, to our view of the past and our understanding of ourselves as a country. 

The BBC shared in that common culture. 

Then came the "counter-culture" (between the 1960s and 1980s) which "overthrew that old order" - a cultural revolution which sought to to rid us of that sense of "we" - rooted, as it was, in British/European civilisation and Judeo-Christian values -  and to replace it with something else. 

These revolutionaries "now assume they are ‘the’ culture (while also not admitting to their actual power, because being powerless is prized as a virtue)", and Ed notes that the people who run the BBC are "overwhelmingly" drawn from this new elite. 

Though they "now assume they are ‘the’ culture", many British people don't share their outlook and quite a few completely reject it. The common culture has fallen apart. There's no longer a common "we" for the BBC to speak to.

And therein lies the danger for the BBC; that what comes around goes around:

The liberal-Left faces the same problem that all regicides and revolutionaries do; once you have overturned the rules and assumptions of the previous culture, what’s to stop someone else doing the same to you?

And the even bigger danger (for the BBC) that its own 'reason for being' becomes untenable, as:

...if there is no ‘we’ anymore, common cultural institutions are harder to justify.

What first drew me into the world of 'BBC bias' blogs was the feeling that the BBC wasn't just unconsciously reflecting the worldview of the liberal-Left but was, to some degree, very consciously promoting that worldview - on issues like the EU, the benefits of immigration, the unalloyed advantages of multiculturalism, the correctness of spreading progressive social attitudes, etc...

...or, in other words, that the BBC was trying (very hard) to create a new common "we" for Britain - a "we" built on a sort of perpetual London Olympics 2012 opening ceremony vision of a happy-clappy, multicultural, socially liberal, politically progressive, NHS-idolising country. And as for those who don't like it, well, they could lump it - or be sidelined, barely tolerated or belittled. 

If the BBC had worked, much harder, much earlier, to assuage the disgruntled parts of its audience (however large or small they may actually be) by tackling what "we" continue to regard as the corporation's engrained institutional biases then it would, perhaps, be on much safer ground now. 

Well, possibly.

What is called Thought for the Day

Before I heard today’s news I was going to write about Ed West’s piece in the Spectator. Pegida and the Left’s morality play.

I mean he’s only saying what we’ve been saying for years, but perhaps more eloquently. I mean he is a professional writer so I’d bloody well hope so. 

(Kudos to Nick Robinson for articulating something I’ve been on about for years 

“I am not, though, required to be impartial between democracy and the alternatives.” I say true impartiality is the prerogative of the inanimate object.)

I'll paraphrase some of what Ed West says:

• The MSM gives a distorted account of multiculturalism. (Tick)
• 
  
• The Left  has always been a morality play in which the protagonist (the white liberal) rescued the stranger/underdog (Muslim immigrants) from the hostile prejudices of the conservative. (Tick)
• 
  
• The Left can’t admit that ‘new Europeans’ (Muslim immigrants) might “bring their own prejudices with them”. (Tick)
• 
  
• German/European guilt drives hostility to xenophobia and nationalism. Tick.
• 
  
• Diversity has become a religion. (Tick)
• 
  
• A liberal immigration policy that entails importing lots of illiberal people will necessarily mean the end of liberalism. (Tiiccckkk)

All these ticks. Said it all before. In the light of today’s atrocity in Paris all those ticks represent a very  regretful schadenfreude.

 So why is Angela Merkel still insisting that Pegida protesters are basically right wing racist Nazis? ‘No to Pediga!’ I noticed that Angela was careful to include a somewhat hollow sounding ‘No to antisemitism” in her plea. But really. When you’re defending Islam, which has antisemitism deeply embedded within, how sincere can you be with your ‘noes to antisemitism’? Or how naive.

The Guardian was keen to impress that the anti Pegida marchers far outnumbered the pro-Pedigas. So why, one has to wonder, was the BBC so full of the Pegida protests all day yesterday? You’d think the BBC would have concentrated more upon the backlash, as is their wont.

Of course after today’s atrocity, we’ll have to wait and see how long it takes before the backlash question takes over.

Priorities!

Why one might wonder, am I restating the obvious, which has little bearing on the BBC? Oh yes, I almost forgot. 

Did you hear it? Did you hear it this morning? Thought for the Day. It was a corker. 

“Lights out in Cologne” he called it. As soon as you heard the title you knew what was coming. You knew the gist, but couldn’t know the full extent of the deluded misguided Lefty sermonising until you heard the text.

So I’m going to flesh it out. 

“Not so long ago I stood on the steps of Cologne Cathedral in Germany and experienced the poignancy of being somewhere that had in recent history endured dreadful human suffering.”

That’s right, evoke the holocaust to associate yourself with compassion and righteousness. 

“Cologne is one of the cities to have seen growing protests against what is called the “Islamisation of the West”.

“What is called the Islamisation of the West”  This new-fangled, puzzling thing that, being a bishop, I don’t quite understand; and what, pray,  are the Beatles?

“What began as a small demonstration by a couple of hundred from the east German right wing has grown into marches of up to 18,000 people. And the majority of these people can’t be brushed off as wild neo-Nazis, although such people are deeply involved in shaping and leading the protests.”

He knows what “The East German Right Wing” are then! They’re not “what is called the East German right wing. They are in fact, undoubtedly and make no mistake, renowned Nazi trouble-makers, which bishops like himself know all about. They’re the wild neo-Nazis who threaten civilization and community cohesion, and they’re the leaders and shapers of these protests. 

“What is challenging about this phenomenon is how irrational some of the comment by protesters has been.”

Irrational is a word I’d avoid if I were you, Bishop. 

“According to some, all Muslims are to be seen as a threat to the blonde daughters of civilised Germans.”

Yes, there was indeed that soundbite. You know, the lady who said, rather pointedly, that she had four blonde-haired daughters. Let’s hope she was alluding to the disrespect ‘the immigrant’ has clearly and tragically shown to the likes of her infidel offspring rather than the supremacy of the Aryan race, which was the elephant-trap into which she stumbled. I’d prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt, but even if not - who’s to say she was representing the real Pergida?

(Get it? I’m sure you do. It’s an allusion to what is and what is not truly representative of the real you-know-what.)

“In language that will sound familiar on this side of the Channel, Germany is being swamped by Muslims – despite clear evidence in some of these places that the numbers of Muslims is very low.”

Bishop my dear, in this day and age - the internet, Instagram and the like, that’s hardly relevant. Everyone can see what’s going on these days. You’re a Tweeter yourself are you not?  It’s to do with disproportionate demands, refusal to integrate, backward cultural practices and shooting people.

“Why is it that in such matters perception is so much more powerful than reality?”

Right back at you Bishop Baines! 

“And why is it that the fires of fear are so easy to stoke when people generally begin to feel a bit insecure economically – or that we often feel the need to turn inward and focus our fear or resentment on the ‘outsider’?” 

Why indeed, and why the scare quotes round ‘outsider’? Even you must see, if you know the first thing about Islam, that they (Muslim immigrants) are the outsider, and the most religious, devout ones choose to remain so, deliberately and on purpose.

“ This is not to question the power of perception or the need for proper (and informed) debates about immigration and culture – at every level and from political leaders.”

Well. Au contraire. It absolutely is. That’s exactly what it looks like. Dismissing the Pegida protesters as mere Neo-Nazis is just that.

“But, it is to dig beneath the presenting rationalization for such protests and ask if all is what it seems to be – or what we would like it to be. Genuine motivation is not always immediately obvious, especially where fear or discomfort are concerned.”

Then start digging. It’s high time. 

“Read the Bible and you find ethnic cleansing, dreadful brutality and fear of those who are different. Yet, read the same Bible and you get injunctions to welcome the outsider, give hospitality to the asylum-seeker, feed the hungry, love the enemy as well as the neighbour, and drop the fear.”

Bible or no. You have to fear those who are intent on harming you. The West has already welcomed the outsider, given hospitality to the asylum seeker, fed the hungry and by God, even tried to love the wretched enemy. I mean. Open your eyes.

And the message is clear: we have a choice how to behave: be driven by fear and insecurity into suspicion and hatred of the other, or take the risk of dancing to a different tune.

Tell that to ‘what is called’ the outsider.  I hope the atrocity that has unfolded today in France has, if nothing else, opened a few eyes.

Who cares?

When I say that BBC insiders seem to be the only sentient beings who are unaware that the BBC’s influence is wielded irresponsibly, in the willy-nilly manner of those who don’t know their own strength, I immediately think of the way that your man in the street regards Israel. (sigh)

The recent news concerning Scarlett Johansson and the SodaStream factory, together with the Bethlehem Unwrapped debacle highlighted the magnitude of wrong assumptions that are generally held about Israel. Both these newsworthy occurrences showed how widespread is the reach of the BBC, with the inextricable Guardianista, left-wing affiliation that they steadfastly deny. Between them, no doubt boosted by the Islam factor, the BBC/Guardian umbrella has succeeded in vilifying Israel over decades, so that the word ‘Zion’ is now more or less analogous to ‘Nazi’, not just because of those spikey Zs and Ns, but because of the inverted ‘holocaust survivors turned oppressors’ meme that one casually encounters when least expecting it.

Incidentally, I have noticed a slight shift in BTL comments on Telegraph and Guardian blogs, especially since Daniel Birnbaum came on the scene, i.e. Newsnight. People are beginning to think.

“The settlements impoverish the Palestinians” Said Mr. Oxfam determinedly. Paxo tried to force Mr. Oxfam to admit it wants to shut SodaStream down and put 500 Palestinians out of work. He did it in a manner reminiscent of that infamous and hugely childish Paxo/Michael Howard stunt. But Oxfam wouldn’t. It merely repeated, in an almost equally repetitious fashion that the objection was “to settlements”. Despite the fact that Birnbaum trounced Mr. Oxfam, Paxo of the BBC still failed to grapple with the fundamentals such as why there is “an occupation” what are “settlements” and what is the biggest cause of Palestinians’ hardship. 

Elder of Ziyon wished Paxo had asked: "In the case of a peace agreement where the Sodastream factory ends up in Israel, would you want it to employ Palestinians?" 

(The factory is in an area that has been virtually allocated to Israel under the terms of land swaps already agreed by both sides.)

"How about in case of a peace agreement and it ends up in Palestine, would you allow an Israeli company like Sodastream to invest in the Pal areas?" 

"Then how does it make sense to insist they close today if it would remain in operation and employing Arabs no matter which side of the border it ends up on?"

Birnbaum allowed several defamatory and spurious accusations about settlements and illegality to pass, a necessary sacrifice in view of time constrains and the need to focus on the SodaStream issue. Nevertheless by concentrating on the benefits SodaStream brings to the Palestinian workers and the detrimental effect on them should Oxfam have their wish and the factory be removed, Birnbaum won the argument. I think and hope that any ‘undecideds‘ out there would have seen through Oxfam’s anti-Israel  bluster.

As for as the Bethlehem Unwrapped fiasco, I saw a video of the cringemaking closing ceremony. I spotted our old friend Zeinab Badawi amongst the attendees. Nigel Kennedy bounced up and down with his Kaffiyeh-clad mates and some Palestinian “dancers” cavorted around amateurishly. Justin Butcher thanked Lucy Winkett, and gave her  a “certificate”, and Lucy Winkett hugged Justin Butcher and thanked him for organising such a successful event. They both beamed with pleasure at their accomplishment (stirring up Jew-bashing.) The finale consisted of dancers streaming symbolically through the section of symbolic torn-down wall, accompanied by chants of “Free, Free, Palestine”. 

If that wasn’t agenda-driven outright Jew-bashing I don’t know what is.

I’d also like to mention something in a piece by Ed West, in which he is broadly sympathetic to Israel over some of these issues.   It’s just this bit:

“Still, many of the internet supporters of Israel are not exactly nuanced either, refusing to see fault in anything it does;.”

When people stop querying Israel’s right to exist its supporters can be free to criticise her without her enemies seizing on anything and everything negative and amplifying it to suit their hatred. “Refusing to see fault” is as unfair as it’s untrue. It’s only from a position of security that one can afford to self-critcise.  Ed West is being insensitive. He’s taking out each-way insurance. Covering himself against every eventuality by defending Israel whilst keeping in with the Jew-bashers and not aligning himself with Zionists.