MC sends this brief note about one particular example of the propaganda churned out relentlessly by the British Broadcasting Corporation:
The Beeb is a source of endless irritation to me. Auntie is old and heavily biased, but I still go back, a form of comfortable masochism, I suppose.
The photo above accompanied a BBC article with this title:
“Hungary deploys army to push migrants back to Serbia”
The picture is supposed to show migrants being sent back at the Hungarian border. So where are the migrants? All I see are unaccompanied women and their children.
“So who do you think you are kidding, Mr Hitler?”
Is the British public gullible enough? I suppose so, or else the Beeb would not do it…
I read the article. The Beeb seems to me, to be in favour of the status quo, to such an extent, that its critics on the left and right (in UK terms) are both convinced that it’s biased in favour of the opposing viewpoint, a remarkable achievement! (And somehow oddly British).
The ‘migrants’ chose their own fate, they know/knew the risks but decided to fling themselves on the mercy and goodness of the xtian societies, a form of emotional blackmail.
They exploit the kindnesses of the very civilization they claim to abhor and seek to destroy.
By showing a picture which is an intrinsic lie (they must have organized every woman and child in the camp for this), the beeb is not making hard political decisions any easier.
The BBC is unashamedly so-called progressive, pro-EU, pro-mass immigration and Islamophiliac- all this is supported by statements from a variety of senior BBC staff, who invariably wait until retirement to tell us the BBC treated mass immigration and EU criticism as taboo subjects for a decade at least.
Too many Beebers see themselves as social engineers not broadcasters or journalists.
Not quite on topic but I thought this might interest you……
Remember the correspondence from Standpoint magazine in 2013, re your link to the YouTube vid of Daniel Johnson at the Oxford Union??
Despite being conflicted I did continue to subscribe to the mag. This week I received an email asking for $$$ as they are having trouble making ends meet. Maybe karma does exist??
Ha! Maybe so!
poor ol’things. May they get all the karma they deserve.
I have been a longtime critic of the BBC and their leftist, pro islam, pro immigration slant on reporting. Every time they show shots of islamic immigrants, they always manage to present them as if the majority are women and children yet there is much evidence in other less biased media that by far the majority consist of well-dressed, affluent young men of military age.
The BBC has long been known as the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation because of its slanted, anti American coverage of the Iraqi war while its coverage of the post Charlie Hebdo “celebrations” was so pro islamic they even included an arab talking head who did little but denounce Israel.
Every British owner of a televisual or radio receiver has to pay for the privilege of being fed this type of disinformation by way of a special poll tax. I wondered what happened to Pravda.
The BBC is so culturally enriched seriously it can’t be viewed as giving a British perspective on the news. Few of their reporters or editorial staff seem to be ethnic British. If you watch a video report of what is happening in Iran, Iraq or Egypt for example, the reporter is likely to be national of those countries. So how balanced is their reporting likely to be?
The BBCs head of religious broadcasting is a muslim,need i say more?
Mark H commented that the BBC is accused by both its critics on the left and on the right of being biased towards the other side, yet this is precisely the position that the BBC routinely asserts as if to claim it is really “in the middle”, ie editorially unbiased.
After decades of being accused of being anti-Israel, the BBC eventually commissioned an independent report – and one could well imagine the politics involved in the selection of the investigator/author – to examine whether there was any basis to the accusation.
What were the findings of the report? We will never know because the BBC refused to release it, it quashed it; an act hugely telling in itself.
But it gets far worse. The BBC has subsequently spent tens of millions of pounds fighting in the courts to defeat attempts to force it to release the reports. The figure of tens of millions of pounds and counting – that is of course licence-payers’ money that could have been spent on producing TV programs – the last time I looked was, from memory, 40 or 50 million pounds. It can be easily checked.
So a broadcaster, publicly and compulsorily funded by every person who owns a TV or radio set, refuses to release a report that it commissioned to examine the question of whether it was biased on a particular issue. And squanders vast sums of money to sustain that refusal.
Further in the years of fighting the Freedom of Information requests to force the release of the report, the BBC not only engages the services of the highest quality lawyers – teams of solicitors and barristers – it pays, I am assured by connections in the London legal world, the top-drawer Queens’ Counsel (specialist trial advocates) daily rates above their usual daily rate. Even worse, it is rumoured (such retainer arrangements are confidential private contracts), the BBC pays other top-drawer QCs a retainer to deprive those who wish to see the report released the opportunity to employ them to act for them in the lawsuit. Once instructed/briefed/put on retainer, those lawyers are professionally prohibited from ever acting against the BBC in any remotely related litigation because they are “conflicted out”.
To create an analogy that may be more readily comprehended, imagine that you are a building construction firm facing a huge lawsuit for gross negligence in the construction of a building that collapsed: you firstly enlist the services of some of the best building construction lawyers in the land to act for you in your lawsuit and you then also put those construction lawyers that you don’t employ directly in that lawsuit on a retainer fee simply to stop them from being able to act for your opponents. The latter group don’t actually do anything to earn their retainer fees, they just collect for being removed from pool of lawyers the opponent could potentially engage to act for them. The building construction firm then, understandably, stands a very good chance of winning. This doesn’t happen in the world of building construction law because no construction company could afford to do it. But the BBC can and does because it doesn’t have to concern itself with trifling matters like how much it spends on lawyers.
What could be more damning of the BBC? Even the most virulent Israel hater should be concerned over these actions of the BBC because they constitute a breathtaking determination to waste licence fee payers’ money AND reveal the BBC’s spectacularly arrogant determination to do whatever it pleases at whatever the cost. There could be no more compelling argument for the abolition of the BBC – it is a media juggernaut beyond anybody’s control, including the market’s. Of course there exists some regulatory body which provides nominal oversight of the BBC, but it exercises very little real control. Pravda never had such freedom as it was answerable to the Politburo and the Secretariat of the Party’s Central Committee and, post-Stalin, there were always competing factions vying for control.
Not “tens of millions” Julius; a bit of Googling suggests around 1/4- 1/3 of a million for the Balen Report and legal costs. Still a disgrace, though.
Trouble is (I type through gritted fingers!) , freer media, unsupported by compulsory subscription, as in the US, are hardly more objective.
Mark H, the report cost the figure you cite (you don’t get much for 300,000 pounds these days), the litigation attempting to force the release of it has gone on for years with multiple applicants and thus multiple cases. And appeals from them. I’ve seen a figure of 20 million pounds years ago. Also the BBC has its own in-house legal department so the cost of their services is not included. Given the BBC’s determination to suppress the report, I wouldn’t rely on any figure put out by the BBC which the Grauniad would then reflexively adopt and which would be the figure found in Wikipedia.
They showed a Newsnight interview on the World Service this morning in which a BBC apparatchik was interviewing a French journalist about Nice. He was asking her what she thought the perpetrators motives were and when she started to respond – not in the way he wanted- he interrupted her and tried to feed her a load of Marxist claptrap like, social exclusion, lack of opportunity and training and,of course, the old chestnut, WAYCISM. At this stage the French lady retrieved the initiative and stated that, in her view, the reason for the attack was that the French Government had imported millions of hostile, crazy people who hated the host population, hated their culture and wanted to kill them all. At this stage, the interviewer cut her off and returned the broadcast abruptly to the studio. This is a typical BBC tactic.
Peter
” …the French lady retrieved the initiative and stated that, in her view, the reason for the attack was that the French Government had imported millions of hostile, crazy people who hated the host population, hated their culture and wanted to kill them all.”
Plainly that French lady holding such opinions is clinically insane and it was therefore entirely appropriate for the BBC reporter to terminate the interview!