On Radio 4 this morning we had a classic example of subtle bias which can be worse than blatant bias if repeated often enough - as it is.
The topic was about the homeless and the reporter asked the homeless person a question in this way :-
" People believe that homelessness is caused mainly by drugs and alcoholic dependency but THAT ISN'T TRUE IS IT?
This allowed, the no doubt handpicked, homeless person to reply :-
" No it is not I was just made redundant...........etc"
So far you may not see the above example as bias but when I ask you to consider if a reporter would EVER ask a Conservative MP the question below you may understand where I'm coming from.
" People believe the Conservatives are still the nasty party but THAT ISN'T TRUE IS IT?"
Exactly - I rest my case.
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Monday, 21 December 2015
# 379 - war - The BBC and country matters.
Real country folk who understand and work in the countryside can see that the BBC's coverage of this subject concentrates on programmes 'about' the countryside and not 'for' the people in it. The BBC's take on country matters are slanted by their metropolitan editors who make their programmes for metropolitan viewers.
An interesting article by Tim Bonner, who is Chief Executive of The Countryside Alliance (CLA) takes the BBC presenter Chris Packham to tasks for his high profile engagement with the political animal rights campaigns on social media and in an article in the BBC's Wildlife magazine.
BBC reporters are not allowed to express controversial views on the BBC or even in print something Chris Packman has ignored with his overt criticism of fox hunting, game shooters, The National Trust, Wildlife Trusts and even the RSPB of which he is vice-President.
The CLA has complained to the BBC but only received the usual list of standard excuses that Chris Packman is a contract employee, BBC magazines being a separate division and that he is not actually presenting 'at the moment'.
Interestingly when Rod Liddle, while working for the BBC, wrote in a national newspaper about "belch-filled dining rooms" of countryside supporters it was one of the things that eventually lead to him resigning after he was told that was "not acceptable " and "did not square with the BBC's obligation to be impartial or seen to be impartial." Clearly there was one rule for Rod Liddle and is another for Chris Packham.
So here again we have the clear double standards of an organisation that is far too large, too big for its boots, is out of control and with very poor weak leadership.
The BBC is oblivious and immune to criticism and is thus able to ' get away with murder.'
An interesting article by Tim Bonner, who is Chief Executive of The Countryside Alliance (CLA) takes the BBC presenter Chris Packham to tasks for his high profile engagement with the political animal rights campaigns on social media and in an article in the BBC's Wildlife magazine.
BBC reporters are not allowed to express controversial views on the BBC or even in print something Chris Packman has ignored with his overt criticism of fox hunting, game shooters, The National Trust, Wildlife Trusts and even the RSPB of which he is vice-President.
The CLA has complained to the BBC but only received the usual list of standard excuses that Chris Packman is a contract employee, BBC magazines being a separate division and that he is not actually presenting 'at the moment'.
Interestingly when Rod Liddle, while working for the BBC, wrote in a national newspaper about "belch-filled dining rooms" of countryside supporters it was one of the things that eventually lead to him resigning after he was told that was "not acceptable " and "did not square with the BBC's obligation to be impartial or seen to be impartial." Clearly there was one rule for Rod Liddle and is another for Chris Packham.
So here again we have the clear double standards of an organisation that is far too large, too big for its boots, is out of control and with very poor weak leadership.
The BBC is oblivious and immune to criticism and is thus able to ' get away with murder.'
# 378 - war - I've just seen a pig fly by!
The BBC say that the soft loans from the EU won't prejudice their reporting of matters EU - and I 've just seen squadron of pigs fly by!
https://www.rt.com/uk/326561-bbc-eu-referendum-bias/
https://www.rt.com/uk/326561-bbc-eu-referendum-bias/
Monday, 14 December 2015
# 377 - war - How 'balanced' reporting should work.
The BBC should report on all stories in a balanced way as set out in their Royal Charter and this should be especially the case on controversial high profile issues.
In an ideal world each report, on a given subject, should contain equal time airing both sides of the argument.
In reality this seldom if ever happens and the BBC rely on stating, when I have complained about bias over the last 25 years, that over the course of time their reporting balances out as they do cover both sides of a story. This from my experience is simple NOT true and in any case is very difficult to prove unless one listens and watches all the BBC's output armed with a stop watch.
Recently Quentin Letts broadcast on Radio 4 a series under the title 'What is the point of the.' His first one, which I heard, took a light hearted look at the Met Office which rightly came in for some stick about getting so many weather forecasts wrong over the years and of course that they unquestioningly supported Climate Change.
Well the 'Green Blob' took exception to this programme and lobbied the BBC that it should be removed from the I-player and after a couple of weeks it duly was. This programme was but ONE giving an opposing view on Climate Change, and as I say in a light hearted way, and yet the BBC took it down as if it had never existed. This is censorship of the most invidious kind.
Quentin Letts wrote a full page article about this saga in Saturday's Daily Mail and is well worth a read just to see how the BBC really works.
It is pretty clear to me that the BBC regularly breaks its Royal Charter and does NOT report in a balanced way at or even over time.
In an ideal world each report, on a given subject, should contain equal time airing both sides of the argument.
In reality this seldom if ever happens and the BBC rely on stating, when I have complained about bias over the last 25 years, that over the course of time their reporting balances out as they do cover both sides of a story. This from my experience is simple NOT true and in any case is very difficult to prove unless one listens and watches all the BBC's output armed with a stop watch.
Recently Quentin Letts broadcast on Radio 4 a series under the title 'What is the point of the.' His first one, which I heard, took a light hearted look at the Met Office which rightly came in for some stick about getting so many weather forecasts wrong over the years and of course that they unquestioningly supported Climate Change.
Well the 'Green Blob' took exception to this programme and lobbied the BBC that it should be removed from the I-player and after a couple of weeks it duly was. This programme was but ONE giving an opposing view on Climate Change, and as I say in a light hearted way, and yet the BBC took it down as if it had never existed. This is censorship of the most invidious kind.
Quentin Letts wrote a full page article about this saga in Saturday's Daily Mail and is well worth a read just to see how the BBC really works.
It is pretty clear to me that the BBC regularly breaks its Royal Charter and does NOT report in a balanced way at or even over time.
Saturday, 12 December 2015
# 376 - war - BBC bias against Trump.
I think Trump shot himself in the foot about six times over his totally impractical suggestion that all Muslims should be barred from entering the USA until " we can work out what the hell is going on".
Even so if you want the BBC's bias summed up in a statistic here it is.
After Trump's comments two petitions were launched in Britain one asked if Trump should be barred form the UK with the vote currently standing at 548,363 and the other asked if we should close our borders until ISIS is defeated now stands at 452,110.
I'll give you one guess which poll the BBC extensively covered and which one they have thus far ignored.
Yup you guessed it the one that asked if Trump should be barred.
Well done go to the top of the class!
Even so if you want the BBC's bias summed up in a statistic here it is.
After Trump's comments two petitions were launched in Britain one asked if Trump should be barred form the UK with the vote currently standing at 548,363 and the other asked if we should close our borders until ISIS is defeated now stands at 452,110.
I'll give you one guess which poll the BBC extensively covered and which one they have thus far ignored.
Yup you guessed it the one that asked if Trump should be barred.
Well done go to the top of the class!
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
# 375 - war - More Climate Change and the BBC.
As covered in the last post the BBC is bias in its reporting of climate change. Another example was on the 10 O'clock news tonight on BBC1. We had the usual dried up reservoir in Namibia but there was NO mention that Namibia is the driest country in Sub-Saharan Africa. We naturally had a mention that if the planet warmed things would get worse but as I explain below the climate has NOT warmed in the last 20 years.
Also in Paris today a report was released that show that CO2 emissions may be down by as much as 1.6% after decades of increases. So why was this 'good news' not mentioned on the news tonight?
The reason is very simple it doesn't fit in with the BBC's promotion of climate change (at least they don't say Global Warming anymore!) in which they push that rises in CO2 are leading to the planet warming.
As you can see from the above the BBC's reporting is extremely selective.
The BBC's reports on climate change are wilfully bias.
Also in Paris today a report was released that show that CO2 emissions may be down by as much as 1.6% after decades of increases. So why was this 'good news' not mentioned on the news tonight?
The reason is very simple it doesn't fit in with the BBC's promotion of climate change (at least they don't say Global Warming anymore!) in which they push that rises in CO2 are leading to the planet warming.
As you can see from the above the BBC's reporting is extremely selective.
The BBC's reports on climate change are wilfully bias.
Sunday, 6 December 2015
# 374 - war - The BBC and the Paris climate conference.
In the Spectator this week, under an article titled 'COOLER HEADS - The age of climate realism is upon us' by Benny Peiser, he mentions how the global surface temperatures have failed to adhere to the predictions of climate modellers. Rather than rapid warming, as the IPCC has predicted, the temperature rise has been barely discernable, standing nearly still for most of the last 20 years. This FACT is known to us climate sceptics or as the climate zealots like to brand us climate deniers.
However this is a FACT and of course completely discredits the theory that a rise in CO2 emissions leads to our planet warming. The world's CO2 emissions are increasing and yet the temperature hasn't gone up.
So the BIG question is why has the BBC made NO reference to this startling FACT on its coverage of the Paris climate change conference?
The answer is of course that the BBC is completely one sided and bias on its coverage of climate change and all its staff have been instructed that there is no debate on this subject and they must push the line that 'we' are damaging our planet and only by following a strict 'Green Agenda' can we be saved.
Even if the our climate was warming the facts are that up to around an increase of 3.5C we would all benefit and this would NOT lead to any serious damage. What damage, if any, that did occur could easily be managed.
Personally I wear the badge of climate sceptic with great pride.
However this is a FACT and of course completely discredits the theory that a rise in CO2 emissions leads to our planet warming. The world's CO2 emissions are increasing and yet the temperature hasn't gone up.
So the BIG question is why has the BBC made NO reference to this startling FACT on its coverage of the Paris climate change conference?
The answer is of course that the BBC is completely one sided and bias on its coverage of climate change and all its staff have been instructed that there is no debate on this subject and they must push the line that 'we' are damaging our planet and only by following a strict 'Green Agenda' can we be saved.
Even if the our climate was warming the facts are that up to around an increase of 3.5C we would all benefit and this would NOT lead to any serious damage. What damage, if any, that did occur could easily be managed.
Personally I wear the badge of climate sceptic with great pride.
# 373 - war - Peter Hitchen on the BBC and their support for cannabis.
Those in the SW1 bubble use recreation cannabis 'sensibly' and don't see why they should have to break the law to do so. As a result they selfishly want the use of cannabis legalised but completely ignore the long term risks of using the drug and more importantly the harm it does to those who lead less fortunate lives than themselves.
As Peter Hitchens says there is no 'War on Drugs' which may be alright for them but is most definitely not alright for those caught up in the harmful use of drugs in many of our inner cities.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3347826/PETER-HITCHENS-boasting-BBC-cannabis-abuser-just-proves-war-drugs-bogus.html
As Peter Hitchens says there is no 'War on Drugs' which may be alright for them but is most definitely not alright for those caught up in the harmful use of drugs in many of our inner cities.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3347826/PETER-HITCHENS-boasting-BBC-cannabis-abuser-just-proves-war-drugs-bogus.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)