# 318 - WAR - The bias ABBBC!!

Comment in the Daily Mail today by Phil Alderson from Bridgewater Somerset in the feature headed 'Straight to the point':-

The BBC is to spend 2.1 million to promote more ethnic minorities on our screens. I suggest we re-name Aunty the ABBBC - Anything But British Broadcasting Corporation.

The BBC seems fairly diverse to me already given ethnic minorities only make up 10% of our population.

The BBC needs to be put down there is simply no hope for it!!

# 317 - WAR - Bias by omission.

 On the 10 O'clock news last night on BBC 1 the story was covered about the EU's latest trade deal with Ukraine but they failed to mention ANYTHING about the larger part to this trade deal which involves political and even military cooperation.

Here is a link from the blog EU Referendum that explains the significance of this new EU/Ukraine deal:-

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85045

Ukraine comes under the Russian sphere of influence and they are not going to like this on e bit.

Evil Empires like the EU of course need to expand or they implode but you won't get the pro EU BBC telling you any of this.

So now we see the BBC can be bias by what it does not report.

# 316 - WAR - Robert Peston says there is no left-wing bias in the BBC!

One has to wonder how he would know being in the BBC bubble along with his other loss making Guardian reading metropolitan chums at the Beeb.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-06-24/robert-peston-theres-no-left-wing-bias-at-the-bbc


Apparently he says it is 'bollocks' that the BBC is bias!

Well I have news for him this blog and others proves it is bias and it really is 'bollocks' to claim the BBC is not bias on matters such as being pro the left of British politics,, climate change, the EU and not forgetting dumbing down.

The BBC is INSTITUTIONALLY BIAS and you cannot expect someone working in it to see this.

#315 - WAR - BBC opposes the Conservative party.

As reported in the Daily Mail yesterday, fortunately a paper not afraid to point out the bias in the BBC, Iain Duncan-Smith has complained to the BBC that they are a bigger enemy to his Welfare Reforms than the Labour opposition.

Enough said!

# 314 - WAR - So no bias here then!?

The BBC’s warning to its staff to remain impartial came too late for Mimi Kempton-Stewart, the assistant politics editor of the Today programme. Here are some of her thoughts on yesterday’s election, including that “it’d be nice” if “every UKIP voter were just to disappear forever or die”:

http://alternative-news-network.net/...ter-would-die/

# 313 - WAR - More bias appointments of course.

So I read in the Daily Mail today that in the last two days two BBC staff, including an editor on its news channel have been caught labelling UKIP and its supporters as racist, sexist and lunatics.

Meanwhile the ex-Guardian executive now editing Newsnight, who made a former TUC advisor its economic correspondent, yesterday handed a reporting role to a woman who once fronted a Labour election rally and dated one of the party MPs.

This is the BBC which claims to be even handed who also appointed ex-Blairite James Purnell as Director of Strategy. 

The BBC is INSTITUTIONALLY bias and these promotion PROVE it.

# 312 - WAR - BBC Proms dumbing down again.

I know this blog is  called BBC Institutional Bias but it now could just as easily be called BBC Institutionally Dumbed Down.

Following on from last years two rappers and a punk band this years proms is schedules to include pop star Paloma Faith (who is she?) Rufus Wainwright and the Pet Shop Boys.

The BBC is in a spiral of intellectual decline that mirrors the dumbed down society in which we now live.

This is supposedly being done to attracted a younger audience but why should the proms necessarily set out to attract a younger audience especially if that involves dumbed down gimmicks.

The BBC used to set the agenda now it just follows as it mirrors every popular trend and fashion.

# 311 - WAR - BBC report is bias.

Unsurprisingly a report commissioned by the BBC, lead by an insider, came to the conclusion the BBC is NOT bias in its reporting on EU matters.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4072226.ece

# 310 - WAR - Now even Paxman criticises the BBC.

Jeremy Paxman now joins other distinguished and long serving BBC presenters in criticising the BBC.

From memory the list includes :-

John Humphrys
David Dimbleby
Michael Buerk
Peter Sissons

Well they cannot all be wrong can they

Paxman's complaints include the following:-

1. 60 million golden goodbyes
2. How the BBC distorts the market and undermines commercial rivals
3. Waste as in the £100 million Digital Media Initiative
4. Poor BBC management
5. Funding for the likes of Radio 1 which the private sector can and do cover.
6. Unnecessary web presence
7. How it challenges the country's press through publicly funded news websites.

So quite a lot to be getting on with there and of course nothing that I haven't covered on this blog.

IMO the changes to the BBC will be gradual and will be brought about by the gradual reduction in the value of the licence fee. Sweeping and dramatic change is simply not the way the BBC does business.

#309 - WAR - Paying A Compulsory Tax For BBC Bias Is Morally Wrong

#309 - WAR - Paying A Compulsory Tax For BBC Bias Is Morally Wrong

A biased BBC isn't worth its licence fee

PUBLISHED: 02:39, 30 March 2014 | UPDATED: 02:40, 30 March 2014

The Rev Paul Flowers has been exposed as a buffoon, who had no idea of the size of the bank of which he was Chairman. 

He has also been shown by hard evidence to be a grotesque hypocrite, with a personal life quite out of keeping with his position in the Methodist Church.

Those who trusted him have acted accordingly. The Methodist Church has suspended him indefinitely. The Co-operative Bank forced him to resign. Even the Labour Party, no stranger to internal irregularities, has suspended him.

Paul Flowers was interviewed by a simpering Paxman 

on the BBC's Newsnight programme

The Mail on Sunday, acting quite properly in the tradition of robust journalism, played a major part in his downfall by exposing his drug abuse. Mr Flowers might well feel aggrieved at that. Even saints (which he is not) dislike being shown up in public.

But why did the supposedly impartial BBC feel it was its job to sympathise with Mr Flowers, and to give him a platform for an orgy of public self-pity, combined with crude, baseless abuse of this newspaper? 

The BBC’s bias is most clearly shown by its frequent failures to pursue and interrogate those with whom it secretly sympathises. Yet it will turn like a tiger on those of whom it secretly disapproves. 

Who can forget Jeremy Paxman’s relentless interrogation of former Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard, in which he asked the same question 12 times?

But in his encounter with Mr Flowers, Mr Paxman was transformed from tiger into purring pussycat.

His questions were gentle lobs. He failed to rebuke Mr Flowers for blatantly flattering him with allusions to his supposed ferocity. 

Mr Paxman even laughed sycophantically at an unfunny remark about scripture, as if the two men were Oxbridge dons maundering over the port.

 

He did not press Mr Flowers on his not-very-Christian unwillingness to offer a proper apology for his actions or show any convincing remorse.

He failed to challenge Mr Flowers’s refusal (on spurious legal grounds) to discuss his alleged drug abuse, or his claim that he cannot afford to sue The Mail on Sunday, in this era of no-win, no-fee lawyers. 

The real reason for his silence is that this newspaper’s stories are true.

'Mr Paxman even laughed sycophantically at an unfunny remark about 

scripture, as if the two men were Oxbridge dons maundering over the port'

We cannot know the reason for this toothless, flaccid performance by the famed Grand Inquisitor of the BBC.

But there is a clue in the way in which Mr Flowers was wholly unchallenged when he used the interview to attack The Mail on Sunday as ‘pseudo-fascist’, the sort of baseless, politically illiterate abuse that might be shouted at a student demonstration, rather than spoken by a man of the cloth.

How ironic that last week’s Mail on Sunday revealed Mr Paxman’s Newsnight colleague Duncan Weldon tried to minimise his own past as a supporter of the BNP.

The BBC simply does not deserve the great privilege of the licence fee if it cannot try harder than this to be fair.

Majestic stoicism

The Queen herself will never complain openly about anything. But the Government should be ashamed of the thoughtless way in which they have overloaded the Monarch’s schedule in the first week of June.

They should also note that the 87-year-old Head of State has been forced to take on back-to-back engagements precisely because her Parliament, full of fit and well-paid young men and women, has so little to do.

To see this article GoTo:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2592578/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-A-biased-BBC-isnt-worth-licence-fee.html