9/11 - NEVER FORGET

9/11 - NEVER FORGET

>> SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2010

I know this is not a political blog as such, since it is BBC bias we oppose, but I didn't want the 9th anniversary of the Islamist attack on the USA to go without comment. You see not only is it nine years ago since that dreadful day, but B-BBC readers will remember that just a few days later, BBC Question Time reached a new LOW with the baiting of the clearly upset US Ambassador Philip Lader. Just as we do not forget what Islam did on 9/11, neither do we forget how the BBC behaved 48 hours later, as the dead still lay where they fell. Greg Dyke said he "regretted" it - I was revolted by it. Even then, as the rubble of the Towers burned, the BBC put the boot in. Is it any surprise that nine years on, they lead their rotten news with the idea that Islamophobia is at an all time high in the States and that a foolish Pastor from Florida is the biggest threat to global safety? The BBC surrendered to Islam years ago. Never forget that. It explains why garbage like the 7.49am item on Today gets broadcast. Not all British Institutions failed to honour the fallen on 9/11, and the following short video makes the point well.

Uturn

>> FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

James Delingpole’s Telegraph article about Fidel Castro’s unexpectedabout-turn set me thinking. The magnitude of recent events - Hezbollah’s ominous 15,000 rockets,Jeremy Bowen’s cosy chat with Gideon Levy, the rape/race case that was rape not race, the Al Quds march, various portentous happenings that BBC viewers were spared from troubling themselves with, some annoying personal things - dodgy internet connection, insomnia, work-related stress, hiccoughs, a huge bluebottle flying near me in the kitchen and a sneezing attack - have amalgamated to form an insurmountable obstacle to a piece. So instead, I’m going to fantasize that the ludicrous juxtaposition of angry (what else) Muslims burning the US flag because a preacher might burn some Korans, will bring the Beeb to its senses. Will he, won’t he? Who cares? The Muslims don’t, for one. All they need to set them off is the thought. Muslims know a lot about burning things, books, flags, effigies. Are they claiming sole prerogative on burnings? The irony couldn’t be more in yer face, yet apparently some can’t see it. Surely they’re pretending? Angelina Jolie said she was speechless, but oh no she isn’t. Hillary Clinton and William Hague are appalled. How long can the BBC keep on keeping a straight face? Auntie will have to cave in. “Uturn if u wnt 2, “ she’ll text “ “now the ladyz 4 trning 2.” Then we can all go home and live happily ever after. Atishoo pass the fly swatter.

GADFLIES...

Back in July, Roger Harrabin discussed climate sceptics' concerns that the Oxburgh report into the conduct of the University of East Anglia eco-campaigners involved in Climategate had not been carried out properly, principally because there were allegations that the papers considered by the report team had been selected by the so-called scientists under investigation. In a typical Mr Harrabin analysis, he pretended to be objective, but made it very clear what he thought about the allegations:

The scientific establishment is not used to having its proceedings pulled apart by gadfly inquisitors, often armed with Freedom of Information e-mail chains. Privately, some senior scientists say they find this relentless probing to be nit-picking, mistrustful, obsessive and corrosive of public trust.They see it as a waste of time, and therefore of public money.

Spool forward to today. These "gadfly (Harrabin-speak for nuisance?) inquisitors" who are "corrosive of public trust" have burrowed into the answers given by Lord Oxburgh to a House of Commons select committee and found that his lordship was at best being disingenuous and evasive in his answers in explaining the background to the inquiry. First, he and his team spent the grand total of just seven and a half hours in Norwich investigating the background to Climategate with the scientists involved, and second, it looks increasingly like the list of papers chosen for the inquiry analysis was selected by the scientists under investigation, namely Phil Jones and his East Anglian team. More on the problems is here - a brilliant exposition by Tony Newton, of Harmless Sky. In short, the fears of those "gadflies" that Mr Harrabin was so quick to dismiss have proved to be substantiated; and the Oxburgh report looks increasingly like it was little more than a devious charade. I could go on, there is much more to this sordid tale of an establishment stitch-up. The point is that our Roger was yet again on the side of the villains, and as quick as ever to condemn his hated "sceptics". I've looked carefully to see if there are any signs of the BBC reporting these latest Oxburgh developments; so far, surprise, surprise, there are none - not a peep. That oft-used BBC approach: bias by omission.

OPEN THREAD...

It's Friday and so time for a new Open thread. Any BBC bias caught YOUR eye? Want to share it with us? The floor is yours...

LOVING THE TERRORIST!

It wouldn't be a good day for the BBC if they didn't run a story somewhere presenting terrorists as victims. Such is the case here with this ragbag item. It is just awful that those lovable gang of cut-throat killers in the UDA have not enjoyed the electoral support they deserve! How DARE decent people within Unionism reject them and their political stooges? The BBC - always there to be the terrorist's friend.

LOOKING FOR SPLITS

You should listen to this interview with Lord Howard which took place this morning on the BBC. I think he handled it very well when it became clear that Sarah Montague had only one real agenda item - to get him to attack Ken Clarke. You could feel his exasperation at the way in which he was being constantly invited to condemn Clarke and the fact that he actually praised the specific initiative clearly irritated Montague. Well played, Lord Howard! The BBC, Montague included, seem unable to comprehend that crime falls when you lack up criminals.

HITTING THE POOR!

The Labour Broadcasting Corporation was busy this morning painting the Nasty Party as horrid as can be! Why those evil Conservatives even want"to hit the poor". Classic set up job this morning on Today. First, the BBC runs a spoiler at 7.09am in which a dissident Lib-Dem MP attacks Osborne's plan to reduce Welfarism. Then, at 8.10am they invite Theresa Perchard from the Citizen's Advice Bureau on who instantly denies there is such thing as those who choose not to work as a "lifestyle choice." That sets it up nicely and on comes John McDonnell to also deny there is scrounger culture (How could he not, it's a significant part of the Labout base!) and Michael Fallon to argue in favour of the Osborne line. So, four people interviewed in just over one hour and THREE of them are against what the Coalition is trying to do. Fair and balanced? It's what the BBC does.

LABOUR'S DAILY BOOST...

>> THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2010

In it's new position as official propagandist for Labour, the BBC lead news story today concerns the conclusions of research that it commissioned (sic) that alleges that Coalition cuts will most deeply effect the North of Englandand the Midlands where, oddly enough, State subsidy is highest as is support for Labour. The narrative is that the evil Coalition will bring endless misery to these afflicted regions by withdrawing State support, thus missing why these regions are so afflicted! I suppose this is one way to shore up Labour support in the heartland. Then, during an interview with Nick Clegg, in the prime-time post 8am slot, up comes Coulsongate again. The BBC scents blood here and Labour could not be happier with the alacrity and persistence of the State Broadcaster in leading the charge against Coulson. This morning, Humphyrs was trying to drive a wedge between the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems on this issue.