OFF THE RAILS
>> FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010
More insidious historical anti-British revisionism from the rancid BBC, this time from that cesspit of leftwing bias known as "From Our Own Correspondent".
"The FOOC programme continues on its extraordinary way from supporting Maoist terrorists in India to now rewriting Angolan history. In a report on the Benguela Railway Justin Rowlatt tells us the Imperialist British exploited and robbed Angola of its natural resources using slave labour in essence...how unlike the new Chinese activities who operate in a much more beneficial way towards Angolans.
What's wrong with this? Angola was a Portugese colony not British, the Portugese took the enormous wealth generated there. It was the Portugese who started the railway and then contracted a British company to finish building and running the tracks. Rowlatt's claim that it was Britain robbing the Angolans because we ran the railway is like suggesting Germany is really running this country because it builds and provides us with a transport system in the shape of cars from BMW, VW and Porsche. But not a mention of Portugal in the report. Guess accuracy and accountability aren't that important to the BBC after all."
Of course not. Accuracy and accountability are diversions from the main thrust of BBC output which is all about making the UK look as bad as possible to fit in with BBC narrative.
Hat-tip to the B-BBC reader who send me this.THE BIAS TONIGHT
Couple of great examples of BBC bias on "The World Tonight" last night...
"In the first, an Indian journalist was asked for his views on the preparations for the Commonwealth Games. Presumably, nobody had read out to him the Beeb's ground-rules, as he trenchantly observed that the defects in the preparations typified the corruption, incompetence and cronyism of the Indian public sector. He contrasted the efficiency of the Indian private sector, pointing out that the new airport at New Delhi was put out to private contract and is up and running, in fine working order, in contrast to the sports facilities and the athletes' village (which might seem, to the casual observer, rather lesser undertakings). In the news headlines at 11 P.M., his words were quoted, but with no acknowledgement of the distinction he had drawn between the virtuous private sector and the venal, child-labour-exploiting public sector."
"Later on in the same broadcast of "The World Tonight", the last item was a discussion of the UN's report on the "Mavi Marmara". Predictably, the fundamental assumption of the article was that the objectivity of the UN could be taken for granted. The "expert" interviewed was the lawyer representing the British "humanitarians for Hamas pyschopaths" who accompanied in the flotilla. No-one was invited to defend Israel, or dispute the findings, or the motives, of the UN "investigation". Why would they - to the BBC Israel is always in the wrong, that's the rule."
Hat-tip to the eagle eared B-BBC reader!
OFF THE RAILS
>> FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010
More insidious historical anti-British revisionism from the rancid BBC, this time from that cesspit of leftwing bias known as "From Our Own Correspondent".
"The FOOC programme continues on its extraordinary way from supporting Maoist terrorists in India to now rewriting Angolan history. In a report on the Benguela Railway Justin Rowlatt tells us the Imperialist British exploited and robbed Angola of its natural resources using slave labour in essence...how unlike the new Chinese activities who operate in a much more beneficial way towards Angolans.
What's wrong with this? Angola was a Portugese colony not British, the Portugese took the enormous wealth generated there. It was the Portugese who started the railway and then contracted a British company to finish building and running the tracks. Rowlatt's claim that it was Britain robbing the Angolans because we ran the railway is like suggesting Germany is really running this country because it builds and provides us with a transport system in the shape of cars from BMW, VW and Porsche. But not a mention of Portugal in the report. Guess accuracy and accountability aren't that important to the BBC after all."
Of course not. Accuracy and accountability are diversions from the main thrust of BBC output which is all about making the UK look as bad as possible to fit in with BBC narrative.
Hat-tip to the B-BBC reader who send me this.
THE BIAS TONIGHT
Couple of great examples of BBC bias on "The World Tonight" last night...
"In the first, an Indian journalist was asked for his views on the preparations for the Commonwealth Games. Presumably, nobody had read out to him the Beeb's ground-rules, as he trenchantly observed that the defects in the preparations typified the corruption, incompetence and cronyism of the Indian public sector. He contrasted the efficiency of the Indian private sector, pointing out that the new airport at New Delhi was put out to private contract and is up and running, in fine working order, in contrast to the sports facilities and the athletes' village (which might seem, to the casual observer, rather lesser undertakings). In the news headlines at 11 P.M., his words were quoted, but with no acknowledgement of the distinction he had drawn between the virtuous private sector and the venal, child-labour-exploiting public sector."
"Later on in the same broadcast of "The World Tonight", the last item was a discussion of the UN's report on the "Mavi Marmara". Predictably, the fundamental assumption of the article was that the objectivity of the UN could be taken for granted. The "expert" interviewed was the lawyer representing the British "humanitarians for Hamas pyschopaths" who accompanied in the flotilla. No-one was invited to defend Israel, or dispute the findings, or the motives, of the UN "investigation". Why would they - to the BBC Israel is always in the wrong, that's the rule."
Hat-tip to the eagle eared B-BBC reader!
PAPER TRAIL
The Today programme claims to set the news agenda for Radio 4 each day. Well, it certainly tries its best, and its own agenda is often plain to hear.
The Sky News website publishes an invaluable daily gallery of the UK newspaper front pages. Which of the lead stories found there today were ignored by the Today programme's paper reviews?
Well, besides some tabloid gossip about Posh and Becks, two leads were conspicuous by their absence from any of the programme's three slots (at 6.12, 6.40 & 7.40).
The first was the Times's ' I won't be rushed out of Afghanistan - Petraeus'. Above the article is a photo of laughing, open-faced Afghan girls under the banner 'Exultant: faces of freedom in a war-torn land'. Why would the defeatist, anti-this-war Today programme choose to completely ignore this lead story?
The presenters did have time to mention the Independent and theGuardian's take on Bob Woodward's new book on the Obama administration's Afghan squabbles, with John Humphrys reading out a paean to Mr Woodward.
It's even easier to guess why they ignored the other lead - an immigration story from the Express - 'How migrants snatched our homes', concerning a group of Lithuanian squatters "terrorising part of east London".
The angle taken by the Telegraph and Mail regarding the speech on anti-social behaviour by Denis O'Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary -'Police give up the fight as yobs take over' and 'Police: We have let yobs rule streets' - was mentioned by the presenters, but how did the Today website, which also made it its lead story, choose to angle the subject?: "The Chief Inspector of Constabulary says that police efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour in England and Wales must not suffer because of spending cuts." Ah yes, budget cuts!
"Our job is to ensure we remain absolutely impartial and present the facts to our audiences - without following any agendas," said Helen Boaden, director of BBC news. Really?
WARMING AND COOLING
>> WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010
My Biased BBC colleague Robin Horbury is much better at AGW posts than me but I wanted to bring Richard Black's latest salvo to your attention. Note how poor Richard feels oppressed by those who dare question AGW. He seems to now saying that "ideological purity" (or what we simply call balance) is impossible because he is under attack from pro-warmers as well as "deniers". Please be gentle with your feedback, I fear Richard is feeling hot under the collar!
Posts
