AUGHT RED HANDED...AGAIN

AUGHT RED HANDED...AGAIN

>> TUESDAY, DECEMBER 07, 2010

The BBC is impartial, as we know, because it tells us loudly and often, especially when it comes to reporting the weather and climate. I wonder, then, why it expunges from weather stories figures that show record cold in North Yorkshire? And also why it is champing at the bit in reporting record world heat when a few minutes with a calculator will tell you that even despite natural warming cycles, 2010 is actually not over yet and the figures do not show any records have been broken? Could it be that Richard Black and Co desperately want an agreement at Cancun?

Meanwhile, Roger Harrabin gleefully reports our ruling class's continued obscene efforts to sabotage the UK energy generation capacity so that we are forced into fuel poverty. When are we going to rise up against this useless, lying, shower?

BBC Censorship: WikiHacks Edition

>> MONDAY, DECEMBER 06, 2010

Last week, as the BBC ramped up its mission to downplay the potential consequences of the stolen documents published by hacker and alleged rapist Julian Assange, JournoList groupie and partisan Katie Connolly produced the following article:

Has release of Wikileaks documents cost lives?

Following the open angry statements by various US officials is a series of foot-shuffling and "can't say, guv"s. In short, the message here is there's no way to be sure or prove that there is blood on this innocent lamb's hands.

Except here's what Connolly and the BBC don't want you to know: Assange has form.

Back in 2007, WikiHacks released documents about corruption in Kenya.

The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country."1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."

A responsible, honest news organization would mention this little fact in an article asking in its headline if WikiHacks cost lives. Yet the BBC chose to censor this information. In fact, unless it was covered in some broadcast or other now lost to the ether (and/or BBC archives inaccessible to the public without an FOI request), they only mentioned what WikiHacks did in Kenyaonce, and - what a shock - chose to play down any consequences.

HOPELESSLY BIASED

How can you tell that the BBC is hopelessly biased? Sometimes, it is revealed only after the most minute scrutiny. Take this File on 4investigation of the gross misappropriation of EU funds. The gist is that at least 1.2bn euros have gone down the chute on crooked accountancy and lunatic "development" projects; and a jaw-dropping tens of millions have gone straight into the hands of the local Mafia dons in a neatly carved-up wind-farm scam on Sicily that has operated since 1996 but is thriving still. The EU is acting virtually as their own special projects piggy bank. In a sense, I am amazed that anyone from the BBC has investigated this at all because they have hitherto shown virtually zero interest in the fact that EU accounts have not been properly signed off for donkey's years.

But once you start looking at the transcript, it's not so straightforward. Step forward Lib Dem MEP Bill Newton, who says:

The only way finally to stop it is to give Brussels the power from the member states to actually intervene and have teeth and be able to bite and to punish.
The will isn't there because the member states don’t want to share sovereignty and Britain is one of the leading players in resisting sovereignty transfer in this area.

So let's get this straight. The BBC investigates a massive EU fraud in which taxpayers'money is going into the hands of major criminals and the man chosen to commentate about the solution is a fanatical federalist (who used to be a Tory but crossed the floor because he was so pro-EU, h/t the specialone, below). That's a bit like appointing a fox to head chicken-run security.

It's true that there is also a significant contribution for Mats Persson, the head of Open Europe, a think tank which wants some EU powers re-patriated to the UK. But even then - as a very moderate euro-sceptic - he is not asked about solutions, only about the nature and scale of the problem. And that's where the BBC bias really shows. Even though in poll after poll, the majority of the UK want serious hacking of the EU monster, the corporation and its hacks never give this perspective a proper voice, even when it's an open goal. A programme that could easily have been a decent investigation of major fraud ends up as yet another platform for those who want a superstate.

The Good, the Bad, and the BBC

If anyone accuses me of ferreting out the bad in something good, here’s an example for them, on a plate.
The something good is very good and very unusual. It’s a programme on the BBC world service in a series called Heart and Soul. I linked to it in a previous post, but I fear it was buried amongst too many words.

Several others have praised this programme, as did I. Everyone thought it was a programme about antisemitism, the current manifestation rather than the Nazi variety. Some thought it contained one or two questionable remarks, one of which has been discussed at length elsewhere, concerning the statement: “Some Jews mistake criticism of Israel for antisemitism,” but on the whole everyone was full of praise and thought it was a breakthrough.

What’s more, Wendy Robbins consulted two of the most eloquent and authoritative people for contributions. So, part one of the two-part series was everything one could have wished for, if one were in the habit of wishing that the BBC was not campaigning furiously against everything one knows and loves.

Mary Jackson says: "It makes the point that today's anti-Semites are not jackbooted Nazis but Muslims. Of course it then feels obliged to qualify this with "a minority of...", which is true but not the whole truth. And it makes no reference to the role of the execrable Jeremy Bowen and Orla Guerin in fuelling Jew-hatred with their lies about Israel.”

Now, here’s where the bad comes in. The BBC is confused. It doesn’t hate all Jews; it is very fond of holocaust victims. So in order to rationalise this disturbing programme and the BBC’s role in the current manifestation of antisemitism, they have magicked the programme into their mould. A piece on the website describing the programme reveals how. In the BBC’s eyes, it is not about antisemitism at all. It’s about holocaust denial, which is something they can honestly say they do not go along with.
Don’t mention the Muslims. Wendy Robbins did that once but I think she got away with it.

WICKEDLEAKS...

Well, another day and another set of Wikileaks. Is it me or do you sense that the BBC delights in trawling through these illegal leaks that are now quite obviously aimed at embarrassing and undermining the United States? I suppose there is a natural resonance between Assange's visceral hatred of the United States and the BBC's default position of liking anything that seeks to undermine the USA? Tough call for the State Broacaster - Obama or Assange. I think the latter wins?

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

If there is one thing that the BBC likes, it is social engineering. So it was interesting to listen to an interview with Conservative MP Dominic Raab (8.42am Today) who objects to the attempts by former Saint Vince Cable to further mangle employment legislation. I thought that Raab exposed the naiveness in the BBC view rather deftly but it was obvious that BBC sympathies lie with Cable and the rest of the "equality" industry as they seek to further undermine the meritocratic principle.