The BBC have gone nuclear over...erm, the nuclear problems at Fukushima. Today has been busy constructing an agenda that the Japanese Government "lies" (according to Roger Harradin) and is "blase" (according to James Naughtie) about nuclear problems. Undoubtedly the crisis at Fukushima has gotten worse and that is fair comment but the BBC seems determined to extend this into some sort of general attack on nuclear energy. I have to say that one's natural sympathy with the Japanese victims of the tsunami is now being eclipsed by anger about the BBC's overt manipulation of the Nuclear power plant issue. Not reporting - editorialising and always following a clear agenda. The President of the United States let slip a little revelation about Himself last week. I've been waiting for the BBC to say something, but there has been silence even on Twitter. Last Thursday, the New York Times published this: Classic morning for the UK loathing Conservative-hating Today programme, When they weren't pushing the anti-Nuclear line, they were doing their best to help undermine Andrew Lansley here, Then they were suggesting British complicity in torture in Pakistan here. And, if that was not enough, they were pursuing the "lost generation" narrative here. Hi folks and welcome to another week on Biased BBC. I've received emails from several of you wanting me to highlight what is perceived as the BBC using the Japanese disaster to advance their long standing opposition to Nuclear Power. A reader advises; Several B-BBC people have commented on the BBC’s bizarre take on the recent horrific murder of an Israeli couple and three of their children.Honest Reporting singles out the BBC’s version of the story as being particularly shocking and callous. Why would the BBC illustrate Saturday’s article with an IDF soldier? "Palestinian ‘kills five Israelis’ in West Bank." What are the scare quotes for? “Kills five Israelis?” what, they didn’t “kill” them? There weren’t five? or they weren’t Israelis? What a pointless and inappropriate use of inverted commas, which are, don’t forget, “to convey irony.” The headline promises the report is to be about the “killing,” but the article sets off, not with the “killing” but with something Israeli troops have done. They’ve launched a manhunt! So the report is about the manhunt, and the “killing” is relegated to second place, perhaps to provide context for this story about a manhunt. Of course the victims weren’t just an Israeli family. No, they were a settler family, deemed illegal and subhuman under international law. The intruders showed generosity because two other children had been spared. Mr Netanyahu on the other hand is less compassionate. He is full of threats of punishments and vigorous actions. So “Palestinians have refused all direct contact with Israel until construction is frozen.” What about the months when all construction was frozen when the Palestinians still refused all contact with Israel? Where have all the scare quotes gone when you need them? They must have run out. ‘Until construction is frozen’ could do with a pair. And while they are repeating the tag about settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation, why doesn’t the BBC remind the readers about why Israel needed to occupy any areas in the first place? It was because of a war. A war which the Arabs started, and the Arabs lost. Next, the article last updated 13th March. “Israel Approves new Jewish settler homes in West Bank” An act of pure defiance and obstructionism? Handy for the BBC, though. Just the thing to justify the murder of an Israeli family including a little baby. So the concept of ‘hundreds of homes for Jews’ excuses this compassionate intruder and his pal for an act they had no choice but to carry out? “An Israeli government official said the construction is to be in settlements that Israel expects to retain control of in a possible peace agreement with the Palestinians.” When it suits them, the BBC uses the all-purpose Palileaks revelations to show that, much to their disapproval, certain agreements over the allocation of territory were under consideration by both parties. That’s the Palestinians as well as the Israelis. However the BBC habitually regards whatever an Israeli government official says with deep suspicion. No, for the purpose of this particular case we are to perceive Jews expanding into 'stolen Palestinian land’. “An Israeli government spokesman said the construction move had been planned for some time but the BBC's Jon Donnison in Ramallah says it's hard not to see the timing of the announcement as linked to the killings.” It may be hard for Jon Donnison; but surely not as hard as seeing Jewish settlements as justification for slitting the throat of a three month old baby. Most people think that celebrating violence and terrorism by handing out sweets is newsworthy. Most people, but apparently not Jon Donnison.
IT'S CHERNOBYL ALL OVER AGAIN!
>> TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011
The Post-American President and the BBC
>> MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011
Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”
The context for this was the President's unhappiness with how tough being President of the US is these days, with everyone looking to Him for leadership on what to do about Libya, Bahrain, and all the other Mohammedan countries where the citizenry is protesting against their autocratic rulers. Not to mention (and the Times doesn't, because they are trying to protect Him just as much as the BBC does) the difficulties He's facing at home right now regarding the economy, Wisconsin and the unions, the Tea Party movement, etc. Now, imagine for a moment if George W. Bush had said something about wishing he was an autocratic ruler who had the power to control the media and have opponents arrested and disappeared on a whim. The BBC would be all over it, and their North America editor would be writing scornful blogpost after scornful blogpost, to go with a couple of segments for Today. The fact that they haven't done this means that the Beeboids simply don't see this as remarkable at all. Not only do they sympathize with Him, but Matt Frei actually once openly wished for Him to be an autocratic ruler as well. Matt Frei: Sometimes you look at countries like China and you think, 'Wouldn't it be nice to be an autocracy in times like these?'
As DB said at the time, Matt Frei was heady with enthusiasm over the limitless possibilities for Change�™ at the dawn of The Obamessianic Age. The Beeboids certainly weren't so enthusiastic for autocratic rule in the US back when Bush was elected. Have a look at their First 100 Days recap from 2001. It's relentlessly negative. After reading that, get out the sick bag and remind yourselves of what the BBC put together for their belovedObamessiah. Celebration after celebration. Actually, I see something far worse in that quote. It reveals something about Him I was talking about here recently (pg. 8 on the Open Thread): He just isn't interested in the US having a real leadership position in the world. MONDAY MORNING BLUES
NO NUKES IS GOOD NEWS!
"There was a great interview HERE with Ian Hor Lacy on March 12th edition of Weekend Breakfast on R5 where Rachel Burden’s exaggerated beliefs about the threat posed by the nuclear plants is beautifully exposed: go here and go to 1:06
Shocking and Callous
>> SUNDAY, MARCH 13, 2011
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
I also heard Today kicking off on this line this morning - now that they flown Naughtie et al over to Japan (Never mind the carbon emissons, natch). Never miss the chance to take advantage of tragedy in order to advance the cause, right BBC?
Posts
