Richard Black has plumbed new depths of partisanship. Here, with vicious claws out and fists flying, he sneeringly attacks the Heartland Institute, an organisation which on meagre resources, bravely tries to take on the climate lobby. For Mr Black - and no doubt the full complement of his cheering BBC eco-nut chums - they belong to a most vile category of existence - they are"of overtly libertarian bent". Their crime? Some emails suggesting that the Institute tries to raise modest amounts of money to fund its activities have fallen into his greenie chums' hands. Actually, one of them might be a fake, and there's a strong suggestion that they were obtained by stealth, if not illegally. But for Mr Black all that's irrelevant - it's a cue to parade all of his greenie bile and to make it sound as if the Institute is a criminal gang for daring to suggest that there might be opposition to his views. I love especially his phrasing of this: After dancing on the head of a pin for pages and pages, the conclusion is that “The Balen report was held for purposes of journalism. On the premise that it was also held for purposes other than those of journalism, it was not predominantly so held. That is why I consider that the report lay beyond the scope of the Act; and why I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. LORD PHILLIPS” Read the full judgment through the link at the jc.com Here is Richard Littlejohn: Supplying Gaza with fuel is a complex matter. Various political complications have arisen, and electricity blackouts in Gaza are imminent. Biased BBC's Alan writes; "Richard Bacon was on the other day talking about the Queen's 60th Jubilee and Andrew Marr's programme about it .Bacon thought Marr too obsequious and reverential -.what was needed obviously was more scandal and provocative, damaging revelations about the Queen. However he did think the Panorama programme on US tent cities was good: richard bacon @richardpbacon ‘That Panorama was bloody good’ The irony of the tent cities in America of unemployed people is when you contrast them to the posturing pseuds of the Occupy tent cities. The ‘Occupiers’ are anti-capitalism and business whilst those in the last resort tent cities would love a job and for capitalism to kick in again at full blast. The BBC does love to use a programme about one thing to slip in its Marxist world view about something else. A good example recently is this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00ncxkd/Toughest_Place_to_be_a..._Series_2_Train_Driver/ What should have been a programme about a man’s struggle to master a train becomes a social commentary on living conditions and business practises in Peru. Hah! I did laugh at this interview with Ed Balls and his former Girlfriend Stephanie Flanders on today. To be fair to Flanders she did try to be neutral but Balls narrative that "we must go for growth and ease off on the cuts" is still very much the BBC mantra. I have to say that it strikes me as surreal that the BBC allow Balls to get away with his dreary monologue without any real focus on the dreadful economic legacy Labour left behind. Is it a thought crime to discuss how Balls messed things up? Anyone watch Panorama this evening? Quite remarkable bias, even by the BBC standards. The programme was all about America's homeless but as ever that was the subterfuge for a more subtle agenda of; 1/Chiding Obama for not being more progressive (although it was the bad Republicans in Congress that prevented him for doing what must be done - spreading the wealth around ) 2/ Presenting Republicans as cold hearted monsters who would sooner see kids eat rats ...yes rats....than increase Welfarism 3/ Point out that America is a fading superstar, almost third world and 4/ Remind us how thankful we should be for the NHS. I was also surprised to hear Vegas introduced as "the centre of capitalism" .... and then we got to hear about the people who live in the sewers. Vegas may be the centre for gambling but that is a long way from the hard endeavour of capitalism. The juxtaposition of interviews with Republican figures and images of the alleged starving was not so subtle but I am sure it did the job the BBC wanted. Programmes like this live down to our expectations of the State Broadcaster and the left wing socialist bias exuded right across the duration of the broadcast.
THROUGH A BLACK HOLE...
>> THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012
How interesting. I happened to be listening to the BBC Today programme this morning and around 6.55am there was an item on the French Presidential election. Those of you will follow these things will know that the BBC is cheer leading for the Socialist candidate, Hollande. He has said that if elected he sees "finance as the enemy", he will raise taxes and he will employ tens of thousands of extra public sector workers. You can see why he appeals to the BBC. Anyway, the BBC item concerned itself with Sarkozy's declared intention to run. Naturally his chances were given as being low (despite the latest poll showing the significant narrowing of Allende's lead). Then came the moment. Whilst discussing which candidates would get through to the second round of the Presidential election contest the BBC journalist (Hugh Sykes, I think) said "We wouldn't want to see the National Front through to the second round" He quickly corrected himself to say "France wouldn't want to see the National Front through to the second round." Now I carry no torch for Le Pen and his wretched Party BUT I was disgusted at this clear insertion of BBC prejudice against that Party. Surely ALL parties should be treated fairly and with impartiality? I went looking the link for you but guess what? It is not there yet items before it and after it are available to link. Looks like a black hole has swallowed up this blatant instance of bias. The "We" is the term the BBC are most sensitive about using since it reveals the groupthink and they much prefer to hide behind euphemisms. In this instance, it was blurted out but it is now covered up!HEART-WRENCHING...
It's probably most notable (or notorious) for holding an annual "climate-sceptic" conference in Washington DC.
This is spiteful, nasty name-calling journalism at its very worst, and he even venomously head-butts the mild Anthony Watts, whose What's Up With That? website bends over backwards to be decent to everyone in the climate debate arena, including Mr Black. For the record, Mr Black, and to put things in perspective, these emails show that the Heartland Institute clearly struggles to raise a few million dollars to fund its activities. This was reported sensationally in yesterday's Guardian, and that, naturally, was enough for you and your genuflecting BBC acolytes to frame this unpleasant, hysterical invective. By contrast - something Mr Black chooses not to mention - the warmist lobby, according to Jo Nova, has received tens of billions of dollars in the last twenty years, and in short, is funded by jacuzzis-full of government and vested-interest cash, not to mention supported by blizzards of BBC propaganda. The Heartland Institute should be regarded as heroes for fighting against such odds. But for Mr Black that's all the pretext he needs to start the most unplesant of bare-knuckle fights.Balen Out
>> WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012
A NOD AND A WINK...
'Kevin Bakhurst has deemed it impossible not to mention the Conservative ties of the Tax Payer's Alliance The BBC has decided it has a duty to ‘out’ those dangerous headbangers at the Taxpayers’ Alliance. We may think the alliance is an independent body devoted to exposing the widespread waste of public money. But according to Kevin Bakhurst, controller of the BBC News Channel and the News at One: ‘They have close links with the Conservatives and share many prominent members and financial backers.’ In an internal email, he writes: ‘I don’t think we can carry on without any on-air nod to their political allegiances.’ Gavin Allen, editor of BBC Political News and executive editor of Question Time, replied that similar treatment should be given to outfits such as the Countryside Alliance and ‘Right-leaning’ think tanks such as Civitas.'
Link here Biased BBC contributor Alan asksSea of Darkness
>> TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2012
OFF THE RAILS!
“The metals and minerals carried by this train brought new wealth to Peru and make up 60% of its exports but this is a divided society with millions living in poverty. Passing through one of Lima’s largest slums the train is regularly attacked by people venting their frustration at this growing inequality.” (Really? Who says they’re not just vandals?)
The programme was run through with these sentiments attacking the mining industry overlaid with sad music providing a soundtrack to the ‘desperate plight’ of the people....‘on this wild frontier nothing stands in the way of the mining industry‘......‘starting to realise that the main thing is to get this valuable mineral to the ports to ship them off to the rich countries, China and America, not bothered about anything except getting this stuff to the ports and the ships...’ Presumably before the mining industry brought massive numbers of jobs and wealth to the country they all lived in vast wealth and harmony....the influx of money for exports has curiously meant less money for Peruvians? BBC logic suggests that industry and business are bad things, but the government is failing to create jobs and growth which are needed to stop the youth rioting....so we need industry and business because they are good things. Immigration is good for the economy and is therefore good ....but the growing economy is bad for the environment and is therefore bad. Though US immigration is bad as it is ‘hoovering up’ all the world’s resources...unless of course it is poor Mexicans without whom American society would collapse without all those maids, nannies and gardeners.NEGATIVE OUTLOOK, POSITIVELY ASSURED
FOUR MORE YEARS....
>> MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012
Thursday, 16 February 2012
"Wonder if that applies to every group such as Greenpeace, the New Economic Foundation, the National Institute for Economic Research, the various charities whose very existence is based on left wing ethos, the Rowntree Foundation etc etc? Will they all have their own little 'red triangle' warning us of their political affiliations and intentions....eg Greenpeace...'extremist green lobby group'...or how about a quick rundown on BBC presenter's allegiance's and voting habits? How about an 'on air nod' to that?"
Posts
