The BBC has been replete with reports on the situation in the Syrian town of Homs. However a Biased BBC reader suggests that we are not quite getting the full picture from the State Broadcaster; "You will be aware of the BBC reporting on the Syrian government attacks on Homs and the killing of innocent civilians, however there seems to be no mention of the "freedom fighters" who are forcing civilians to remain in the town to act as human shields (just like the failure to report the use of civilians as shields in Gaza) nor of the wave of kidnappings that Christians in the town are now subject to (presumably from the same islamist "freedom fighters) see the information of this reported by the Barnabus Fund (extract below): "The situation in the besieged city of Homs, Syria, is horrifying and becoming unbearable for Christians who are caught in the battleground. Many thousands are trapped in the city though others have managed to flee to the surrounding villages. Families are in desperate need of food and basics; prices have rocketed, supplies are running low, and it is often too dangerous to go out in search of food. More than 200 Christians have been killed, and the community has been beset by kidnappings. Two bombs were discovered in a church yard in Homs, although thankfully they did not explode. Christians were even blocked from leaving Homs by anti-government forces who were keeping them there as “human shields” in a bid to protect the areas they were controlling." Odd how the BBC seem to have missed this aspect, isn't it? What with all that world class journalism, you might have thought someone would have thought the above worthy of comment? No? Startling admission here by Mark Thompson; Anyone catch THIS interview with Cardinal Keith O'Brien on Today this morning? John Humphrys exuded bias in my opinion but then again anyone prepared to go onto any BBC programme and criticise "gay marriage" is in for a hammering. I know, I have been there. The BBC's defence of the militant gay agenda is one of those defining features of the Corporation and I think it feels it essential to pose as a defender of the faithless. I felt sorry for the Cardinal having to put up with the sneering tone from Humphyrs. Wondered what you think? Justin Webb (Mark Mardell's predecessor as BBC North America editor) haswritten a little piece about the current state of the Republican Party. He's not pleased, of course, which is no surprise to those of us who remember him looking down from on high and declaring that the US had "moved on" from social conservatism. Now that there's a struggle for control of the Party between - I generalize a bit - the recently ascending Tea Party-inspired small government/fiscal conservatives, and the Santorumite, Republican establishment, who love big government and spending out their ears, and see nothing wrong with legislating personal behavior, ol' Justin simply does not know where to turn. And so he sticks his head further up the ivory tower. His goal here is to show you how the Republican Party is simply not ready to lead the country, because they've become too extremist. Right up front, we can see Webb trying to frame the Narrative, eliding facts to create the context he needs. When Henry Olson from the American Enterprise Institute says that the Republican Party is united in its opposition to "government". He means the current Government's far-Left policies, as in those of The Obamessiah. Spend a few minutes at AEI.organd decide for yourselves exactly what's being opposed. Rick Santorum is still close behind Romney because of all the social conservative/big-government types left trying to take control of the Party back from the Tea Party movement, who gained the momentum in 2010. Santorum is not a fan of personal freedom, yet he's still getting quite a bit of support from Republicans anyway. Anybody trying to tell you that the whole Party is united against "government" is either lying, or is actually saying something else. What really angers ol' Justin is what he perceives to be how the Republican Party is being driven to the extreme right by the "deep south". And - what a shock - he dishonestly describes the authority to whom he appeals for this. 
HOMS REDUX
MOCK JESUS, NOT MOHAMMAD
"The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus. He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”. But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity.
Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera – a controversial musical that mocked Jesus – if its target had been Mohammed. He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford. Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”
This explains a lot. The point is that the State Broadcaster has one standard for how it deals with Christianity but another for how it deals with Islam. I suggest that it is not just the "emotional force" that concerns Thompson should the BBC offend Muslims as it does Christians but rather the "cutting edge" that the Religion of Peace offers to all who dare demean it.HOT POTATO
SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH
Justin Webb Reveals His Bias And Dishonesty
>> SUNDAY, MARCH 04, 2012
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
As is often the case with the BBC, it's remarkable the news they choose not to report. Biased BBC contributor Alan notes;
Posts
