Why does the BBC seem to take a certain side in every argument? It is after all supposed to be primarily a news and entertainment channel, with an emphasis on learning, and always on impartiality. It's foundation charter was most specific about this, and yet for at least the last 30 years or so, it has taken an ever more 'Pro Immigration (including illegals), Multi-culturalist, Politically Correct', leftie stance on nearly every public policy argument.
This view often fails to chime with the views of the very public its supposed to be serving its content to, but the BBC seems to care not a jot for this.
So even when poll after poll shows that the British (especially the residents of England), want all immigration to stop, or want Muslim terror suspects deported etc etc (I won't even mention the 'hanging or life means life' debates), the BBC continues to promote sob stories about how wonderful the polish plumber down the street is, or how a Muslim illegal who has made some poor unfortunate UK Asian girl pregnant, so is 'entitled' to a family life, (even if he is a former jihadhi fighter who murdered or raped hundreds of Yazidis).
This trend seems to have started in the 1980's, when the rise of Mrs Thatcher seemed to be some sort of red rag to the red brick educated lefties in the BBC hierarchy. For example, it was then that the BBC promoted the careers of a series of comedians, who were 'anti' Tory and 'anti' Mrs Thatcher - Ben Elton for example.
It never portrays or defends the views of those who regularly put the Conservative Party into power, Middle Englands voters, but instead mocks and derides their values as 'little englanders' or even 'closet racists, and therefore suitable for insult by knowing, left wing comedians, most of whom actually shelter under limited company status and do not the pay higher rate taxes that they claim 'the rich should pay'. This despite becoming wealthy or even millionaires themselves, by sucking on the publicly funded BBC teat.
So it has slowly become almost 'the norm', for the BBC to run stories that clearly have a 'message'. One which is usually against the views of the non-metropolitan elite (which consists of London Journos, Local politicians and the Westminster MP's aka 'The chattering classes'), and also invariably against any Non-Labour governments actions or laws ... the new BBC were probably only ever happy during the early Blair years ... until all those wars, and the 'Big Buddy, Little Buddy' relationship with President Bush developed ...
This BBC politicking was displayed most recently in the EU Referendum debate, during which the BBC almost campaigned openly for the 'Remain' camp, with every story of the predicted Armageddon (should we leave), promoted to lead story. Any gainsay against this view, was usually relegated to the 'lesser news' items, or tucked away deep in the lead anti-exit story.
In fact so upset was the BBC, that we apparently ignored their pointer to vote to stay, that even now, its apparently still fighting the 'good fight', with headlines of the economic and social disasters we are (still) going to face. E.g. 'Brexit prompts 50/50 recession chance' or 'Scotch makers in Brexit Tariffs warning' .... of course as we seem to be not sliding into the instant economic meltdown that the BBC stories might have led you to believe, even a few weeks ago, the story headlines are less and less stark, but nonetheless, its as though the BBC editorial staff have still not given up hope of a Luftwaffe raid to teach us a lesson (and make us vote again).
Similarly, abroad, for the last few US presidential campaigns, its been blatantly obvious, both from the amount and the tone of the coverage, who the BBC have wanted to win. Big Bill Clinton was a favourite (Ronald Reagan never was). Then Obama mania was almost at fever pitch in his first campaign ... imagine that 'a black man was running for president' ... 'chains of oppression and servitude' lifted, 'two hundred years a slave' ... 'silver tongued speaker'. The clichés rolled out, and continued rolling out (but not as fast), in his second term campaign against (do you know what I actually forgot who the heck the Republicans fielded, and had to look it up), Willard Mitt Romney, as Obama had palpably failed to deliver the 'second Camelot' they had expected (Obama, it turned out was singularly no JFK).
Recently it was another Clinton, Hilary, (The BBC and its New Labour chums had really loved Bill Clinton), versus Donald Trump. Imagine that 'a woman running for president' ... 'chains of oppression and servitude' lifted, 'two thousand years a domestic slave' ... err, 'another Clinton', imagine that ...... The clichés were rolling out again. Of course we have to ignore the fact that women leaders (including the UK's Thatcher and May), have been common elsewhere (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, Denmark, Argentina, Peru etc etc, the list is actually quite long) ... gee whizz, that 'glass ceiling' has finally been breached .... again, gals.
That the BBC could hardly hide the distaste it holds for Donald Trump, and frankly was barely trying to be even handed in its coverage, was fairly obvious. Ignoring headlines generated by Mr Trumps behaviour, which admittedly were coming thick and fast as he put his foot into it over and over again (and which should have been enough for the most avid of copy writers), they also run anti-Trump features, while at the same time featuring thinly veiled pro Hilary stories. For example 'Is Tump undermining democracy' ... while on the same page 'Shattered Ceiling ... women watch Hilary Clinton make history'. Oh and just in case you didn't get the point, there was side link to the headline US story of the day before 'Trump unfit to be president - Obama'.
On another page ..."Republican splits growing over Trump." ... Trump 'psychologically unbalanced'.... Trump is 'woefully unprepared' ... Trump: 'get the baby out of here'.
How can this be classed as impartially passing on the news? These were features that were, in effect the same as the editorial comments in a newspaper, in which the paper tells you their opinion on news matters (and in newspapers are not considered to be impartial) ....
The BBC really needs a root and branch reform if it wishes to continue to take public money to fund it, but refuses to fairly represent the views of the 70% of the population who consistently do not agree with the socialist world view (as indicated in election votes), or as seen through the prism of the BBC's reporting.
 |
| BBC Impartiality Often Questioned ... But Not So Often By The Left. |
This view often fails to chime with the views of the very public its supposed to be serving its content to, but the BBC seems to care not a jot for this.
So even when poll after poll shows that the British (especially the residents of England), want all immigration to stop, or want Muslim terror suspects deported etc etc (I won't even mention the 'hanging or life means life' debates), the BBC continues to promote sob stories about how wonderful the polish plumber down the street is, or how a Muslim illegal who has made some poor unfortunate UK Asian girl pregnant, so is 'entitled' to a family life, (even if he is a former jihadhi fighter who murdered or raped hundreds of Yazidis).
This trend seems to have started in the 1980's, when the rise of Mrs Thatcher seemed to be some sort of red rag to the red brick educated lefties in the BBC hierarchy. For example, it was then that the BBC promoted the careers of a series of comedians, who were 'anti' Tory and 'anti' Mrs Thatcher - Ben Elton for example.
It never portrays or defends the views of those who regularly put the Conservative Party into power, Middle Englands voters, but instead mocks and derides their values as 'little englanders' or even 'closet racists, and therefore suitable for insult by knowing, left wing comedians, most of whom actually shelter under limited company status and do not the pay higher rate taxes that they claim 'the rich should pay'. This despite becoming wealthy or even millionaires themselves, by sucking on the publicly funded BBC teat.
So it has slowly become almost 'the norm', for the BBC to run stories that clearly have a 'message'. One which is usually against the views of the non-metropolitan elite (which consists of London Journos, Local politicians and the Westminster MP's aka 'The chattering classes'), and also invariably against any Non-Labour governments actions or laws ... the new BBC were probably only ever happy during the early Blair years ... until all those wars, and the 'Big Buddy, Little Buddy' relationship with President Bush developed ...
This BBC politicking was displayed most recently in the EU Referendum debate, during which the BBC almost campaigned openly for the 'Remain' camp, with every story of the predicted Armageddon (should we leave), promoted to lead story. Any gainsay against this view, was usually relegated to the 'lesser news' items, or tucked away deep in the lead anti-exit story.
 |
| A Recession A Day Keeps Brexit At Bay |
In fact so upset was the BBC, that we apparently ignored their pointer to vote to stay, that even now, its apparently still fighting the 'good fight', with headlines of the economic and social disasters we are (still) going to face. E.g. 'Brexit prompts 50/50 recession chance' or 'Scotch makers in Brexit Tariffs warning' .... of course as we seem to be not sliding into the instant economic meltdown that the BBC stories might have led you to believe, even a few weeks ago, the story headlines are less and less stark, but nonetheless, its as though the BBC editorial staff have still not given up hope of a Luftwaffe raid to teach us a lesson (and make us vote again).
Similarly, abroad, for the last few US presidential campaigns, its been blatantly obvious, both from the amount and the tone of the coverage, who the BBC have wanted to win. Big Bill Clinton was a favourite (Ronald Reagan never was). Then Obama mania was almost at fever pitch in his first campaign ... imagine that 'a black man was running for president' ... 'chains of oppression and servitude' lifted, 'two hundred years a slave' ... 'silver tongued speaker'. The clichés rolled out, and continued rolling out (but not as fast), in his second term campaign against (do you know what I actually forgot who the heck the Republicans fielded, and had to look it up), Willard Mitt Romney, as Obama had palpably failed to deliver the 'second Camelot' they had expected (Obama, it turned out was singularly no JFK).
Recently it was another Clinton, Hilary, (The BBC and its New Labour chums had really loved Bill Clinton), versus Donald Trump. Imagine that 'a woman running for president' ... 'chains of oppression and servitude' lifted, 'two thousand years a domestic slave' ... err, 'another Clinton', imagine that ...... The clichés were rolling out again. Of course we have to ignore the fact that women leaders (including the UK's Thatcher and May), have been common elsewhere (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, Denmark, Argentina, Peru etc etc, the list is actually quite long) ... gee whizz, that 'glass ceiling' has finally been breached .... again, gals.
 |
| Trump Not Wanted By The BBC .... Can't You Tell? |
That the BBC could hardly hide the distaste it holds for Donald Trump, and frankly was barely trying to be even handed in its coverage, was fairly obvious. Ignoring headlines generated by Mr Trumps behaviour, which admittedly were coming thick and fast as he put his foot into it over and over again (and which should have been enough for the most avid of copy writers), they also run anti-Trump features, while at the same time featuring thinly veiled pro Hilary stories. For example 'Is Tump undermining democracy' ... while on the same page 'Shattered Ceiling ... women watch Hilary Clinton make history'. Oh and just in case you didn't get the point, there was side link to the headline US story of the day before 'Trump unfit to be president - Obama'.
 |
| BBC Politicking .... |
On another page ..."Republican splits growing over Trump." ... Trump 'psychologically unbalanced'.... Trump is 'woefully unprepared' ... Trump: 'get the baby out of here'.
How can this be classed as impartially passing on the news? These were features that were, in effect the same as the editorial comments in a newspaper, in which the paper tells you their opinion on news matters (and in newspapers are not considered to be impartial) ....
The BBC really needs a root and branch reform if it wishes to continue to take public money to fund it, but refuses to fairly represent the views of the 70% of the population who consistently do not agree with the socialist world view (as indicated in election votes), or as seen through the prism of the BBC's reporting.
Reading the headlines you have illustrated this story with it actually surprising that no one else has remarked on it.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason no one is prepared to take on the BBC as the preeminent example of left wing journalism in the UK.
They are more of a sacred cow than even the NHS. Strange, but probably never going to change. The time to have caught this and stopped it was in Mrs Thatcher's second term.
its a hangover from the 1960's when the world, even the USA seemed to be drifting into consensus on a basic soft liberalism. The recessions in the 1970's reversed that in the USA but not in Europe, which will not be removed until this last generation of babyboomers relinquish power.
DeleteThe EU federalist agenda is driven by these same people. The answer for every problem is more centralisation, more common liberal policies, more federation. Even when these polices have palpably failed.
The soft left never understand that its they that usher in the right, when they refuse to recognise what the main populations want. e.g. No more third world immigration (especially Islamic), less Globalisation which has reverted western standards of living, so that many people have a lower standard of living than their parents.
Democratic politicians and parties that forget that they actually have to carry the native populations with them, are doomed to usher in what they least want to replace them.
Thanks for the comment.
That's not a bad summary of the issue the last never get. Basically people are decent and want to follow a soft liberal agenda but not at the expense of their and their children's future. They don't want to turn a country black or Muslim because of immigrants. They don't want 3rd world religions and cultures being given equal importance to the western ideas. They don't want whole industries being allowed to move to the 3rd world just to make it a few dollars cheaper.
DeleteThese are not unreasonable demands and it's what Trump has tapped into but which Clinton could never bring herself to do with any conviction.
The lefts refusal to accommodate a few bits of realism is why desperate populations flirt with hard politcal parties of the right (or sometimes left).
Thanks for letting me post this and happy holidays.
Thanks for the comment. Some valid points there but unlikely to be listened to by anyone who should do so. Happy holidays to you ... still Happy Christmas where I live.
Delete