Outing official opiniasters: omissions, obfuscation or obscurantism...

---

BBC = Ministry of Truth. Irony lost on BBC

...or indeed all of the above! The UK's state broadcaster (Auntie, The Beeb, the BBC) "says its new Verify service will subject its own journalism to more rigorous fact-checking. But a far less neutral agenda appears to be concealed beneath this lofty aspiration". Laughable to anyone who cares to even scratch the surface. 

"The BBC isn’t exposing disinformation. It's peddling it" writes Jonathan Cook; he's 100% correct. 

 "Why the BBC is launching its Verify service is all too clear. Trust in the establishment media, and the BBC in particular, has hit an all-time low. That itself poses a threat to the broadcaster’s Reithian [*] purpose: to impress a national consensus on the public mind that serves the British state." 

[*] Lord Reith, founder of the BBC:

'They [the government] know they can trust us not to be really impartial.' (C. Stuart, ed., 'The Reith Diaries', 1975)
[Media Lens Twitter LINK]

Omphaloskepsis, odium and oikophobia...

---

You may not have guessed but the blog title is describing the BBC. Omphaloskepsis is basically navel-gazing, here I use it as a literal modern sense, self-absorbed unaware narcissistic wokeness, not that of the omphalopsychite who meditates by gazing at the navel. The BBC simply hate this country and all it stands for and has stood for. Oikophoboa obviously meant in the modern sense of Roger Scruton [PDF] but put very simply would be 'home hating', "Oikophobia and Xenophilia" [Wiki] gives more of a clue.  a "seeming loss of national loyalty is a feature of our political élites, but it is not shared by the English people."...I would add, though in the text they are not connected, "the British generally, and the English in particular".

"Oikophobia is a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes. But it is a stage in which some people — intellectuals especially [Ows: IYIs even more especially] — tend to become arrested. As George Orwell pointed out, intellectuals on the Left are especially prone to it, and this has oftenmade them willing agents of foreign powers."

The point of the above is that Laurence Fox has called the BBC exactly that, on Talk Radio, the YouTube interview HERE is well worth a listen (only 7 minutes, and what he says is 100% true).

The BBC re the current Last Night of the Proms is kowtowing to BLM and "Black Studies" racists, who also all seem fairly ignornant of the meaning of the words, the history of slavery in general and especially The Slave Trade Act (1807), the Slavery Abolition Act (1833)
etc. 

Both those interviews were yesterday.

Omphaloskepsis, odium and oikophobia...

---

You may not have guessed but the blog title is describing the BBC. Omphaloskepsis is basically navel-gazing, here I use it as a literal modern sense, self-absorbed unaware narcissistic wokeness, not that of the omphalopsychite who meditates by gazing at the navel. The BBC simply hate this country and all it stands for and has stood for. Oikophoboa obviously meant in the modern sense of Roger Scruton [PDF] but put very simply would be 'home hating', "Oikophobia and Xenophilia" [Wiki] gives more of a clue.  a "seeming loss of national loyalty is a feature of our political élites, but it is not shared by the English people."...I would add, though in the text they are not connected, "the British generally, and the English in particular".

"Oikophobia is a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes. But it is a stage in which some people — intellectuals especially [Ows: IYIs even more especially] — tend to become arrested. As George Orwell pointed out, intellectuals on the Left are especially prone to it, and this has oftenmade them willing agents of foreign powers."

The point of the above is that Laurence Fox has called the BBC exactly that, on Talk Radio, the YouTube interview HERE is well worth a listen (only 7 minutes, and what he says is 100% true).

The BBC re the current Last Night of the Proms is kowtowing to BLM and "Black Studies" racists, who also all seem fairly ignornant of the meaning of the words, the history of slavery in general and especially The Slave Trade Act (1807), the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) etc. 

Both those interviews were yesterday.

Outing obsequious oriental obedientiaries...

---

This from the USA but one presumes we have the same problem in the UK and Europe:

"Professors around America have been caught selling secret research to the Chinese Communist Regime. The national media won't cover it..."

And there are more than a few! See Cabot Phillip's Twitter feed for details or easier to read in Thread Reader HERE.



In the UK our vile media is turning into the what the USA is having to put up with, think BBC = CNN and you won't be far wrong except in the UK the public are FORCED to pay for the biased BBC. Here we currently have the Remainer-run Dominic Cummings witchhunt where the bubble and blob are really freaking out: over there, Cabot writes

"We had almost zero evidence of foreign interference in our elections, and half the country freaked out. Now, we have endless evidence of foreign interference on our campuses, and no one is batting an eye."

He adds that "People on campus are afraid to question China's influence efforts for fear of being labeled xenophobic or racist." Sure, but they will also be concerned they'll lose their funding: think of similar to the Arabian Islamic paid influence in many UK and European Universties, but x 10.

Outing obsequious oriental obedientiaries...

---

This from the USA but one presumes we have the same problem in the UK and Europe:

"Professors around America have been caught selling secret research to the Chinese Communist Regime. The national media won't cover it..."

And there are more than a few! See Cabot Phillip's Twitter feed for details or easier to read in Thread Reader HERE.

In the UK our vile media is turning into the what the USA is having to put up with, think BBC = CNN and you won't be far wrong except in the UK the public are FORCED to pay for the biased BBC. Here we currently have the Remainer-run Dominic Cummings witchhunt where the bubble and blob are really freaking out: over there, Cabot writes

"We had almost zero evidence of foreign interference in our elections, and half the country freaked out. Now, we have endless evidence of foreign interference on our campuses, and no one is batting an eye."

He adds that "People on campus are afraid to question China's influence efforts for fear of being labeled xenophobic or racist." Sure, but they will also be concerned they'll lose their funding: think of similar to the Arabian Islamic paid influence in many UK and European Universties, but x 10.

Ostara's opera...

---

[edited 19th April, a.m.]...more than one opus to enjoy reading (along with the comments) this celebration of Ēostre (or Ostara), by complete coincidence now also Easter.

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."  [from De mensibus Anglorum, De temporum ratione. Bede]

Anyway, the reading, firstly: Pieter Cleppe's "The long road to Brexit" on 1828. Margaret Thatcher's momentous 'Bruges Speech' ignored...a potted history from the 1960's to German reunification, ("The euro's creation was mainly the result of longstanding French frustration with the supremacy of Germany’s Bundesbank...") and up to present day and Brexit.


"Referendums were held on the Nice treaty, rejected by the Irish in 2001, the European constitution, rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005, and its reworked version, the Lisbon treaty, rejected again by the Irish in 2008, who were asked to vote a second time on both."
"The treaty of Maastricht, signed in February 1992…, the UK secured an opt-out. This was the first major British deviation from the European project... "[1992] the Danish population rejected the Maastricht treaty in a referendum, resulting in a Danish opt-out from the euro..."

"Referendums decidedly rejected the EU's preferred outcome in Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, and Hungary. And Britain's Eurosceptics had been craving a referendum on the EU for decades. So in order to stem the rise of Ukip, Cameron offered a public vote on EU membership in January 2013. The rest is history." [sic]

 A very Interesting read. 

Secondly, and somewhat related, "Entrenched: Fifteen years of BBC bias over Europe"; David

Key: pro = pro EU etc.

Keighley's piece on The Conservative Woman. Details from News-watch, or very full details HERE (PDF). Spoiler, it's about a show with Mark Mardell, yes, he of Obamamessiah complex, cringingly tainting BBC's US coverage for several years. Anyhoo, this show was about Brexit; basically, for an example of the bias, 58 speakers (48%) offered a positive opinion on the EU (or former EEC) or a negative opinion on Brexit, whilst 50 speakers (41%) offered a negative opinion on the EU (or former EEC) or a positive opinion on Brexit...doesn't sound too bad you say, but of those speakers a total of 64-71% of speech was pro EU, a 9:4 ratio bias.



The PDF is only 143 pages long...enjoy :-)



Thirdly but by NO means third in importance: The Donald just keeps on winning:

Ostara's opera...

---

[edited 19th April, a.m.]...more than one opus to enjoy reading (along with the comments) this celebration of Ēostre (or Ostara), by complete coincidence now also Easter.

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."  [from De mensibus Anglorum, De temporum ratione. Bede]

Anyway, the reading, firstly: Pieter Cleppe's "The long road to Brexit" on 1828. Margaret Thatcher's momentous 'Bruges Speech' ignored...a potted history from the 1960's to German reunification, ("The euro's creation was mainly the result of longstanding French frustration with the supremacy of Germany’s Bundesbank...") and up to present day and Brexit.
"Referendums were held on the Nice treaty, rejected by the Irish in 2001, the European constitution, rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005, and its reworked version, the Lisbon treaty, rejected again by the Irish in 2008, who were asked to vote a second time on both." "The treaty of Maastricht, signed in February 1992…, the UK secured an opt-out. This was the first major British deviation from the European project... "[1992] the Danish population rejected the Maastricht treaty in a referendum, resulting in a Danish opt-out from the euro..."

"Referendums decidedly rejected the EU's preferred outcome in Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, and Hungary. And Britain's Eurosceptics had been craving a referendum on the EU for decades. So in order to stem the rise of Ukip, Cameron offered a public vote on EU membership in January 2013. The rest is history." [sic]

 A very Interesting read. 

Secondly, and somewhat related, "Entrenched: Fifteen years of BBC bias over Europe"; David

Key: pro = pro EU etc.

Keighley's piece on The Conservative Woman. Details from News-watch, or very full details HERE (PDF). Spoiler, it's about a show with Mark Mardell, yes, he of Obamamessiah complex, cringingly tainting BBC's US coverage for several years. Anyhoo, this show was about Brexit; basically, for an example of the bias, 58 speakers (48%) offered a positive opinion on the EU (or former EEC) or a negative opinion on Brexit, whilst 50 speakers (41%) offered a negative opinion on the EU (or former EEC) or a positive opinion on Brexit...doesn't sound too bad you say, but of those speakers a total of 64-71% of speech was pro EU, a 9:4 ratio bias.

The PDF is only 143 pages long...enjoy :-)

Thirdly but by NO means third in importance: The Donald just keeps on winning:

Omission, obfuscation, obnubilation, obscurantism...

---

...or, in plain English, downright lying. Unbelievably the BBC is STILL reporting the petition calling on the government to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU without ANY mention of the false signatures, multi-thousand repeat and joke signatures etc. The BBC is a multi-billion pound organisation that pretends it is impartial, it would take a child 10 seconds to discover the complete joke this petition is [LINK].



At least they have stopped saying it is the fastest-growing on record or the best-supported proposal in the history of the Commons, or other such 'keep this non-story' going piffle but to openly report it as genuine and as if it were corruption free is plain lying.



Also, the 'million person march' - a number easily debunked by anyone who can see - is now also officially debunked (it was really officially debunked the same day, anyone who has ever see a crowd of just a single football game knows how ridiculous the claims were). The BBC get around this unfortunate truth by saying things like "the organisers say" and can therefore leave their lying "million joined Brexit protest" headline in place.



The BBC are cunts but the cunting cunts in Parliament take the biscuit. However, just for info, remember who is voting for what when you come to help destroy these treacherous cunts at the ballot box: there are a cohort of 30 "Conservative" MPs who really need to be pilloried.

No, the irony of me using BBC info is not lost.

Omission, obfuscation, obnubilation, obscurantism...

---

...or, in plain English, downright lying. Unbelievably the BBC is STILL reporting the petition calling on the government to revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU without ANY mention of the false signatures, multi-thousand repeat and joke signatures etc. The BBC is a multi-billion pound organisation that pretends it is impartial, it would take a child 10 seconds to discover the complete joke this petition is [LINK].

At least they have stopped saying it is the fastest-growing on record or the best-supported proposal in the history of the Commons, or other such 'keep this non-story' going piffle but to openly report it as genuine and as if it were corruption free is plain lying.

Also, the 'million person march' - a number easily debunked by anyone who can see - is now also officially debunked (it was really officially debunked the same day, anyone who has ever see a crowd of just a single football game knows how ridiculous the claims were). The BBC get around this unfortunate truth by saying things like "the organisers say" and can therefore leave their lying "million joined Brexit protest" headline in place.

The BBC are cunts but the cunting cunts in Parliament take the biscuit. However, just for info, remember who is voting for what when you come to help destroy these treacherous cunts at the ballot box: there are a cohort of 30 "Conservative" MPs who really need to be pilloried.

No, the irony of me using BBC info is not lost.

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.



Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.



The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."



Yep. Soon as possible please.

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.

Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.

The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."

Yep. Soon as possible please.

Obfuscating obscurantism...

---

BBC = Ministry of Truth. Irony lost on BBC

"Is it time to rein in the BBC?" writes David Hardy on Comment Central. Firstly the most amazing thing is that David is a university lecturer by profession! Clearly he has avoided the brainwashing that effects a large majority of the UK population's educators. Apart from that the article is spot on concentrating on the BBC's coverage of Donald Trump. Their crazed obsession is patent and getting more blatant, they simply don't care anymore. The daily lies, spin and omission that is their news and political coverage has been going on for at least 25 years - much longer really but 25 years since I have been highlighting it to anyone who'll listen.



David's piece is excellent: "Relentless. Bitter. Juvenile. BBC coverage is also hysterical and quite frankly has now become a national embarrassment. This is not journalism. It’s political activism, pure and simple."

Just as Mark Mardell's Obama coverage was so painfully pathetically obsequious as to be almost unreadable, so Jon Sopel's and Anthony Zurcher's (BBC North America editor and North America Correspondent respectively) coverage of Donald Trump is equally unreadable due to their equally pathetic "coverage": they have NO interest in news or facts, they want unresearched tabloid gossip, hearsay and fake news, which they will then trumpet to the world.

James Cook, another of the BBC's North American 'correspondents' (ha!) takes the biscuit: "[Trump] has sought to undermine the free press, repeatedly dismissing inconvenient or critical journalism as 'fake news'." No James, he outs fake news as fake news. Can you name anything that The Donald has called fake news that wasn't fake news? He has been right every time. I nominated BBC in the fake news awards, the list was endless and they break their Charter EVERY day.

"For make no mistake, the BBC is determined to do all it can to undermine the Trump presidency in just the same way it is attempting to sabotage the Brexit vote. While a toothless political class looks limply on, the national broadcaster grows ever more audacious, emboldened by lack of regulation and timorous politicians the BBC is an organisation now out of control."

The BBC will never disappear completely but it must be broken up. Broadcasting and Production must be completely separated. Most of their TV channels and radio stations can go. It needs root and branch reform of the news and political coverage. Let them be the public service broadcaster they should be. Apparently the BBC's Mission is to "inform, educate and entertain"; by lying, by omitting, by focusing on their own agenda does not inform, educate nor entertain.
Their Values state that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Laughable. NO THEY ARE NOT! Financed by a tax collected on threat of gaol they are extremely partisan, glaringly biased and clearly dishonest. THERE IS NO DOUBT.





Update: As if on cue, Brexit Central with a David Keighley report on the blatant bias, undeniable. [LINK to PDF]

Obfuscating obscurantism...

---

BBC = Ministry of Truth. Irony lost on BBC

"Is it time to rein in the BBC?" writes David Hardy on Comment Central. Firstly the most amazing thing is that David is a university lecturer by profession! Clearly he has avoided the brainwashing that effects a large majority of the UK population's educators. Apart from that the article is spot on concentrating on the BBC's coverage of Donald Trump. Their crazed obsession is patent and getting more blatant, they simply don't care anymore. The daily lies, spin and omission that is their news and political coverage has been going on for at least 25 years - much longer really but 25 years since I have been highlighting it to anyone who'll listen.

David's piece is excellent: "Relentless. Bitter. Juvenile. BBC coverage is also hysterical and quite frankly has now become a national embarrassment. This is not journalism. It’s political activism, pure and simple." Just as Mark Mardell's Obama coverage was so painfully pathetically obsequious as to be almost unreadable, so Jon Sopel's and Anthony Zurcher's (BBC North America editor and North America Correspondent respectively) coverage of Donald Trump is equally unreadable due to their equally pathetic "coverage": they have NO interest in news or facts, they want unresearched tabloid gossip, hearsay and fake news, which they will then trumpet to the world. James Cook, another of the BBC's North American 'correspondents' (ha!) takes the biscuit: "[Trump] has sought to undermine the free press, repeatedly dismissing inconvenient or critical journalism as 'fake news'." No James, he outs fake news as fake news. Can you name anything that The Donald has called fake news that wasn't fake news? He has been right every time. I nominated BBC in the fake news awards, the list was endless and they break their Charter EVERY day.

"For make no mistake, the BBC is determined to do all it can to undermine the Trump presidency in just the same way it is attempting to sabotage the Brexit vote. While a toothless political class looks limply on, the national broadcaster grows ever more audacious, emboldened by lack of regulation and timorous politicians the BBC is an organisation now out of control."

The BBC will never disappear completely but it must be broken up. Broadcasting and Production must be completely separated. Most of their TV channels and radio stations can go. It needs root and branch reform of the news and political coverage. Let them be the public service broadcaster they should be. Apparently the BBC's Mission is to "inform, educate and entertain"; by lying, by omitting, by focusing on their own agenda does not inform, educate nor entertain. Their Values state that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Laughable. NO THEY ARE NOT! Financed by a tax collected on threat of gaol they are extremely partisan, glaringly biased and clearly dishonest. THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Update: As if on cue, Brexit Central with a David Keighley report on the blatant bias, undeniable. [LINK to PDF]

Obvious odditorium...

---

This feels like most left-wing audience in any election debate. #BBCDebate

— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) 31 May 2017

When even the Political Editor of the New Statesman has to call out the BBC on their ludicrous and patent left wing bias you know the national broadcaster - at least in news and political coverage - has jumped the shark.

Obvious odditorium...

---

This feels like most left-wing audience in any election debate. #BBCDebate

— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) 31 May 2017

When even the Political Editor of the New Statesman has to call out the BBC on their ludicrous and patent left wing bias you know the national broadcaster - at least in news and political coverage - has jumped the shark.

Ofcom overture...

---

Ofcom [Link] is the UK's communications regulator; this encompasses all TV, radio, video-on-demand, fixed-line telecoms, mobile phones, postal services and "the airwaves over which wireless devices operate". Not pigeons though, or flags or smoke.



As of TODAY, i.e. effective from 3 April 2017, Ofcom becomes the BBC's first external regulator. Ofcom is developing an 'Operating Framework' covering regulation of the "BBC's performance, compliance with content standards and impact on competition."



The images HERE are a few years old but show just why the BBC must be held to account. "The BBC has a monopoly and it's abusing it". Still today BBC accounts for over 40% of all of the UK's TV and radio; when only news is considered over 50% get their main news from a BBC news outlets (TV, radio and online), this makes their honesty of paramount importance and yet the BBC's Royal Charter [PDF copy] is broken many times a day, every day.



I really truly hope that Ofcom will do the job it is announcing it will do and not just pay lip service to it. The BBC is - and has been for decades - blatantly biased, uses underhand reporting and broadcasting techniques, lies, obscures, omits and ignores many things. The extent is so bad sometimes as to be comparable - or worse - to what some people throughout history have been executed for (the various individuals known as Lord Haw Haw for instance).



Many want to close the BBC completely, I think that is wrong and almost impossible BUT a complete overhaul of all news broadcast and political content - plus the attitude and activity of staff - needs addressing. To say the BBC is a hotbed of sinister rabble rousing lefty twats is an exaggeration...but not a wild one.

Ofcom overture...

---

Ofcom [Link] is the UK's communications regulator; this encompasses all TV, radio, video-on-demand, fixed-line telecoms, mobile phones, postal services and "the airwaves over which wireless devices operate". Not pigeons though, or flags or smoke.

As of TODAY, i.e. effective from 3 April 2017, Ofcom becomes the BBC's first external regulator. Ofcom is developing an 'Operating Framework' covering regulation of the "BBC's performance, compliance with content standards and impact on competition."

The images HERE are a few years old but show just why the BBC must be held to account. "The BBC has a monopoly and it's abusing it". Still today BBC accounts for over 40% of all of the UK's TV and radio; when only news is considered over 50% get their main news from a BBC news outlets (TV, radio and online), this makes their honesty of paramount importance and yet the BBC's Royal Charter [PDF copy] is broken many times a day, every day.

I really truly hope that Ofcom will do the job it is announcing it will do and not just pay lip service to it. The BBC is - and has been for decades - blatantly biased, uses underhand reporting and broadcasting techniques, lies, obscures, omits and ignores many things. The extent is so bad sometimes as to be comparable - or worse - to what some people throughout history have been executed for (the various individuals known as Lord Haw Haw for instance).

Many want to close the BBC completely, I think that is wrong and almost impossible BUT a complete overhaul of all news broadcast and political content - plus the attitude and activity of staff - needs addressing. To say the BBC is a hotbed of sinister rabble rousing lefty twats is an exaggeration...but not a wild one.

Obduracy of obfuscation...

---

How fake news spreads: look at the three images of screen clips taken from the BBC yesterday (click on images to link); the left hand image was on their main news page on Saturday afternoon (yesterday), the other two are from the article on the Europe News page that the first story linked to (since updated: Newssniffer).






1. First link, main news page: "Dutch Populist calls Moroccans 'scum'"

2. Article: Europe News: "Dutch populist Geert Wilders calls some Moroccans 'scum'". The first line iterates this: "Dutch populist leader Geert Wilders has launched his election campaign by calling some Moroccans "scum"."

3. What Wilders said: "There is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe".



...needless to say that the number of visitors who read the first headline would be far, far more than read the 2nd; the numbers reading the 2nd would be far, far more than those that actually read the whole article and get to what Wilders actually said. There is an improvement for the BBC Online: a couple of years ago the pertinent quote would have been further down, below the scroll line and under at least one photo and they would have called him 'far-right'.



1 = fake news; 2 = on the verge of fake news; 3 = news.  It's not complicated or difficult to get right. As usual, today it isn't on the main news page and the Europe News headline has been 'down-faked' to "Geert Wilders talks of Moroccan 'scum'" but by now most who would read it have read the fake news. 

Obduracy of obfuscation...

---

How fake news spreads: look at the three images of screen clips taken from the BBC yesterday (click on images to link); the left hand image was on their main news page on Saturday afternoon (yesterday), the other two are from the article on the Europe News page that the first story linked to (since updated: Newssniffer).

1. First link, main news page: "Dutch Populist calls Moroccans 'scum'"
2. Article: Europe News: "Dutch populist Geert Wilders calls some Moroccans 'scum'". The first line iterates this: "Dutch populist leader Geert Wilders has launched his election campaign by calling some Moroccans "scum"."
3. What Wilders said: "There is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe".

...needless to say that the number of visitors who read the first headline would be far, far more than read the 2nd; the numbers reading the 2nd would be far, far more than those that actually read the whole article and get to what Wilders actually said. There is an improvement for the BBC Online: a couple of years ago the pertinent quote would have been further down, below the scroll line and under at least one photo and they would have called him 'far-right'.

1 = fake news; 2 = on the verge of fake news; 3 = news.  It's not complicated or difficult to get right. As usual, today it isn't on the main news page and the Europe News headline has been 'down-faked' to "Geert Wilders talks of Moroccan 'scum'" but by now most who would read it have read the fake news. 

Owning Oliver's overpriced offerings...

---

Well said JD WETHERSP00N (Twitter PARODY!) who has responded to Jamie Oliver (or more specifically Oliver's 'Italian' range CEO Simon Blagden said: "As every restaurant owner knows, this is a tough market and, post-Brexit, the pressures and unknowns have made it even harder" [BBC]. Of course had they not blamed Brexit I doubt the BBC would have been interested.

This has nothing to do with Brexit, it's because his food is no better than ours but four times the price! https://t.co/8KnCZMhw2v

— JD WETHERSP00N (@WetherspoonsUK) 6 January 2017

Hi @jamieoliver these restaurants you are closing because of 'Brexit' we will take them because we know how to run a successful business!? 👍

— JD WETHERSP00N (@WetherspoonsUK) 6 January 2017

Trouble is, it just reflects exactly what Jamie Oliver's company did in 2015 and 2014, clearly a company strategy, open up several 'new idea' restaurants to fanfare, suck up the mugs money for a year or so then close the least profitable and start with the next idea (quite a few in the pipeline I imagine, 'Barbecoa' on the rise...to be whittled down in a year or two for the next whizz).



The main point is, that it is NOTHING to do with Brexit so stop fucking lying.



"WTF, Jamie Oliver?", to quote the Spanish response to him massacring paella last year.

Hat-tip: Order-Order