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]

Omniloquent observer opines on our obscurantic omphaloskepsis...

---

Brendan O'Neill on the button again, in Spiked-online "In 2017, our response to terrorism became dangerously passive."... "2017 might prove to be the year we caved in to terrorism.". Writing about the official response and our own response.

"In 2017 we witnessed the rise of the terror amnesia industry – an informal but effective effort by the political class and opinion-forming set to shush serious discussion about terrorism; to tame strong emotions post-terror; to make people forget, in essence, the latest bloody destruction of their fellow citizens, or at least stop thinking about it. 'Don't look back…'"

'The terror amnesia industry', yes indeed. The immediate 'Beware of backlash', 'Beware of Islamophobia', the hiding of facts the under-reporting or omission of facts...and in fact the over-reporting and highlighting of anything to deflect attention.

"This is how deeply the West’s moral cowardice now runs: we are not even permitted to name the ideology that motors the murder of our fellow citizens...."A nation that fails to get angry about the slaughter of its children, and which won’t even allow frank discussion about the ideology used to justify that slaughter, is a nation that has lost its moral anchor.

So very true. 

Omniloquent observer opines on our obscurantic omphaloskepsis...

---

Brendan O'Neill on the button again, in Spiked-online "In 2017, our response to terrorism became dangerously passive."... "2017 might prove to be the year we caved in to terrorism.". Writing about the official response and our own response.

"In 2017 we witnessed the rise of the terror amnesia industry – an informal but effective effort by the political class and opinion-forming set to shush serious discussion about terrorism; to tame strong emotions post-terror; to make people forget, in essence, the latest bloody destruction of their fellow citizens, or at least stop thinking about it. 'Don't look back…'"

'The terror amnesia industry', yes indeed. The immediate 'Beware of backlash', 'Beware of Islamophobia', the hiding of facts the under-reporting or omission of facts...and in fact the over-reporting and highlighting of anything to deflect attention.

"This is how deeply the West’s moral cowardice now runs: we are not even permitted to name the ideology that motors the murder of our fellow citizens...."A nation that fails to get angry about the slaughter of its children, and which won’t even allow frank discussion about the ideology used to justify that slaughter, is a nation that has lost its moral anchor.

So very true. 

OMG IV...

---

Un-fucking-believable. Steerpike's column at The Spectator reveals more BBC chronic lefty bias, after their nauseating Castro Love-in last month I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. There is so much wrong there on a par with how the BBC teaches youngsters how it was nasty Western Europeans attacked those loving Muslims in The Crusades.

"On the BBC’s Bitesize study site, there is a revision guide on Stalin’s Five Year plans. It turns out that — as far as the Beeb is concerned — they were, broadly speaking, a ‘success’ that brought ‘great improvements’"

This is truly even beyond a joke; Pythonesque satire. Worth reading the comments at the Spectator. 

OMG IV...

---

Un-fucking-believable. Steerpike's column at The Spectator reveals more BBC chronic lefty bias, after their nauseating Castro Love-in last month I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. There is so much wrong there on a par with how the BBC teaches youngsters how it was nasty Western Europeans attacked those loving Muslims in The Crusades.

"On the BBC’s Bitesize study site, there is a revision guide on Stalin’s Five Year plans. It turns out that — as far as the Beeb is concerned — they were, broadly speaking, a ‘success’ that brought ‘great improvements’"

This is truly even beyond a joke; Pythonesque satire. Worth reading the comments at the Spectator. 

Oval Office Orwellian on openess...

---

Are political donations a public or private affair? Sometimes it is in the public interest to have these things in the public domain...and sometimes it is sinister, partisan and downright outrageous: would you worry if you were a private - albeit wealthy - non-criminal citizen, with no elected office, sent a donation to the Republican nominee campaign and that "Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money."? Would you? That can't have really happened, can it?

Oval Office Orwellian on openess...

---

Are political donations a public or private affair? Sometimes it is in the public interest to have these things in the public domain...and sometimes it is sinister, partisan and downright outrageous: would you worry if you were a private - albeit wealthy - non-criminal citizen, with no elected office, sent a donation to the Republican nominee campaign and that "Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money."? Would you? That can't have really happened, can it?