The Bbc Is At Least A Thousand Times More Evil And Dangerous Than Rupert Murdoch

[_w_]

The BBC gave us "The century of the self" and other similar documentaries. What more can one ask for?

[copydude]

There are many who allege that the BBC is run by MI6. True or not, it fits better. The BBC is not ideological, it is slant, Govspeak and often deliberate disinformation.

I struck off the BBC from my newsreader sources in 2007. It was the chief perpetrator of that fanciful fabrication of the Litvinenko story. The story was cooked up by Mafia Godfather Boris Berezovsky in association with Pottinger PR associates, headed by Mrs T's favourite Tim Bell, along with Oleg Gordievsky, MI6. (No lefties there.)

It culminated in a Panorama programme which defamed (socialist) Romani Prodi. At the time, Tony Blair was best mates with Berlusconi, Prodi's nemesis.

For sheer repetition of propaganda, the BBC has few equals. Did anyone have a problem with the Bin Laden story? The life and death of his right hand man, Al Zarkawi, was equally bizarre. William Bowles analysed 299 BBC articles in attempt to find one with any substantiation. See: The BBC: The Premier Propagandist For The Imperium

Bowles view is echoed by Medialens. Coincidentally, the current editorial is BBC Bombast – Propaganda, Complaints And Black Holes of Silence Complaining to the BBC is fruitless. It's a question of Have Our Say, not yours.

Is the BBC worse than Murdoch? Yes. I don't have to pay to ignore Fox News or The Sun.

[_w_]

The BBC does a lot of good stuff, and some of it is brilliant. It's the prevailing 'group-think' that nauseates me. I spend half my time in the car loving Radio 4 - the other half shaking my fist in the air, as yet another panel consists of everybody thinking the same thing - all lovely, nice, middle-class, artsy guardianistas who cannot do maths, see science as a historical subject about the personalities of scientists, and are mystified about basic common-sense economics, believing whopping lies which turn reality on its head with that shushing sound of: "Running a country is different - leave it to the experts - experts like Balls and Brown".

I don't watch or listen to any of that stuff any more, on the BBC or any other news source. Life's too short.

[Maggot_with_halitosis]

Durch 4 Polly Toynbee

[Guest tbatst2000]

The BBC does a lot of good stuff, and some of it is brilliant. It's the prevailing 'group-think' that nauseates me. I spend half my time in the car loving Radio 4 - the other half shaking my fist in the air, as yet another panel consists of everybody thinking the same thing - all lovely, nice, middle-class, artsy guardianistas who cannot do maths, see science as a historical subject about the personalities of scientists, and are mystified about basic common-sense economics, believing whopping lies which turn reality on its head with that shushing sound of: "Running a country is different - leave it to the experts - experts like Balls and Brown".

Well said. I'm pretty sure the reason the BBC survives is that half of the population like the brilliant bits and are prepared to put up with the left-wing group think to get them and the other half of the population is dumb enough to like the whole of it. If they ever give in to the urge to dumb down the remaining good bits completely then they're toast and I think they know that.

[Guest tbatst2000]

Durch 4 Polly Toynbee

Come the revolution, as well as Blair's head on a spike, I expect to see Toynbee boiled in extra virgin Tuscan olive oil on prime time television.

[DTMark]

Well said. I'm pretty sure the reason the BBC survives is that half of the population like the brilliant bits and are prepared to put up with the left-wing group think to get them and the other half of the population is dumb enough to like the whole of it. If they ever give in to the urge to dumb down the remaining good bits completely then they're toast and I think they know that.

Newsnight

This Week

Question Time

Mongrels

Little Britain

Doctor Who

The Apprentice

Great British Railways

Documentaries on BBC4

Radio 4

Wildlife documentaries

Period dramas

BBC World Service

Just a few of the reasons - off the top of my head - why it's the envy of the world. I'm sure that list could grow to 100+. I actually think TV has got better over the last decade.

ITV - can't think of anything especially meritworthy apart from Poirot, and it's not as if they created that

Sky - dear God, please... Malcolm in the Middle? Lost? Mythbusters? That episode of the Simpsons with the monorail in it again? (OK, that was outstanding, but I can only find it funny so many times)

Endless repeats... and you have to pay for it?

Commercial channels generally just play to the lowest common denominator.

I get the point about the leftist news agenda, it has always been entrenched to some degree. But the BBC is the only channel that provides anything really edicational and informative, the others - with the exception of a few bits on Channel 4 and E4 - are just trash television typified by crap like "Embarrassing bodies" and similar; glee and mirth at poor unfortunates dressed up as a documentary. "The Elephant Man" should have taught us something there. If the future of TV in this country is that (like America) then I fear for the future of the country.

So while I think BBC News 24 and the main bulletins need taking to task, there's plenty of balance. I can't think anyone would claim that Newsnight and This Week are particularly biased, to name just two.

I'd also assert that Sky has done far more to entrench the "dumbing down" that has been prevalent in this country than anyone or anything else. We do not need a population becoming progressively more and more ignorant and unable to think for themselves.

Which, I'd suggest, is the biggest danger of all.

[@contradevian]

Newsnight

This Week

Question Time

Mongrels

Little Britain

Doctor Who

The Apprentice

Great British Railways

Documentaries on BBC4

Radio 4

Wildlife documentaries

Period dramas

BBC World Service

Just a few of the reasons - off the top of my head - why it's the envy of the world. I'm sure that list could grow to 100+. I actually think TV has got better over the last decade.

ITV - can't think of anything especially meritworthy apart from Poirot, and it's not as if they created that

Sky - dear God, please... Malcolm in the Middle? Lost? Mythbusters? That episode of the Simpsons with the monorail in it again? (OK, that was outstanding, but I can only find it funny so many times)

Endless repeats... and you have to pay for it?

Commercial channels generally just play to the lowest common denominator.

I get the point about the leftist news agenda, it has always been entrenched to some degree. But the BBC is the only channel that provides anything really edicational and informative, the others - with the exception of a few bits on Channel 4 and E4 - are just trash television typified by crap like "Embarrassing bodies" and similar; glee and mirth at poor unfortunates dressed up as a documentary. "The Elephant Man" should have taught us something there. If the future of TV in this country is that (like America) then I fear for the future of the country.

So while I think BBC News 24 and the main bulletins need taking to task, there's plenty of balance. I can't think anyone would claim that Newsnight and This Week are particularly biased, to name just two.

I'd also assert that Sky has done far more to entrench the "dumbing down" that has been prevalent in this country than anyone or anything else. We do not need a population becoming progressively more and more ignorant and unable to think for themselves.

Which, I'd suggest, is the biggest danger of all.

Doctor Who is in crisis apparently due to loss of key staff and over blowing the budget (presumably on expensive American location shooting). One episode which was supposed to feature a new alien, had to make do with an Ood. BBC Worldwide is a little p*ssed because they are only planning six "specials" next year, and leaves BBC1 with many Saturdays without its flagship show, and will have to pay the "talent" like Matt Smith his full salary for performing less. And this is a show the BBC can sell all over the world.

I would like to see some of the compulsory BBC tax diverted into alternative news service. I don't see why Murdoch should pay for Sky News, indeed it would be better if he didn't. We need a much better alternative to BBC News. Shame also that ITN closed down their 24 hour rolling news service.

Its a pity that ITV drama can never match up to the BBC's, and even when ITV poach stars they manage to screw it up. I can only assume they suffer unfair competition with the BBC poaching most of the writing and production talent. Didn't used to be like this, in the days of Lew Grade, knocking out production action adventure series with ITC Entertainment which sold all over the world. There seems to be an obsession with production value's which mean they cannot actually produce that many new shows. Now everything seems to be produced like a motion picture with almost cinematic value's. Back in the 60's it was largely studio based, but one would have thought with more advanced technology, they could recreate almost anything in a studio.

Edited July 15, 2011 by John Steed

[bewildered_renter]

This bit made me smile:

"It is extremely unlikely that a Tea Party movement could ever take off in Britain: the main reason being that, unlike in the US, the British simply lack the political vocabulary and intellectual building blocks to demand one."

Yeah, right. TFFT.

[interestrateripoff]

And the BBC has listened to how many voicemail messages of murder victims?

If you think the BBC is left wing ignore the bits you think are left wing.

No news organisation isn't going to have bias.

However what we have with News International is failure of corporate governance.

[Ash4781]

Turned on to see news 24. They are on strike.

[Milton]

The BBC is unrepresentative of the UK taxpayers whom fund it, as it has a much larger representation of ethnic minorities and homosexuals, than the general population of the UK.

Why is this?

I would genuinely like to know.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[Milton]

I would mainly like to know how many of the thousands of executives whom are paid six figures per year, acquired BTL?

Considering the amount of property 'porn' programmes which were commissioned by the BBC.

[Plus claiming the type of Expenses which you would be most certainly be sacked for in any private sector business.]

And why the BBC seemingly suppressed programmes on mass mortgage fraud? [under Labour]

After the original airing on the subject, in The Money Programme in 2003?

And why the corridors of Broadcasting House, were strewn with empty champagne bottles the night after the 1997 election?

A picture is beginning to emerge................

They have made some great programmes, especially historical drama's and natural history.

But its time to say goodbye to the license fee.

"The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?"

Jeremy Paxman

At the same time, Paxman said, it was "something of a mystery" to him how there could be a "budget crisis in an organisation with an assured income of £3.5bn".

There is a gilded 'leftist' elite at the top of the BBC who can claim salaries and expenses as if they were hedge fund managers.

Could that be because you have parasites like Mr Alan Yentob, who is paid over 300k per year in wages, who lives in a £3million house in London's Notting Hill and enjoys a £2.5million gold-plated BBC pension claiming over 27k in expenses?

In 2007, the 61-year-old claimed £743.23 for "discussions" and £16,830 for "entertainment", which included meals with celebrities and dinners for BBC staff.

In 2002, Mr Yentob hosted a glittering showbiz party at his mock-Tudor mansion in Somerset leaving licence-fee payers to pick up the bill.

Or a trio of BBC executives running up 12k in taxi fees in three months?

Etc Etc Etc.

There is a culture of secrecy in the BBC, reminiscent of Whitehall at its most opaque

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[(Blizzard)]

Yet you’d never guess this from the nauseating sanctimoniousness and cant of the left-liberal media, right now. You’d think this was a straightforward battle between good and evil: on one side a wicked, bullying, manipulative, right-wing Voldemort and his hordes of darkness; on the other, the forces of justice, truth and light whose only desire is that our newspapers and broadcast outlets should be transparent and caring and fair and kind to blind old ladies crossing the road clutching baskets of kittens with bandaged paws.

Yeah, right. This is not – pace a projectile-emetic New York Times article- “A kind of British Spring” in which “Democracy, aided, by sunlight has broken out in Britain.” It is, in fact, that very opposite of that: a ruthless, concerted and horrifyingly effective attempt by the dominant left-liberal MSM to silence free speech and crush alternative points of view.

Dear All,

If you wish to use 'liberal' to mean 'left-wing' and/or 'conservative' to mean 'right-wing' then please ****** off back to America where such newspeak is tolerated.

Thankyou.

[interestrateripoff]

Considering the amount of property programmes which were commissioned by the BBC.

On that front I'd say property programmes extremely cheap and easy to make like all reality TV.

[richc]

http://biggovernment.com/jdelingpole/2011/07/12/the-bbc-is-at-least-a-thousand-times-more-evil-and-dangerous-than-rupert-murdoch/

This is bullsh_t.

I loathe the stupidity and deceitfulness of Brown, Blair, et al, but I'd take them any day of the week over the Bush/Palin/Bachman camp in the US who owe their success entirely to Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. How many people have been killed over the past decade due to the BBC? I can think of a few hundred thousand who would now be alive in Iraq if it weren't for Fox News.

[efdemin]

Doctor Who is in crisis apparently due to loss of key staff and over blowing the budget (presumably on expensive American location shooting). One episode which was supposed to feature a new alien, had to make do with an Ood. BBC Worldwide is a little p*ssed because they are only planning six "specials" next year, and leaves BBC1 with many Saturdays without its flagship show, and will have to pay the "talent" like Matt Smith his full salary for performing less. And this is a show the BBC can sell all over the world.

I would like to see some of the compulsory BBC tax diverted into alternative news service. I don't see why Murdoch should pay for Sky News, indeed it would be better if he didn't. We need a much better alternative to BBC News. Shame also that ITN closed down their 24 hour rolling news service.

Its a pity that ITV drama can never match up to the BBC's, and even when ITV poach stars they manage to screw it up. I can only assume they suffer unfair competition with the BBC poaching most of the writing and production talent. Didn't used to be like this, in the days of Lew Grade, knocking out production action adventure series with ITC Entertainment which sold all over the world. There seems to be an obsession with production value's which mean they cannot actually produce that many new shows. Now everything seems to be produced like a motion picture with almost cinematic value's. Back in the 60's it was largely studio based, but one would have thought with more advanced technology, they could recreate almost anything in a studio.

Channel 4, and therefore Channel 4 news, has a public service remit and gets some government money I think. Do you never watch that?

Or Dispatches?

Edit: The lack of funds for Doctor Who probably has something to do with the BBC budget cuts (did you notice the TV license is cheaper this year?). Happy now?

Edited July 15, 2011 by efdemin

[or in excess of]

Newsnight

This Week

Question Time

Mongrels

Little Britain

Doctor Who

The Apprentice

Great British Railways

Documentaries on BBC4

Radio 4

Wildlife documentaries

Period dramas

BBC World Service

Just a few of the reasons - off the top of my head - why it's the envy of the world. I'm sure that list could grow to 100+. I actually think TV has got better over the last decade.

ITV - can't think of anything especially meritworthy apart from Poirot, and it's not as if they created that

Sky - dear God, please... Malcolm in the Middle? Lost? Mythbusters? That episode of the Simpsons with the monorail in it again? (OK, that was outstanding, but I can only find it funny so many times)

Endless repeats... and you have to pay for it?

Commercial channels generally just play to the lowest common denominator.

I get the point about the leftist news agenda, it has always been entrenched to some degree. But the BBC is the only channel that provides anything really edicational and informative, the others - with the exception of a few bits on Channel 4 and E4 - are just trash television typified by crap like "Embarrassing bodies" and similar; glee and mirth at poor unfortunates dressed up as a documentary. "The Elephant Man" should have taught us something there. If the future of TV in this country is that (like America) then I fear for the future of the country.

So while I think BBC News 24 and the main bulletins need taking to task, there's plenty of balance. I can't think anyone would claim that Newsnight and This Week are particularly biased, to name just two.

I'd also assert that Sky has done far more to entrench the "dumbing down" that has been prevalent in this country than anyone or anything else. We do not need a population becoming progressively more and more ignorant and unable to think for themselves.

Which, I'd suggest, is the biggest danger of all.

The Apprentice? The most boring and pointless programme ever. Even worse than Big Brother.

[DTMark]

The BBC is unrepresentative of the UK taxpayers whom fund it, as it has a much larger representation of ethnic minorities and homosexuals, than the general population of the UK.

Why is this?

I would genuinely like to know.

I don't have this as a fact, just an observation: gay men are disproportionately attracted to certain types of role - in particular, airline cabin staff and the media/PR type roles.

I'm sure I remember reading that about 10% of the population is gay, which I suspect is nonsense. I'd put it at about 4%. Being gay myself I'm sure I'd have noticed if 10% of the rest of the population were gay.

As regards ethnic minorities, the BBC does strike me as one of those misguided organisations which believes firmly in things like positive discrimination.

That said, I don't have a problem with the general quality of the presenters, so perhaps the best person who applied was the one selected.

[Milton]

I don't have this as a fact, just an observation: gay men are disproportionately attracted to certain types of role - in particular, airline cabin staff and the media/PR type roles.

I'm sure I remember reading that about 10% of the population is gay, which I suspect is nonsense. I'd put it at about 4%. Being gay myself I'm sure I'd have noticed if 10% of the rest of the population were gay.

As regards ethnic minorities, the BBC does strike me as one of those misguided organisations which believes firmly in things like positive discrimination.

Food For Thought.

If only one of my parents had been Chinese, the other Anglo, and they had forced me to take a media degree.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1

[efdemin]

The BBC is unrepresentative of the UK taxpayers whom fund it, as it has a much larger representation of ethnic minorities and homosexuals, than the general population of the UK.

Why is this?

I would genuinely like to know.

I think you'll find that is the Media / Theatre / Film industry in general, of which the BBC is a part.

Next thing you'll be complaining there are not enough women in science and engineering I suppose?

[Milton]

I think you'll find that is the Media / Theatre / Film industry in general, of which the BBC is a part.

Next thing you'll be complaining there are not enough women in science and engineering I suppose?

How about just answering my question? Instead of being snyde, and sarcastic, and petulant?

[DTMark]

Doctor Who is in crisis apparently due to loss of key staff and over blowing the budget (presumably on expensive American location shooting). One episode which was supposed to feature a new alien, had to make do with an Ood. BBC Worldwide is a little p*ssed because they are only planning six "specials" next year, and leaves BBC1 with many Saturdays without its flagship show, and will have to pay the "talent" like Matt Smith his full salary for performing less. And this is a show the BBC can sell all over the world.

I recall another thread about this Actually I keep meaning to return to it. In a way I don't think a bit of a pause is a bad idea, I'd rather see fewer and better stories (versus recent ones). Withdraw, regroup

I would like to see some of the compulsory BBC tax diverted into alternative news service. I don't see why Murdoch should pay for Sky News, indeed it would be better if he didn't. We need a much better alternative to BBC News. Shame also that ITN closed down their 24 hour rolling news service.

Personally, while a strong advocate of most of what the BBC does, I watch Channel 4 news which is partly state subsidised (spot a pattern here? anything of any quality is generally not on a 100% commercial channel) and Newsnight sometimes. I like the BBC News 24 theme tune, and I think the channel is pretty well done, but I have to concur (as already conceded) on the bias. But then I suspect most news is biased to some degree.

Its a pity that ITV drama can never match up to the BBC's, and even when ITV poach stars they manage to screw it up. I can only assume they suffer unfair competition with the BBC poaching most of the writing and production talent. Didn't used to be like this, in the days of Lew Grade, knocking out production action adventure series with ITC Entertainment which sold all over the world. There seems to be an obsession with production value's which mean they cannot actually produce that many new shows. Now everything seems to be produced like a motion picture with almost cinematic value's. Back in the 60's it was largely studio based, but one would have thought with more advanced technology, they could recreate almost anything in a studio.

I remember that aspect coming up in the Doctor Who thread quite strongly

I thought ITV had died largely because of the drying up of advertising on the channel, but I did suspect it ran deeper than that. I'd like to know why ITV became a complete irrelevance, I rarely even bother looking at what is on it now. Which is a bit of shame because I might miss one or two gems buried among the drivel.

[efdemin]

How about just answering my question? Instead of being snyde, and sarcastic, and petulant?

Not asking snide, sarcastic questions in the first place might help.

[Milton]

Not asking snide, sarcastic questions in the first place might help.

There must be a reason for you hopping on the defensive. I am not going to jump to a conclusion. Only say, it was a legitimate question, not intended to upset anyone.

'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. .'

Andrew Marr, BBC

I'd also add, if I am being honest with myself, that my bitterness about the BBC's involvement in the ramping of 'House Prices' etc has made me ask other questions about the BBC, which I normally would not have done.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Dan1