The Biased BBC

[Fletch]

Woman’s Hour is still pretty good. And desert island discs.

You're not meant to mention local and national radio (ad-free), World Service, one of the worlds most popular websites, Kids TV, cause they must be biased too.

Why would anyone think that when it's quite clear people are talking about the news and political/world events as broadcast by the BBC.

[Lady Murasaki]

Woman’s Hour is still pretty good. And desert island discs.

You're not meant to mention local and national radio (ad-free), World Service, one of the worlds most popular websites, Kids TV, cause they must be biased too.

I’ve a habit of mentioning things I shouldn’t.

[Cannydc]

Woman’s Hour is still pretty good. And desert island discs.

You're not meant to mention local and national radio (ad-free), World Service, one of the worlds most popular websites, Kids TV, cause they must be biased too.

Why would anyone think that when it's quite clear people are talking about the news and political/world events as broadcast by the BBC.

It's because people who hate paying for a broadcast reception license generally say they don't watch BBC TV anyway (lie) without mentioning what the fee really pays for - and then quote BBC 'bias' as another reason not to pay.

Funny thing about BBC bias - when asked, roughly equal left and right wing supporters claim bias against 'their side'. To me, that means they aren't far off centre.

[Fletch]

Woman’s Hour is still pretty good. And desert island discs.

You're not meant to mention local and national radio (ad-free), World Service, one of the worlds most popular websites, Kids TV, cause they must be biased too.

Why would anyone think that when it's quite clear people are talking about the news and political/world events as broadcast by the BBC.

It's because people who hate paying for a broadcast reception license generally say they don't watch BBC TV anyway (lie) without mentioning what the fee really pays for - and then quote BBC 'bias' as another reason not to pay.

Funny thing about BBC bias - when asked, roughly equal left and right wing supporters claim bias against 'their side'. To me, that means they aren't far off centre.

I've got a tv licence and watch the BBC. (well a couple of programmes on catch up anyway)

The news output is propaganda, it's what all msm do. I linked you to an article showing this but it was too long for you...

[Cannydc]

Woman’s Hour is still pretty good. And desert island discs.

You're not meant to mention local and national radio (ad-free), World Service, one of the worlds most popular websites, Kids TV, cause they must be biased too.

Why would anyone think that when it's quite clear people are talking about the news and political/world events as broadcast by the BBC.

It's because people who hate paying for a broadcast reception license generally say they don't watch BBC TV anyway (lie) without mentioning what the fee really pays for - and then quote BBC 'bias' as another reason not to pay.

Funny thing about BBC bias - when asked, roughly equal left and right wing supporters claim bias against 'their side'. To me, that means they aren't far off centre.

I've got a tv licence and watch the BBC. (well a couple of programmes on catch up anyway)

The news output is propaganda, it's what all msm do. I linked you to an article showing this but it was too long for you...

Patronising is not the way to making friends and influencing people, Fletch.

Nor is cutting and pasting long articles which barely touch on the conversation in question.

I don't recall the Act you quoted being passed in the House of Commons.

[Lady Murasaki]

Well said CDC.

[Fletch]

Well said CDC.

Piss off

[Lady Murasaki]

Wish you would.

[Fletch]

I've got a tv licence and watch the BBC. (well a couple of programmes on catch up anyway)

The news output is propaganda, it's what all msm do. I linked you to an article showing this but it was too long for you...

Patronising is not the way to making friends and influencing people, Fletch.

Nor is cutting and pasting long articles which barely touch on the conversation in question.

I don't recall the Act you quoted being passed in the House of Commons.

I know few people actually click on links so put the relevant bits up here.

I still have no idea why you are so convinced the msm can be relied upon. Just recent history tells you it can't yet still you claim it is gospel.

[Rolluplostinspace]

The BBC propaganda isn't about right and left it's about protecting the establishment and its aims.

[Fletch]

The BBC propaganda isn't about right and left it's about protecting the establishment and its aims.

The same is true of all the western msm.

Left and Right was a good distraction for decades until JC came along. Now there is a true left and right the knives are out and have been since his election as leader. If that doesn't tell even the casual observer anything then nothing will.

[Cactus Jack]

I've got a tv licence and watch the BBC. (well a couple of programmes on catch up anyway)

The news output is propaganda, it's what all msm do. I linked you to an article showing this but it was too long for you...

Patronising is not the way to making friends and influencing people, Fletch.

Nor is cutting and pasting long articles which barely touch on the conversation in question.

I don't recall the Act you quoted being passed in the House of Commons.

I know few people actually click on links so put the relevant bits up here.

I still have no idea why you are so convinced the msm can be relied upon. Just recent history tells you it can't yet still you claim it is gospel.

Are you sponsored for every time you use the msm tag - because you sound like a Fox News Anchor looking for a bonus.

[Jon]

The BBC propaganda isn't about right and left it's about protecting the establishment and its aims.

What examples can you give to illustrate your point?

[Rolluplostinspace]

The BBC propaganda isn't about right and left it's about protecting the establishment and its aims.

What examples can you give to illustrate your point?

History.
Every nation throughout history has had an untouchable establishment.
People in so called democracies think that because they can vote this no longer applies but when you vote there are huge structures such as the banking elite the moneyed elite the Royals and a globe full of property they own ... the military establishments intelligence establishments the religious establishments and so on.
Their are hierarchies as there have always been that are never affected by your vote.
The intelligence apparatus is barely answerable to anyone or anything.
No one can monitor their financial transactions or much of anything else they get up to.
Imagine becoming the next prime minister and saying right I want to know everything they get up to and have been getting up to and how it's all financed and why.
You'd be laughed at.
The Harold Wilson government is an example of the establishment becoming rattled as he was starting to go beyond what they allow governments to do with their fairly free hand.
Can you imagine Corbyn taking office and saying ok were starting off with taking away from the banks the power to create money out of thin air and then lend it at interest as it's the cause of most of the world's ills.
It simply would never be allowed so how strong is democracy?
How real is it?
The establishment are far more powerful than our votes and intend to remain so.
Of course we're educated to never think about an establishment that is higher than government.
I'm off out goodbye.

[Cactus Jack]

The BBC propaganda isn't about right and left it's about protecting the establishment and its aims.

What examples can you give to illustrate your point?

History.
Every nation throughout history has had an untouchable establishment.
People in so called democracies think that because they can vote this no longer applies but when you vote there are huge structures such as the banking elite the moneyed elite the Royals and a globe full of property they own ... the military establishments intelligence establishments the religious establishments and so on.
Their are hierarchies as there have always been that are never affected by your vote.
The intelligence apparatus is barely answerable to anyone or anything.
No one can monitor their financial transactions or much of anything else they get up to.
Imagine becoming the next prime minister and saying right I want to know everything they get up to and have been getting up to and how it's all financed and why.
You'd be laughed at.
The Harold Wilson government is an example of the establishment becoming rattled as he was starting to go beyond what they allow governments to do with their fairly free hand.
Can you imagine Corbyn taking office and saying ok were starting off with taking away from the banks the power to create money out of thin air and then lend it at interest as it's the cause of most of the world's ills.
It simply would never be allowed so how strong is democracy?
How real is it?
The establishment are far more powerful than our votes and intend to remain so.
Of course we're educated to never think about an establishment that is higher than government.
I'm off out goodbye.

Or as Andreas Baader put it "Neither reform nor revolution are effective instruments of change as both come from the old order... true change can only come through the total annihilation of order so that from the seeds of chaos a new order can be established