Re: Can you explain this BBC presentation?
MM
>A visiting Martian would think the BBC was positively un-British to an
>extreme degree and upon looking further, anti-white-male too. Either
>that or they are simply exploiting the now widespread inability of
>many British people to put 2 and 2 together.
The trouble with Britain (one of many troubles) is that after ten
years of being routinely lied to by New Labour, we are in a state of
perpetual spin. We cannot accept the truth about anything, but always
have to spin a line so as to make it seem "better" in some way. We are
high on propaganda, and I don't know what can get us off this drug.
The whole of Britain is affected.
MM
Fred
> Can anyone explain why the BBC uses the following perverse format when
> reporting many stories - especially those involving immigrant workers
> - or indeed most any foreigners or those destined to cause trouble for
> Britain.
>
> Firstly a report kicks off with a statement of some outrageous fact or
> other. EGs The government has grossly underestimated the number of
> immigrant workers. Or The number of immigrant workers is putting an
> enormous strain on services such as the NHS and policing.
>
> Now a rational person might then expect some detail, an elaboration
> upon the initial statement and perhaps interview with those
> responsible for yet another political cock-up. But no! Instead we get
> an abrupt switch to...
>
> A ***particular example, involving a member of the social group
> CAUSING TTHE PROBLEM***. Usually preceded by a few sentences saying
> how unfair/intolerably hard (etc) is FOR THEM! In other word it is the
> immigrants who suddenly have the problem because of us unsympathetic
> mean Brits!
>
> Yesterday for instance, after the initial Statement about the flood of
> immigrants causing us so must expense and strain on services, the BBC
> interview a (and get this) CHILD that has just turned up at the
> airport, unescorted by an adult. The *child* in this case was a mere
> 17 years old!. So a double whammy: first switch from too many
> immigrants, to children in distress (which of course is instantly our
> problem) to putting the sad case of said child. Which btw (in this
> case) was someone from Africa I belive, and not even an EC person.
> In short there was absolutely NO connection between the two parts of
> the news item - and this format is pumped out on a regular basis.
> Logic doesn't enter into it it seems.
>
> A visiting Martian would think the BBC was positively un-British to an
> extreme degree and upon looking further, anti-white-male too. Either
> that or they are simply exploiting the now widespread inability of
> many British people to put 2 and 2 together.
That is exactly how the now discredited BEEB behave. The proverbial
Martian could be forgiven for thinking that the BEEB is funded by
Guardian readers only instead of being compusorily funded by everyone
whatever their shade of opinion. They have abondoned all attempts to be
impartial. They don't even pretend to be anymore.
True Blue
"Fred" <Fr...@Frednet.com> wrote in message
news:K_Gdnck407pUl7ba...@bt.com...
The Tories should make it a policy that anyone who has a satellite receiver
coupled with a monitor and no terrestrial receiver, can *exercise the
choice* of opting out of paying for a TV licence. The BBC can then withdraw
their programmes form the Astra satellite.
The operative word here is "choice". So you can bet that the Guardian and
the BBC themselves would fight tooth and nail to discredit any arrangement
that ends the present one, whereby everybody is forced - on pain of
prosecution - to subsidise the Left's propaganda.
crazy...@hotmail.com
>
> The Tories should make it a policy that anyone who has a satellite receiver
> coupled with a monitor and no terrestrial receiver, can *exercise the
> choice* of opting out of paying for a TV licence. The BBC can then withdraw
> their programmes form the Astra satellite.
>
> The operative word here is "choice". So you can bet that the Guardian and
> the BBC themselves would fight tooth and nail to discredit any arrangement
> that ends the present one, whereby everybody is forced - on pain of
> prosecution - to subsidise the Left's propaganda.
As a Guardian reader, and no doubt a stereotypical 'bleeding heart
liberal leftie' because of my newspaper of choice, I would just like
to say that I would love the chance not to pay for all the self
obsessed preening luvvies that make up the BBC. I rarely watch
anything on that absurd channel called BBC 1, which long ago decided
that tv presenters were far more important than anyone else on the
planet.
There are decent programs occasionally on BBC 2 and 4, but I could
manage quite happily without them.
True Blue
<crazy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194011805....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I recently downloaded "Withnail & I" and an edition of "Brass Eye" from
"4onDemand". They both cost me £1.99 and I was happy with that. I would
gladly do the same for Planet Earth, or even buy the CD. I'm sure the latter
option would financially benefit the programme-makers more than the present
arrangement. What I want is the choice to pay for what I want, rather than
to be forced to pay for something I don't want.
Joe
> jake wrote:
>>
>> A visiting Martian would think the BBC was positively un-British to an
>> extreme degree and upon looking further, anti-white-male too. Either
>> that or they are simply exploiting the now widespread inability of
>> many British people to put 2 and 2 together.
>
>
> That is exactly how the now discredited BEEB behave. The proverbial
> Martian could be forgiven for thinking that the BEEB is funded by
> Guardian readers only instead of being compusorily funded by everyone
> whatever their shade of opinion. They have abondoned all attempts to be
> impartial. They don't even pretend to be anymore.
It's worse than that. They think they *are* impartial. They honestly
believe, and would swear under oath, that all sane people think as they
do. That's why it's called being politically *correct*.
John T.
Something of a "no win" situation. Impartiality is seen as political
correctness, whilst pandering to our prejudices is seen as glorious
impartiality. Just a thought.
Joe
here is that those who believe the BBC today to be impartial (not
necessarily on a left-right basis, but a cultural one) tend to be a
small, easily identifiable group composed largely of BBC employees and
'talent'. Mostly white, mostly British and mostly 'well educated'. The
people Greg Dyke described, apparently without any sense of irony at
all, as 'hideously white'.
If you were to stop the proverbial man/woman on the street (and survive)
then you would be unlikely to be told that the person thought the BBC
treated races, religions, cultures and other non-party-political
alignments impartially. That's the bottom line, that the views of those
who fund the BBC are being ignored by those who 'know better'. The Man
From The Ministry is alive and well. Very well, in fact.
Treating all of the groups composing such alignments equally, with equal
air time and apparent approval, would still not represent impartiality,
unless they were all of comparable size, which is clearly not true. Even
today, the vast majority of the population of the UK is white British,
broadly following Christianity and various other traditions, albeit in
varying generational versions. This situation is simply not mirrored by
broadcasters, *and* *they* *feel* *they* *are* *correct* *not* *to* *do*
*so*.
Sometimes they lean the wrong way, such as the majority of the
Eastenders characters being shown as white when reality would suggest
that only one or two should be. But this is unusual, and a state of
affairs that exists only because a) the real East Enders are an
extremely heterogeneous group and do not mix in the way a soap cast
must, and b) the rest of the country wouldn't watch an authentic
version. Probably most East Enders wouldn't, either.
John T.
>
> - Show quoted text -
You make your point very well indeed Joe, very perspicacious, if I may
say so. I suppose most of us feel somewhat miffed if our views aren't
accurately reflected. I sometimes wonder just how many of us have
views of our own, as opposed to the manufactured variety handed down
to us by "Auntie Beeb" who always did know best, dont y' know? As for
'Eastenders', less said the better!! I used to live in the east end
(Lewisham) and the reality is light years away from its depiction on
BBC1. I suppose they feel they must represent society in microcosm -
not a bad idea as such, just wholly unrealistic. Idealism is all very
good and noble, but I don't want it pushed down my throat. Propaganda
masquerading as entertainment? Anyway, I haven't watched the bloody
programme for years, so I really shouldn't complain.
Complete impartiality is impossible. Can every faith/race/political
view be given equal prominence? No, they can't, nor should they.
Proportional prominence? maybe, but even then there will be arguments
if someone receives what is perceived to be a larger share of the cake
than they deserve.