Friday, August 16, 2013
Dear BBC - Are You The 2nd Most Totalitarian Broadcaster in the World?
How totalitarian is the BBC? The problem is this isn't really measurable except by a crude measure of airtime (as I did when I showed the Greens get 40 times more coverage per vote than UKIP). This thus proves the BBC 39/40ths corrupt or 97.5%
But this only applies to mentions of the parties - a "news" piece on UKIP which either has no UKIP spokesman or in which they are asked "prove you aren't racist" when other parties are given full freedom to put their case and never, ever, accused of being war criminals (a true accusation for the LabConDems as the one against UKIP clearly isn't). If UKIP were accused of such on every interview (an exaggeration) and the LabConDems were asked the equivalent as much as every 100th time one of their members were interviewed (a gross exaggeration) this would make the BBC 99.9975% totalitarian fascists.
But there are some markers:
New "news" :
"UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler has denied being sexist by saying women were "nowhere near as good as men" at games like chess, bridge and poker."
This is a significant news item from a BBC that has yet to stop censoring Andrew Neather’s revelations about Labour’s secret immigration open door policy that ‘I happen to think this brief glimpse of the truth was the most important political revelation of our time."
So is Wheeler's statement more important than Neather's. if not the BBC's total censorship makes calling them merely 99.9975% corrupt cannot be overstating.
There is another aspect to this. Nobody is seriously denying that Wheeler's statement is true. The objection is entirely that it is "politically incorrect". The origin of that phrase is worth pursuing. It comes from Lenin who deliberately created it as a way of delineating the limits of free speech. Which is precisely how the BBC and their allies use it.
The BBC may not have the Marxist underpinnings that Lenin had, indeed I am quite sure they are not motivated by any such misplaced idealism, but they are provably tactically his equals in their commitment to totalitarianism (as is anybody who uses PCness as a total alternative to debate).
The entire coverage of Geoffrey Bloom's speech, which is generally agreed to have been an attempt to open debate on a major political issue on which the vast majority agree he was right, was on his wording not being sufficiently Leninist/PC.
Another example that proves the BBC to be literally Stalinist is 28 gate. We know that the BBC had deliberately lied for 6 (now 7) years about having scientific support for their censorship of climate dissidents. Compare this with the very similar, if less damaging, case of Lysenkoism in the USSR where their media supported a "scientific consensus" (at least among government employed scientists in the Soviet zone) with almost as much enthusiasm and lack of scientific principles as the BBC have for the equally evidence free CAGW. In the Soviet journalists' defence there was less specific proof of fraud in Lysenko's "experiments" than in the IPCC's and it is possible many journalists fooled themselves as well as others whereas almost every department of the BBC was involved in 28 gate, so it is impossible any serious journalist there was not aware of the fraud.
A more minor case is this, from Al Jazera, of the BBC taking a photo of pro-government Iranians and calling it an anti-government demo. Stalin also used such photographic fraud.
Dear BBC,
This is from my blog today. I would like to ask, under the FoI or otherwise, whether the BBC has any factual basis for disputing any part of it including for altering the arithmetical calculation that the BBC is at least 99.9975% corrupt, totalitarian and committed to censorship or is in any way less committed to the tactics of the late Vlad Illych Lenin (though not to his ideological underpinnings)
If not I assume that, with the possible exception of North Korea's this would make the BBC, who control most of British broadcast news (above 70%) to be a legal monopoly, the most totalitarian broadcaster in the world.
Bearing in mind the statistical evidence of the close correlation between state control of broadcasting and state authoritarianism, corruption, economic failure and even poor state health services, does the BBC have any counter information that would weaken an assumption that this totalitarian lying has played a major role in such events as this country being the most economically unsuccessful sizable English speaking country or the South Staffordshire hospital deaths going unnoticed until too late?
But this only applies to mentions of the parties - a "news" piece on UKIP which either has no UKIP spokesman or in which they are asked "prove you aren't racist" when other parties are given full freedom to put their case and never, ever, accused of being war criminals (a true accusation for the LabConDems as the one against UKIP clearly isn't). If UKIP were accused of such on every interview (an exaggeration) and the LabConDems were asked the equivalent as much as every 100th time one of their members were interviewed (a gross exaggeration) this would make the BBC 99.9975% totalitarian fascists.
But there are some markers:
New "news" :
"UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler has denied being sexist by saying women were "nowhere near as good as men" at games like chess, bridge and poker."
This is a significant news item from a BBC that has yet to stop censoring Andrew Neather’s revelations about Labour’s secret immigration open door policy that ‘I happen to think this brief glimpse of the truth was the most important political revelation of our time."
So is Wheeler's statement more important than Neather's. if not the BBC's total censorship makes calling them merely 99.9975% corrupt cannot be overstating.
There is another aspect to this. Nobody is seriously denying that Wheeler's statement is true. The objection is entirely that it is "politically incorrect". The origin of that phrase is worth pursuing. It comes from Lenin who deliberately created it as a way of delineating the limits of free speech. Which is precisely how the BBC and their allies use it.
The BBC may not have the Marxist underpinnings that Lenin had, indeed I am quite sure they are not motivated by any such misplaced idealism, but they are provably tactically his equals in their commitment to totalitarianism (as is anybody who uses PCness as a total alternative to debate).
The entire coverage of Geoffrey Bloom's speech, which is generally agreed to have been an attempt to open debate on a major political issue on which the vast majority agree he was right, was on his wording not being sufficiently Leninist/PC.
Another example that proves the BBC to be literally Stalinist is 28 gate. We know that the BBC had deliberately lied for 6 (now 7) years about having scientific support for their censorship of climate dissidents. Compare this with the very similar, if less damaging, case of Lysenkoism in the USSR where their media supported a "scientific consensus" (at least among government employed scientists in the Soviet zone) with almost as much enthusiasm and lack of scientific principles as the BBC have for the equally evidence free CAGW. In the Soviet journalists' defence there was less specific proof of fraud in Lysenko's "experiments" than in the IPCC's and it is possible many journalists fooled themselves as well as others whereas almost every department of the BBC was involved in 28 gate, so it is impossible any serious journalist there was not aware of the fraud.
A more minor case is this, from Al Jazera, of the BBC taking a photo of pro-government Iranians and calling it an anti-government demo. Stalin also used such photographic fraud.
Dear BBC,
This is from my blog today. I would like to ask, under the FoI or otherwise, whether the BBC has any factual basis for disputing any part of it including for altering the arithmetical calculation that the BBC is at least 99.9975% corrupt, totalitarian and committed to censorship or is in any way less committed to the tactics of the late Vlad Illych Lenin (though not to his ideological underpinnings)
If not I assume that, with the possible exception of North Korea's this would make the BBC, who control most of British broadcast news (above 70%) to be a legal monopoly, the most totalitarian broadcaster in the world.
Bearing in mind the statistical evidence of the close correlation between state control of broadcasting and state authoritarianism, corruption, economic failure and even poor state health services, does the BBC have any counter information that would weaken an assumption that this totalitarian lying has played a major role in such events as this country being the most economically unsuccessful sizable English speaking country or the South Staffordshire hospital deaths going unnoticed until too late?
Labels: BBC, Media, Rise of modern fascism
