Biased BBC fights many brave battles to quell the horror that is the British Broadcasting Corporation. Its leader, David Vance, is usually on the front line.
Few skirmishes make supporters as proud as his never-ending war against the English dictionary. Today, he's sniping at the BBC's coverage of arrests in Israel.
it's interesting to note how the BBC itself uses the term "incarceration" to describe how Israel deals with suspected terrorists.
Have they no shame?
No bias?
I have a feeling you're thinking that there is bias, David.
Sorry, when it's little Israel, the BBC is very careful to use the right language to ensure Israel always looks in the wrong.
Damn right, boss. Oh, hang on - look at this, just in from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
incarcerate tr.v. :
1. To put into jail
Which sounds remarkably like the known facts...
It's only a few weeks since David led a lexicographical assault on the political dictionary….
According to the State Broadcaster "Mr Karzai is selling out Afghan women for the sake of conservative Shia support at next week's presidential election." Let us be clear there is nothing that is any way "conservative" about the dark ages pathology of Shia Islam
Dunno: Random House Dictionary says it means "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."
Still, David's campaign against the use of incarceration comes from a higher moral plane. As Mailman tells Biased BBC readers:
al beeb is a partial organisation and has taken the side of terrorists in regards to Israel, the West and Christianity.
'Course they do. What self-respecting British broadcaster wouldn't do down their own civilisation in favour of terrorism?
Posts
Further down the thread, Grant says Can anyone remember the last time they heard the BBC describe any individual or organisation as "left-wing" or "extreme left-wing" ?
ReplyDeleteYet, they seem to use "right-wing" with gay abandon, so to speak.
Classic evidence of the BBC's political bias."
Almost two minutes of searching revealed this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8296357.stm , which not only refers to "Left-wing Party Solidarity", but also reveals that the Tory candidate in the by-election is an ex BBC journalist.
It seems utterly pointless to observe that no fewer than four paragraphs in Mr Vance's "biased" article set out the position of the Israeli authorities, and there appears to be not a single comment in which the BBC actually expresses an opinion on the allegations themselves.
Every time of late, I've come across similar ridiculous posts in regards to the BBC, it's come from those moronic imbeciles of the plastic mask brigade, the Libertarians. Perhaps both Vance and Martin don them to walk the streets, infact, Old Holborn speaks in similar language to Martin.
ReplyDeleteCould it be?
"Yet, they seem to use "right-wing" with gay abandon, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteClassic evidence of the BBC's political bias."
Top find this one - highlighting the true insanity of the B-BBC. Ignore the fact that the BBC obviously use the term left-wing on a regular basis, but work yourself into a frothing rage every time they use the term right-wing.
Also helps to include a hilarious quip about being gay.
And yes - if you find the words incarcerate and conservative being used correctly to be evidence of extreme political bias then B-BBC is your true spiritual home. Good old Vancey.
From Martin on the latest climate change post;
ReplyDelete"You make an assumption that beeboids are intelligent. All beeboids are left wing arts graduates. NONE OF THEM have studied science or engineering."
This was why I stopped posting over there. Obviously this is wrong but if you stepped in to correct this sort of stuff they'd all fly into full on frothing Beeboid Attack Mode.
Anon 07.04:
ReplyDeleteI think the Libertarian notion drives an awful lot of B-BBC stuff. A great deal of the bile comes not from bias as most people would see it, but from the notion of state broadcasting, and specifically from the collection of a licence fee. Those are, of course, fair discussion points, although as debating points rather dry and economics-based. It's the pretence that the site's real goal is the exposure of bias that gives it its charge, and seems to produce their special brand of venom.
Like that Richard Attenbrough and Patrick Moore. Bloody arty farty fairies the pair of them.
ReplyDeleteBlah blah, blah, does anyone think the vile BBC has *ever* written a report on --insert hobby horse here--?
ReplyDeleteA: Actually they have. Here are some examples.
Options for a B-BBC poster
1) Ignore this counterpoint as if it never happened
2) Call the person a troll
3) Declare loudly that a single example is no evidence, even though B-BBC would be stillborn without egregious cherrypicking
4) Declare loudly that one example cannot counterbalance the weight of other (unspecified) counterexamples, such is the sneaky nature of bias.
5) Use the old online/broadcast bait and switch* (TM)
*If it's online it doesn't matter. TV and radio are much more powerful media. If it's not online, then basically there is no record, ergo it doesn't count.