Saturday, 6 March 2010

Quality Journalism 2010: Death By Gay Jollies

If there's one thing Biased BBC teaches us, it's that The BBC fails, day after dumbed-down day, to deliver quality journalism. What has happened to its mission to inform and to educate the licence-paying public?

Today, another major failing has been exposed by Biased BBC vigilance. Why oh why is the Beeb ignoring its duty to explain, er, salacious speculation about the death of a daytime telly presenter?

The gnomic ap-w kicks the debate off. How come the BBC has devoted precious time to mark the passing of Michael Foot?

it's all rather overshadowed the death of the BBC presenter Kristian Digby,

Yeah. Why worry about a leading orator, writer, newspaper editor and former Leader of the Opposition when the presenter of House Swap and Buy It, Sell It, Bank It has died?

Digby, who has died in "unexplained" circumstances

I have a feeling that HM Coroner will be enlightening us before long...

a matter of days after gay killer Ray Gosling is released on police bail.

A non-sequitur of elegant proportions. What do you think, Millie Tant?

There's a good example of where the great broadcaster has failed to inform us - about how this man died.

Glad you spoke up. I've been losing sleep worrying about this.

So the BBC knows this information but has chosen to censor it.

Bastards. They've been ignoring Paris Hilton's sex tapes, Lindsay Lohan's eating issues and Kerry Katona's love life, too. What's wrong with them?

Why do they think it is all right for them to know this and for us not to know it? How can that be right?

Exactly. Lord Reith would be turning in his grave over a failure like this.

Who is in charge of them and what they should be allowed to know? Who privileged them to hold this information that is apparently too dangerous for us to know. If it is so dangerous, toxic or corrosive to us that it must be withheld, what effect does possessing it have on them? I think we should be told.

Not only that: Where is the in-depth analysis of minor actresses' wardrobe malfunctions and Posh Spice's footwear options that we have a right to expect from a top-quality news provider?

And all of the above questions are leaving aside the fact that we know it anyway! Cos we've been told by the Informative Media. It's all over the b..... shop!

Which shop? Does the b…. shop sell things for bees?

And guess what...we survived this knowledge and the world is still turning. But the BBC is still censoring. Surprised How daft can you get?

Not as daft as that smiley, for sure. Robert de Niro tribute act Travis Bickle gets to the heart of the story.

By "unexplained" they mean getting his gay jollies off.

But who put them on in the first place?

BBC presenters are snuffing themselves at a fair old rate of knots these days. They need to get some more rewarding past-times rather than auto-asphyxiation and columbian marching powder.

Could be worse. They could be posting on Biased BBC.


  1. Exactly what happens when you think Femail is the analysis section of the newspaper.

  2. There's a freedom of information campaign building here.

    Millie Tant, today, debating Go-knows-what with the kind of reasonable poster who drives them mad:

    Ah, but while they are busy bothering little children with sex and nonsense that they are too young to understand or need to know, they won't tell us big ugly adults what Beeboids get up to for sexual kicks. They will censor such information even when it concerns someone who is one of the gayers and has died as a result of the search for kicks.

    "One of the gayers ...(who) died as a result of the search for kicks": A right-to-know issue if ever we heard one.