Not quite, no, not quite

Woke up this morning to find lefties I know claiming that the BBC is the PR wing of the Tory party following this affair. Which is a rather… interesting… take on reality.

If you want another ranting BBC opinion piece masquerading as a news story you should check out Jon Sopel’s current article on their website on Coronavirus and Trump.

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. But the BBC is supposed to be impartial.

It’s why I’ve stopped listening and watching the BBC news and most of its PC non-news output.

At least the likes of Talk Radio are open about a presenter’s bias and always introduce anyone commenting on stories as being from the left or right.

“Politic” means “polite”

‘fraid not.

Any sign of her resigning? Matter of principle? Protest, even?

No, thought not. She’ll not match, elsewhere, the ridiculous over-rewards enjoyed by BBC “talent”. The smell of burning martyr must be strong in the BBC’s corridors.

It’s been years since I watched that programme; she must be getting on a bit. When I did see her she struck me as being none too bright nor well informed. But then she’s a journo.

Maitless. An over-paid, over-exposed and over-here Canadian. A reckoning for the BBC is long overdue

A Quiet Afternoon With the BBC

By R. Emmett Tyrrell

November 17, 2016

WASHINGTON — On Friday, the BBC enlisted me to defend my support of Donald Trump for president. Though the ensuing television interview was conducted in English, I found it incomprehensible. I was speaking in my native tongue to two apparently intelligent English-speaking women, yet their responses to my clear, if amused, rejoinders amounted to gibberish. They sought to understand Trump’s victory but did not have the most elementary understanding of the American democratic process or any grasp of rational thought. I detected no whiff of alcohol on their breath or any other sign of inebriation. They showed no sign of drunkenness or drug abuse, so I left the studio perplexed. Ultimately, I wrote my friend of 35 years, Andrew Roberts, the distinguished historian, and asked, “What gives with the BBC?”

First, I asked Andrew whether he had ever heard of the so-called novelist whom the BBC brought forth to engage me. I had never heard of her, and for decades I have kept an eye on the intellectual vistas as editor-in-chief of The American Spectator. She is a Nigerian lady of supposedly great gifts named Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, though it soon became apparent that she was in an impenetrable fog about the recent election. She gave a highly emotional rendering of the election, saying something about how it left her feeling very much alone, and I guess bereft. Why on Earth she was appearing before a British audience to discuss an American election I have no idea. If the BBC wanted to explore creative writing, I suppose she was their gal. But then what was I doing there?

The interview got off to a bad start and became worse. The moderator, Emily Maitlis, commenced asking: “The first ever black president will be followed by a president who is endorsed by the (Ku Klux Klan). … Where does that leave you?” My response was what any normal American would respond. I said, “I can’t imagine anybody (sic) more marginal to American elections than the KKK.” I went on to say, “Every four years the KKK comes up because people like Hillary Clinton want to bring the KKK up.” I began to add that the Klan was composed of a few hundred stoneheads living marginal lives in the American outback until they could be dredged up to serve the Democrats’ malign purpose, but the moderator interrupted me to ask, “So it doesn’t shock you?” I responded, why not talk about the influence of the Knights of Columbus?

My interlocutors apparently had no idea what the largest Catholic male organization in America might be. The host inquired, is it “another extremist group?” At that point I was reminded that fruitful conversation is utterly impossible with the woefully ignorant. My thought was reinforced by the ever-helpful Adichie who observed: “There seems to be a refusal to accept reality. So (Maitlis) has asked a question about the KKK, and it hasn’t been engaged with, and instead we’re being told that there’s this other group called the Knights of Cint-whoever.” I replied: “Balderdash. That is balderdash,” which “engaged” both of these ladies.

The conversation’s downward spiral continued. A memorable moment was when Adichie notified me: “If you’re a white man, you don’t get to define what racism is. You really don’t.” I responded, “Do you know that the false consciousness, which is the theory you’re talking about, is a Marxist concept?” She had not a clue as to what false consciousness meant, but you might think about its consequences for intelligent debate the next time you hear it employed by a lazy mind. Then la Adichie came up with more evidence of the president-elect’s alleged racism. When Trump says that a judge “is unable to judge him fairly because he is Mexican, that is racist,” she said. I supplied her with the judge’s name, Judge Gonzalo Curiel, and suggested he is as white as me. We are both white men. Race was not at issue between us. My correction had no impact on her. She continued in her invincible ignorance.

The next day, Andrew Roberts got back to me. He had never heard of Adichie either. And he added, “The idea that white males have nothing to say on race is itself racist (and sexist)!” Thus, my brush with these two ladies has been put in historic perspective by a historian. But I feel there will be more inscrutable moments with the left before its members quiet down. Medication might help.

“If you want another ranting BBC opinion piece masquerading as a news story you should check out Jon Sopel’s current article on their website on Coronavirus and Trump.”

There’s another bit as well (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52771783) that shows some blatant bias – the first part of the article makes big play of the US passing 100k CV deaths, and gloatingly shows bar charts showing the US way out in front. Then begrudgingly admits that on a per capita basis the US is no more than mid table. Then lower down when discussing testing it dismisses the leading number of tests the US has done as not relevant (and doesn’t show a chart with the US way out in front) and uses the per capita figure instead, which shows the US isn’t the ‘No 1’.

I don’t know how the people that write this stuff live with themselves, the bias is so obvious they must know what they’re doing, it can’t be accident or mere idiocy. They are knowingly churning out actual propaganda.

Like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow went stark staring mad with the Trump Russia Gate conspiracy theory.

It’s highly entertaining to watch their delusions eating them from the inside out, but Emily should want to avoid that if she can.

@Jim.

From their toxic perspective, any lie is acceptable, if it furthers their cause. They are doing the “good works” of “progressive socialism” (fascism), so it’s all good for them. The clamour of approvals in their twitter bubble gives them a nice warm glow to send them off to bed and they sleep comfortably as they have no consciousness of the wider world or conscience about lying and they get paid a tonne of money to do so.

Assuming Ecks’s preferable route ain’t gonna happen, time the whole Newsnight operation including this scrawny bint was sent to Salford to reset their London bubble outlook.

dearieme
“I don’t suppose I’m alone in not watching current affairs shows, nor the news, nor listening to radio news or current affairs either.”

+1
No TV, no radio, no newspapers.

I used to quite fancy Maitlis when she did BBC London local news. Nice legs and leather skirts she used to wear. Now she seens to have turned into a caricature of Lesley Joseph in Birds of a Feather.

Maitlis reminds me of Louise Mensch. Except Mensch is too freakin’ nuts to be on the BBC these days. I hope.

Proof that all immigration is a bad idea.

or perhaps was, not sure which way around for Duncan Wheldon – a TUC economist.

Duncan was a TUC economist first he sued to have a blog which published a blog which he hastily took down when he got elevated into the media. I recall seeing you comment on said blog.
He is pretty left wing but Emily Maitliss wqs only saying what the vast majority across all spectrum think of Cummings and I would say she has a centre rightish slant if anything
A remainer probably but then 99% of people under 80 with a degree and a good job are

Oh dear, newmy, it looks as if the Durham police are in the 1%

@Ottokring, thinks have gone a bit down hill for Emily going by this picture – https://twitter.com/Linsa119/status/1265995724757630976

Over promoted thick woman goes too far and will probably blame men cos she is such a ‘victim’.

She looks haggard though.

@BiND
Not quiet BiND. What’s needed is a word for a government you vote for, who’s central policies you profoundly disagree with, because all the other parties potentially able to form a government espouse identical policies. Some word encapusulates in the shit but unable to cease digging

@BraveFart
Thanks

@MC May 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm

Oh dear, you’ve opened door to “You’re anti-Semetic” accusations – which is bollocks as hook nose more prevalent in Arabs

@SadButMadLad

Good God, was she already pissed when she pulled on her daughter’s cast-offs? Those sagging tits need scaffolding support

Her looks going downhill fast, like Kuessenberk. The eternal anger, hatred and miserabilist expressions destroy them, they become haggard hags