Nothing proves BBC bias like the subject of BBC bias. In BBC land, any scepticism about BBC impartiality is proof, in and of itself, of mental problems. They just can’t handle the idea that their critics might actually have a point.
It isn’t just politics either. Look at this drivel. Now, being a real Conservative – unlike, say, David Cameron – I think folks like McKenzie should be positively encouraged to show their genius on national TV. After all, as Lincoln said, the thing that kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself. What sticks in the throat though is seeing this man cast as some kind of social commentator. Let’s start with the headline ‘Controversial Views’. Huh ? The two Peters, Tatchell and Hitchens, have controversial views. McKenzie is just a bigoted nutcase and proven fraud. Simone Clark he ain’t. Take away the hatred and the ranting and there’s nothing there.
Of course, the BBC would have a point, if they were indeed prepared to carry ‘controversial views’ but on the contrary, the BBC is proverbial for its cringing PC attitudes, as perfectly exemplified here. Ditto, consider the girly hysteria on the BBC when Ron Atkinson was overheard uttering a racial slur. Does anyone seriously doubt that if McKenzie’s reputation was built on slurring, say, Jamaicans he’d never get within a country mile of a BBC studio ?
More than that though, what is it the BBC keeps mentioning ? Ah yes, the unique way it’s funded. If McKenzie was making his money giving after-dinner speeches to drunken businessmen in the Home Counties, that would be one thing, but on the BBC it’s inevitable that at least a part of his fee was paid for by the very people he rants about. That’s the fundamental problem with the BBC: it claims the right to leech off everyone while maintaining a strict hierarchy of who it feels it should serve. Single complaint about homophobia ? Grovelling all round. Thousands of people demonstrating their disgust at the BBC hiring McKenzie ? Hire him again. You might think this indicates a certain bias, but the BBC would point out that that’s only because you’re nuts.
It isn’t just politics either. Look at this drivel. Now, being a real Conservative – unlike, say, David Cameron – I think folks like McKenzie should be positively encouraged to show their genius on national TV. After all, as Lincoln said, the thing that kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself. What sticks in the throat though is seeing this man cast as some kind of social commentator. Let’s start with the headline ‘Controversial Views’. Huh ? The two Peters, Tatchell and Hitchens, have controversial views. McKenzie is just a bigoted nutcase and proven fraud. Simone Clark he ain’t. Take away the hatred and the ranting and there’s nothing there.
Of course, the BBC would have a point, if they were indeed prepared to carry ‘controversial views’ but on the contrary, the BBC is proverbial for its cringing PC attitudes, as perfectly exemplified here. Ditto, consider the girly hysteria on the BBC when Ron Atkinson was overheard uttering a racial slur. Does anyone seriously doubt that if McKenzie’s reputation was built on slurring, say, Jamaicans he’d never get within a country mile of a BBC studio ?
More than that though, what is it the BBC keeps mentioning ? Ah yes, the unique way it’s funded. If McKenzie was making his money giving after-dinner speeches to drunken businessmen in the Home Counties, that would be one thing, but on the BBC it’s inevitable that at least a part of his fee was paid for by the very people he rants about. That’s the fundamental problem with the BBC: it claims the right to leech off everyone while maintaining a strict hierarchy of who it feels it should serve. Single complaint about homophobia ? Grovelling all round. Thousands of people demonstrating their disgust at the BBC hiring McKenzie ? Hire him again. You might think this indicates a certain bias, but the BBC would point out that that’s only because you’re nuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment