There was the perfect example of BBC logic on show last week with two items on the Jeremy Whine Show. On Thursday. they suddenly rediscovered Iraq. For some strange reason, the BBC's been reluctant to report from Iraq recently, but now they're back and dealing with the most important story of all: a case of suspected canocide.
Apparently, we don't need to remember the vast majority of peace-loving Marines. It turns out this was no mere pooch going flying, it was a metaphor for our times
Admittedly, it was reassuring to find out that even after years thrashing around in the swamp of moral equivalence the BBC is still able to take a firm line on at least one issue but, still, who exactly did the BBC think was in favour of throwing puppies off cliffs ? In so far as there exists no vast dog-murdering constituency in Britain, the whole item was essentially bogus, a transparent attempt to inflame, not inform - even without Mr Whine's constant citing of the bogus '600 000 dead civilians' figure and putting on an exagerrated US accent to read out dialogue from the clip (seriously, can you imagine a Beeboid reading out a terrorist's statement in a 'Goodness Gracious Me' accent) ?
As if the BBC's agenda were not already transparent enough, consider the choice of comments the BBC felt were worth broadcasting to the nation. The BBC might ruthlessly censor it's own 'Have Your Say' boards to remove supposed extremists, but apparently they think the national debate is improved by giving a platform to someone who asks 'when will we realise that soldiers are not heroic, they're unthinking killing machines with no comprehension, otherwise why choose a job where you have to kill people ?'
See ? Not extreme at all - just like the guy who claimed 'American troops are now behaving like the SS' (although admittedly that level of ignorance does suggest the left's obsession with teaching kids about the Nazi era may not be as goofy as it sounds).
Also 'this shows the kind of person in the US Army now, misfits, inbreds and illiterates [unlike liberal rocket scientists who think Marines are part of the Army - DJ] Recent history shows us the way US Forces go to war, with incidents of friendly fire and prisoner abuse. If you give power to a nation of children, you can expect nothing more than this'.
In so far as the nation of children has a massive lead over the EUSSR is just about every form of science known to man, this must be some kind of child prodigy deal, right ? Meanwhile, I'm wondering about the likely reaction at the BBC if someone claimed the somewhat more horrible recent history of the BBC's favourite continent proved that Africans were all children.
But the winner of 'Best in Show' was undoubtedly one 'Ishtaq Hussain' from Northampton, whose insights were apparently so valuable that his phone call was put through live on air. It's worth quoting at length as an example of what the BBC doesn't consider extreme:
Again, it's tempting to wonder about the chances of the BBC ever allowing a BNP member to go on air and claim there were 'hundreds of videos' showing Muslims raping Infidels while quoting passages from the Koran. I'm guessing 'less than zero' even without calculating the likelihood that the host faced with such a caller would restrict himself to arguing the relative merits of rape and bestiality. But there's more to it than that.
Forget any wider issues, let's return to a point made earlier in the week, consider what the Bin Laden of the Midlands is claiming here: there is proof of hundreds of atrocities available at the click of a mouse, but the entire media is hushing it up. Apparently, accusing the BBC of covering up war crimes is an uncontroversial point. This from the people who are enraged at any suggestion that they display a liberal bias. Accusing them of being accessories to war crimes ? That's a perfectly valid point of view, but pointing out that they tilt left ? How dare you!
Spookily enough, the day after the BBC turned the mike over to an unhinged Islamofascist spewing inflammatory garbage, the very same show carried an item on the attacks on RAF personnel in Peterborough, without ever coming out and saying who was behind these attacks - although curiously enough, they had an Muslim on to explain why these mysterious people were completely justified.
So there you have it: claiming the Infidels are murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq is incontestable fact, but simply stating who the assailants are in a serious of violent incidents, why, sir, that would be irresponsible. The mythical Islamophobic backlash that never actually happens is more of a risk than actual violence happening right now - and, no, if the BBC ever does manage to track down a real incident of Islamophobia, they won't be inviting Nick Griffin on to explain the root causes.
UPDATE:
Ross points out another case where the BBC parked up its matronly concern with inflammatory rhetoric.
Standard disclaimer follows: as a free-speech maximalist I'm no fan of suppressing debate for the cause of social order, but the BBC doesn't normally feel this way. Look at the report Ross links and imagine you are a man from Mars trying to work who is carrying out these attacks. Again: simple statements of fact are too hot for the BBC to handle, but fact-free propaganda screeds are the very essence of public service broadcasting.
As Ross says, the evidence of extreme rhetoric provoking violent social disorder is at lot firmer here than in any of the cases that normally provoke the BBC's hysterical denunciations of 'far right extremism'.
Apparently, we don't need to remember the vast majority of peace-loving Marines. It turns out this was no mere pooch going flying, it was a metaphor for our times
Admittedly, it was reassuring to find out that even after years thrashing around in the swamp of moral equivalence the BBC is still able to take a firm line on at least one issue but, still, who exactly did the BBC think was in favour of throwing puppies off cliffs ? In so far as there exists no vast dog-murdering constituency in Britain, the whole item was essentially bogus, a transparent attempt to inflame, not inform - even without Mr Whine's constant citing of the bogus '600 000 dead civilians' figure and putting on an exagerrated US accent to read out dialogue from the clip (seriously, can you imagine a Beeboid reading out a terrorist's statement in a 'Goodness Gracious Me' accent) ?
As if the BBC's agenda were not already transparent enough, consider the choice of comments the BBC felt were worth broadcasting to the nation. The BBC might ruthlessly censor it's own 'Have Your Say' boards to remove supposed extremists, but apparently they think the national debate is improved by giving a platform to someone who asks 'when will we realise that soldiers are not heroic, they're unthinking killing machines with no comprehension, otherwise why choose a job where you have to kill people ?'
See ? Not extreme at all - just like the guy who claimed 'American troops are now behaving like the SS' (although admittedly that level of ignorance does suggest the left's obsession with teaching kids about the Nazi era may not be as goofy as it sounds).
Also 'this shows the kind of person in the US Army now, misfits, inbreds and illiterates [unlike liberal rocket scientists who think Marines are part of the Army - DJ] Recent history shows us the way US Forces go to war, with incidents of friendly fire and prisoner abuse. If you give power to a nation of children, you can expect nothing more than this'.
In so far as the nation of children has a massive lead over the EUSSR is just about every form of science known to man, this must be some kind of child prodigy deal, right ? Meanwhile, I'm wondering about the likely reaction at the BBC if someone claimed the somewhat more horrible recent history of the BBC's favourite continent proved that Africans were all children.
But the winner of 'Best in Show' was undoubtedly one 'Ishtaq Hussain' from Northampton, whose insights were apparently so valuable that his phone call was put through live on air. It's worth quoting at length as an example of what the BBC doesn't consider extreme:
There are hundreds of videos online of US soldiers shooting and killing innocent Iraqi people, saying things like 'dude, did you see the way I got that guy in the head ?' or 'there's a woman there - why don't you try to pop her in the head ?' It's a disgrace that the death of a dog gets more media exposure across the world than the death of minimum 600 000 Iraqi people....and much, much more in a similar vein. In fact, he was brought back later on in the show, just in case we'd missed his talking points first time. Needless to say, these claims of mass murder were blandly accepted by Mr Whine as a given, his only quibble was whether or not concern for a puppy and for people were mutually exclusive.
Again, it's tempting to wonder about the chances of the BBC ever allowing a BNP member to go on air and claim there were 'hundreds of videos' showing Muslims raping Infidels while quoting passages from the Koran. I'm guessing 'less than zero' even without calculating the likelihood that the host faced with such a caller would restrict himself to arguing the relative merits of rape and bestiality. But there's more to it than that.
Forget any wider issues, let's return to a point made earlier in the week, consider what the Bin Laden of the Midlands is claiming here: there is proof of hundreds of atrocities available at the click of a mouse, but the entire media is hushing it up. Apparently, accusing the BBC of covering up war crimes is an uncontroversial point. This from the people who are enraged at any suggestion that they display a liberal bias. Accusing them of being accessories to war crimes ? That's a perfectly valid point of view, but pointing out that they tilt left ? How dare you!
Spookily enough, the day after the BBC turned the mike over to an unhinged Islamofascist spewing inflammatory garbage, the very same show carried an item on the attacks on RAF personnel in Peterborough, without ever coming out and saying who was behind these attacks - although curiously enough, they had an Muslim on to explain why these mysterious people were completely justified.
So there you have it: claiming the Infidels are murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq is incontestable fact, but simply stating who the assailants are in a serious of violent incidents, why, sir, that would be irresponsible. The mythical Islamophobic backlash that never actually happens is more of a risk than actual violence happening right now - and, no, if the BBC ever does manage to track down a real incident of Islamophobia, they won't be inviting Nick Griffin on to explain the root causes.
UPDATE:
Ross points out another case where the BBC parked up its matronly concern with inflammatory rhetoric.
Standard disclaimer follows: as a free-speech maximalist I'm no fan of suppressing debate for the cause of social order, but the BBC doesn't normally feel this way. Look at the report Ross links and imagine you are a man from Mars trying to work who is carrying out these attacks. Again: simple statements of fact are too hot for the BBC to handle, but fact-free propaganda screeds are the very essence of public service broadcasting.
As Ross says, the evidence of extreme rhetoric provoking violent social disorder is at lot firmer here than in any of the cases that normally provoke the BBC's hysterical denunciations of 'far right extremism'.
No comments:
Post a Comment