News reports are an area where the BBC has its best chance to pretend that it unbiased and get away with it. It is also one of its greatest areas of bias. Anyone who watches their output at all knows about the Stephen Lawrence killing. It was a personal tragedy but the BBC went on about it far past the point where they could pretend that it was news rather than Racist propaganda. Lawrence was a black allegedly killed by Englishmen. That is what the BBC disliked. That is what the BBC used as a stick to belabour us with. They want us to be ashamed of being English. Pushing the idea of Western Guilt is their big thing. They want blacks to feel as if they are victims. The BBC are Racist liars. Of course when anyone English gets murdered or raped by blacks they choose to ignore it or pass on briskly to the football results.
To be fair all of the media were being racist over Lawrence death. None of them, with one honourable exception bothered to tell us the truth. The suspects were known to the police and the police were known to the suspects. That is how it is with career criminals. And when they know each other and trust each other - in the way that jackals trust each other, bribery becomes an option. Private Eye was the one told us about that.
The BBC's attitude changes briskly when it is one of their own. Jill Dando was murdered and that did matter - according to the BBC. It was a waste. But the police felt the pressure and eventually they arrested a half wit who couldn't prove that he had an alibi months later [ Could you? ] and banged him up for life.
There is a simple test of BBC bias. When they tell you that Smith is right wing, wonder if they are being honest. If they tell you that Jones is left wing wonder if they are being honest. Then count the number of lefties who exist in the BBC's world view. The answer is not very many. They might accuse Green of being a right wing extremist but they will never say that anyone is a left wing extremist, not ever. Lenin, Trotsky, Joe, Mao, Pot and other thugs still have their little private altars in BBC homes.
Then there is their enthusiasm for inciting Homosexuality. They used Kenneth Williams as one of their front men and, to be fair, did it very well. I am not accusing the BBC of incompetence; far from it. They are too clever, too political, too effective.
Why is the BBC so deeply corrupt? It was infiltrated over many years by men who had been the same universities and been influenced by the same left wing propagandists, by disciples of Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida and various other cunning rogues. Now they control it.
What can we do about it? One answer is to complain about it. If we do nothing we are letting them get away with it. We can write letters to the complaints department and they will have to respond. How? Have a look at How to Complain and Who to Complain To. The other answer to bad television is to stop paying the television licence. That really brings the pains on. It is my answer but it is not for everyone. They threaten you. Their tone is the tone of arrogant bullies but can I laugh. I threw my television set away years ago. Vive la resistance.
News explained in pictures:-
Newspaper circulations in 2009 are around:-
The Times 700,000
Mirror 2,000,000 +
List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation ex Wiki tells us that papers are going down. Falls of some 50% are typical.
Are personal on-line news sources. They have a great virtue; they are independent of the half dozen or so media owners that control the main stream media in England. Some are biased but they do not pretend to be anything else. The Times offered us its choice of the 40 most important; a rather strange offering from the Dead Tress Press. Most of them were unknown to me. Most of them will get ignored by me. The virtue of the Internet is that there are thousands of voices out there. You pays your money and takes your choice. Have fun. You might well learn things worth knowing; things they do not want you to know.
Let Us Pay
During 2009, it was difficult to find anybody inside the newspaper business who was not profoundly depressed about the future of the industry. All the trend lines were downwards. The migration of readers and advertisers towards digital media was already a long-standing headache for the industry. Then came the credit crunch, whose aftermath brought recession, further decline in sales, and a sharp downturn in advertising. The result was industry-wide gloom........
Would it matter if it died?....... Without it our democracy would head the way that papers themselves risk heading, and become hollowed out, with the external apparatus of democratic machinery but without the informed electorate which the press helps create. And one beauty of the current arrangement is that it functions without the press having to be well-meaning or high-minded......
Why is that [ going totally on line ] a good thing? Because the internet can make all those costs go away. If newspapers switched over to being all online, the cost base would be instantly and permanently transformed. The OECD report puts the cost of printing a typical paper at 28 per cent and the cost of sales and distribution at 24 per cent: so the physical being of the paper absorbs 52 per cent of all costs. (Administration costs another 8 per cent and advertising another 16.) That figure may well be conservative........
At some point, the economic logic of this is going to become irresistible......... So this, I think, is the future of newspapers. Their cost base will force them to junk their print editions......... I feel equally certain in saying that what the print media need, more than anything else, is a new payment mechanism for online reading, which lets you read anything you like, wherever it is published, and then charges you on an aggregated basis, either monthly or yearly or whatever........
I say again, let us pay. Make the process as easy as possible. Make it invisible and transparent. Make us register once and once only. Walls are not the way forward, but walls are not the same thing as payment, and without some form of payment, the press will not be here in five years' time. I hope one of the big organisations is working on this idea or something like it, because for print newspapers, the clock isn't just ticking, it's ticking louder and faster.
Mr. Lanchester has a bias. Being in the business means he wants the cash flow. A sensible analysis.
& omissions, broken
links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or
whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated on Tuesday, 01 March 2016 08:11:00