"Can we trust the BBC" Robin Aitken - my review

Can we trust the BBC? Why should you care?

The BBC is probably the largest media corporation in the world; broadcasting to billions of people all around the globe in hundreds of languages. The company not long ago began operations in America.

But just what does "Auntie", as the Brits call her, broadcast? The answer will shock you as it's more Tokyo Rose than Auntie. Let me give you just a little teaser. Listen to what Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent, had to say in 2003 about the BBC's reporting on the war in Iraq.

"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.

"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.

"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite."

That's the BBC's own defence correspondent protesting the BBC's lies in its reporting in Iraq. I'll have much more later for I present far more evidence against the BBC than does Aitken.

Aitken, like Adams, is a BBC insider having worked there for 25 years. Aitken's notes the exact moment and who made the disasterous decision that turned the BBC into the far left propaganda machine it is today.

In the old days the BBC, like American news outlets, had two divisions - the news and the commentary divisions. The news division reported the who, what, when and where. The commentary reported the why. Then, a decision was made to combine the two divisions. Now news commentators began to inject the why into their news broadcast - Auntie became Tokyo Rose.

Aitken's notes the BBC began to champion causes from anti war, EU integration, global warming and most especially, anti Americanism. As he notes, we (here in the UK) all have to pay the BBC licence fee and therefore are entitiled to be treated equally and fairly. But the BBC has broken that contract.

Aitken details how he progressed up the ladder in the BBC corporation and notes how the BBC grew more far left wing over the years. If you wanted to make it in the BBC, you hid the fact that you were on the right. As he says, in his 25 years at the BBC he couldn't have formed a criket team from BBC workers admitting they were on the right. And if you complained about the left wing bias you were threatened or sidelined as Aitken was.

Next he devles into who these people at the BBC are and the revolving door that exists between BBC employees and the Labour government; not unlike what is happening with the Obama admistration now. The result is left wing propaganda supporting many Labour talking points.

Aitken's devotes a whole chapter to the BBC's support for more EU integration and details how sceptics were sidelined and pro EU supporters given free reign. Ditto global warming.

Next he gives his inside take on the Gilligan and the Iraq war saga. As he notes, the BBC believed Gilligan because they wanted to beieve him - it fit the narrative. The BBC was so biased they failed to investigate the claims until it was too late.

Aitken's concludes that the BBC has deep seated left wing bias but that it is not all bad and in fact, does some excellent work. While that might be true in some areas, my documentation shows just how far the BBC is willing to go to further its left wing agenda - far enough to support terrorists.

2001 - Four days after 9/11 the BBC stacks an on air audience with anti-American people.

2005 - BBC airs documentary and claims al Qaeda is a "myth" and "illusion".

BBC knew of link to failed 21/7 bombers

In this case the BBC uses a well known anti war activist and reporter to fabricate alleged war crimes by the US in Iraq.

Those are but a tiny fraction of my documentation against the BBC. Keep all this in mind the next time you watch or listen to "Auntie".

BBC News - Climate debate not settled

I bet the BBC almost choked writing that.

"But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period. "

You have to love this.

"He said "sceptics" who doubted his climate record should compile their own dataset from material publicly available in the US."

Now why would he recommend people use US records instead of his own UK CRU data? Oh, that's right, he destroyed that data!

"The major datasets mostly agree," he said."

But we've no way of knowing that Jones since you destroyed yours.

Now this is turning into a farce. Here's Jones "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

"His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones' strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: "There is some truth in that.

"We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be," he admitted.

"That's similar with the American datasets. There were technical reasons for this, with changing data from different countries. There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more."

It's very hard to keep track of when you destroy it.

BBC - Judgement day for public trust in science

Nice to see the BBC reporting something on climategate.

"And then there's "glaciergate" - evidence that the speed of Himalayan glacier melt has been seriously misrepresented in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).

It is profoundly worrying that it took three years for this issue to emerge, especially since the IPCC proudly proclaims its reports to be "peer reviewed", and therefore trustworthy. "

Oh the irony! The BBC has been pushing global warming all those years and was too busy burying any information that contraicted its view.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Yeah, let's call it "misled".

"In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. "

Global warming is being debunked on an almost daily basis but the adverts just keep on coming.

Update.

Don't expect the BBC to correct this post anytime soon.

BBC's Mardell continues Webb's painting a false picture of America

The BBC's Webb is gone but never fear Mardell is on the job!

Mardell starts his report by framing the topic as America overreacting to one failed terrorist to blow up a plane. Left out, as is BBC reporters usual want, are some very important facts.

Like the failed terrorist's revelation that there were 20 more just like him ready to strike. The Muslim passenger hauled off a flight for yelling he wanted to kill all Jews. The recent terrorist arrest in the US. Let's not forget Richard Reid or the failed attempt to blow up multiple airliners over the US. That last one originated in Britain Mardell.

Mardell then resorts to one of the oldest reporters tricks in the book in order to spin his story - the straw man.

"There is a general assumption in America that al-Qaeda simply wants to kill as many Americans as possible, that murder is their objective."

Hmm, I wonder why they called it the "war on terror" then and not the war on al Qaeda?

Mardell goes on to lament how Obama's opponents jumped on him for being too soft and offers this up:

"President Obama's opponents have long accused him of being soft on terrorism. He does not even use the George Bush phrase "war on terror".

Perhaps not Mark, but are you forgetting that four days after the failed attempt, when Obama finally got around to it, Obama said we are at war. When you are at war, four days is a very long time.

Mark goes on to make a fool of himself.

"This mood of high seriousness has robbed the West of a really effective propaganda weapon. It has made it difficult to exploit the sheer ridiculousness of an underpants bomber.

If the thought of the state of al-Qaeda's undergarments made people snigger instead of quake, that would be a moral victory. "

Would it have been so funny had he succeeded Mark? Let's not forget, he choose his seat carefully - right over the fuel tanks. In addition, thanks to the courage and quick actions of one passenger, he was stopped. Let's also not forget a similar attempt to kill a Saudi prince, almost succeeded. The bomb went off killing the bomber but the prince survived. I doubt his laughing Mark.

Mark then turns his attention to how Britain handles things differently and why.

"But there are historical and political reasons why we seem less phased by the threat of terrorism. Of course part of it goes back to 9/11. We have not suffered an attack like that."

Again, Mark leaves out significant information to the discussion. He fails to mention that a plane was to have been flown into the Parliament building on 911 but the bomber backed out at the last minute.

Just how little of a threat does Mardell think terrorism is?

"But it means we see terrorism as a background threat. It might have your name on it but it is statistically improbable. "

Well Mark, just why are those statistics so low? Could it be that thanks to the security services, both here and in America, taking a more serious view and thereby stopping hundreds of attacks, those stats are low? Two weeks after 7/7 terror attacks on London, the security services stopped the second attack. How many would have been killed then? How would those statistics look had those ten airliners been blown up? If all the terror attacks stopped around the world had not been stopped, how would those stats look then Mardell? On 9/11, terrorism had 3000 peoples name on it. And if it's just "a background threat" Mark, why did Obama say we are at war?

Of course Mardell has noting but praise for Obama.

"He has declared that a proud nation does not hunker down and adopt a siege mentality in the face of such threats. "

Just how stupid is Mardell? How many security reviews did Obama order in the wake of the failed Christmas bomber? How many times did he meet with the leaders of all US security forces? Who ordered all those new x-ray machines for US airports? Who requested foreign governments begin immediate screenings of overseas passengers traveling to the US? Who ordered the dramatic increase in Sky Marshalls? And these are just the things we know about.

Yes, Mardell has turned out to be just another BBC hack like Webb.

Yemen al-Qaeda link to Guantanamo Bay prison

According to the BBC, Islamic terrorism in Yemen is America's fault for torturing Muslims at Gitmo. I just love the way the BBC take the word of terrorists without question.

"In the video he declared "our imprisonment has only increased our persistence".

What happened in the skies above Detroit on Christmas Day is an indication of that. "

Note he says "our imprisonment" and not our torture.

Hang on a minute! Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was never in Gitmo! In fact, he comes from a wealthy family and was living in a luxury flat while attending college in London. I'm not sure that counts as toture but if it is, it wasn't the yanks what done it.

And isn't the BBC's headquarters located in London? Perhaps they might explain why the BBC is contributing to terrorism.

BBC News - Afghans more optimistic for future, survey shows

Nice to see this on the BBC.

BBC News - Smuggling fuels Gaza's stalled economy

Notice how the BBC frame their report with everything is Israel's fault.

"The day Israel launched its 22-day offensive on Gaza , a year ago, Osama and his family lost most of their $70,000 life savings."

Buried in the article is this.

"The Hamas administration says more than US $100m invested by Gazans was lost in what turned out to be something like a pyramid scheme.

The brokers offered initial returns by paying "from me to you, from you to him and from him to me," explains economy minister Ziad Zaza, "like Madoff in the US".

In case your in doubt about the BBC's anti Israel reporting, there's this.

"And larger items such as fridges, washing machines, cows, motorbikes, disassembled cars, and - according to Israel - weapons are also moved through the tunnels."

Got that? "According to Israel". Palestinian terrorists would never smuggle weapons into Gaza, would they?

Hamas boasts new types of weapons smuggled into Strip

"Hamas on Friday boasted that it had managed to smuggle new types of weapons into the Gaza Strip despite the blockade, and published photographs of some of the arms it allegedly obtained."

Oops!

BBC 'to begin website rollback in 2010' - Telegraph

They can't cut enough of the BBC for me.

BBC's Matt Frei clueless about terrorism

Like most in the left wing media, the BBC's Matt Frei is clueless when it comes to Islamic terrorism.

For starters, Frei never mentions Islam once in his report! For Matt, it's as if Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. It's nice to see Matt and the BBC finally admitting that poverty has nothing to do with terrorism. But, they still refuse to acknowledge Islam's role in terrorism. Listen to his description of the underpants bomber.

"Much of the reporting has been focussed on his sojourn in Yemen, the mosque he attended there, the al-Quaeda contacts he made in Sanaa."

But, he was radicalized in a mosque in Britain - mosque being the key both here and in Yemen - Islamic mosques. Get it Matt?

BBC's Mark Mardell isn't buying it

Mark isn't buying it that "...after last year's election people are flooding back to the conservative cause."

Well, what do you expect from the BBC? There's just one problem Mark, Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group

"The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%)."

Do BBC reporters in America have a clue as to what's going on? Apparently not. This made my head spin.

"The President's intention to focus on jobs and the economy this year is well known, but there are at least a couple of problems."

Well known by whom? And how's that focus working out Mark?

"There are no new measures in the pipeline, no new narrative to tell."

Oh. That might be because the President's focus wasn't and isn't on jobs and the economy, it's on the elephant in the room Mark failed to mention - health care.

World 'failed Gaza over Israeli blockade'

Of course the BBC put all the blame on Israel.

"Aid agencies have strongly criticised the international community for failing to help bring an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza."

There's no mention in the report of Egypt's blockade of Gaza which went into effect the same time as Israel's and for the same reason - to stop Palestinian terrorists.

BBC Asks 'Should Homosexuals Face Execution'?

Is the BBC's conversion to Islam complete?

UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row

Notice how the BBC frame the debate? The "row" isn't a row, it's the biggest scientific scandal of the century. And, it's not just about the emails, it's about the scandal they reveal.

"The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated."

Note the use of "claims" as if there is some doubt about this scandal. No one is making "claims", they're merely pointing to the damning emails where these so called scientists bragged about manipulating the data. Or the one's where they admit to deleting data, damning emails and colluding to keep dissenting scientific views from publication.

But the BBC, along with the few media outlets even reporting on the story, tries to make this about the leakers and try cast doubt on their "claims".

"The allegations emerged after e-mails written and received by UK climate researchers appeared on the Internet.

The police are investigating whether the scientists' computers were hacked. "

"Claims", "allegations", all words the BBC use to cast doubt on the whole scandal. The police may well be investigating possible hacking, but shouldn't these "scientist" who illegally dodged Freedom of Information requests be prosecuted?

The BBC goes on to try and cast doubt on the scandal without printing any of the emails at the center of the "row". Astounding! After a lengthy report on the greatest scientific scandal of the world, the poor BBC reader is left wondering, "what the hell are they talking about?".

Which is, after all, the point. If the BBC is challenged on why it is not covering the story, it can point to this and say they covered it. Ah, but without informing the public what it's all about.

Here's a report from Canada that does a far better job.



Even comedian, Jon Stewart does a better job than the BBC.

BBC shamed again

ANOTHER fakery storm: Producers posed as members of public for daytime TV shows

Makes you wonder what else the BBC are faking.

It's not a case of the BBC just will not learn, it's the case that the BBC simply don't care and thumb their noses at the public who pay them for the privilege.

Climategate scandal widens

New Zealand data fudged?

And the BBC knew about Britain's fudged data for a month.

Senior BBC broadcasters on cocaine

That's what Sarah Graham, who worked on children’s programmes for the corporation, says.

"Broadcasting executives addicted to cocaine are routinely praised by bosses for their “creative genius”, a former BBC producer told MPs.

Sarah Graham, who worked on children’s programmes for the corporation and took cocaine for nine years, said use of the drug remained widespread among senior media executives and taking it helped to boost their careers."

Explains a lot.

Here are just a few of those BBC broadcasters. How many more are there?

Tories could 'rip up' BBC charter

All the more reason to vote for them.

The BBC has a long history of lies, bias and fabrications.

What happened to global warming?

Asks the BBC; one of the biggest purveyors of global warming myths.

Iranian TV and the BBC

Harry's Place notes with disappointment the BBC's kid glove handling of Press TV over revelations that Iran has built another secret nuclear facility.

"The BBC are at this very moment interviewing an employee of Press TV on Radio 5 Live, who is suggesting that the concerns about Iran’s nuclear aspirations are spin to strengthen Obama’s position and who is arguing against sanctions. The interview is being conducted as though the journalist is a objective uninvolved commentator.

The BBC are not telling their listeners that Press TV are a Iranian government funded operation, the station’s slavish support of the regime, and the problems they have had with impartiality.

Disappointing."

This will come as no surprise to those who have read my case against the BBC.

After having help set up al Jazeera, the BBC were only too happy to help set up Press TV, Iran's state run propaganda news orgainzation, to help spread left wing propaganda. al Jazeera, Press TV, the BBC - what's the difference?