I like to think of him more as The Writer of Alternative Truths....

By leftist media I'm mainly getting at the BBC, Radio, SM and the art of PC and censorship.  Newspapers these days wield much less power.

BBC not leftist

Kuenssbers "grilling" of Twunt:

BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg called out Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt suggesting he had no "concrete plan" on how to deliver on Brexit. Mr Hunt has been vying for the position of Prime Minister against Boris Johnson in the Tory leadership contest and has pledged his commitment to reopening discussions with the European Union to secure a deal. But Ms Kuenssberg dismissed his campaign pledge during an interview with Mr Hunt on Tuesday: "Listening to you talking about your plans is actually very similar to talking to Boris Johnson about his Brexit plans."High on ambition, low on concrete detail."
Mr Hunt defended his position, insisting he had been "very clear" on how he would proceed if elected Prime Minister to ensure Brexit is delivered.
The senior BBC reporter however dismissed his proposals as "a wish" as she demanded to discuss the evidence he had to justify claims he would be able to resolve the Brexit debacle.
She added: "You were clear about what you would like to do. That’s a wish. What’s the evidence you can actually get this done?"Mr Hunt said: "This is the starting point for any deal. You’ve got to be absolutely clear about what you want and its’ different to what Theresa May was negotiating.

"Both Boris and I want to change that deal and the judgment is who is the person you trust as Prime Minister to go to Brussels and bring back that deal.

"It’s about the personality of the Prime Minister. If you choose someone where there’s going to be no trust, there’s going to be no negotiation and no deal."

Asked about his view on the Irish backstop, one of the most contentious aspects of the negotiation with Brussels, the Foreign Secretary claimed a solution "is ready" but said the bloc had not listened to alternative proposals.
He continued: "I think it is ready but the EU has not wanted to accept this kind of solution because their hope is we might stay in this thing called the customs union where we have to stick to their tariffs.
"But I think they know now that won’t get through to Parliament."He added: "This is a negotiation and they obviously are going to negotiate for something that for them is the best outcome.

"The reality is we ended up with a deal that’s not going to go through Parliament. When I talk to people in the EU, they understand that.

"They are keen to see if there is a way through."
But despite both Mr Hunt and Mr Johnson insisting they will seek to pressure Brussels into reopening talks on the existing withdrawal agreement, top figures across the Union have repeatedly rejected the suggestion.

European Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker insisted the bloc will not agree to any changes in the agreement and urged any future Prime Minister to respect the agreement Mrs May struck with the bloc.
Mr Juncker said: "We've concluded with Theresa May the withdrawal agreement.
“This isn’t a treaty between May and Juncker, this is a treaty between the UK and the EU.
“It has to be respected by whomsoever will be the next British prime minister.”
^^

So devoting whole programmes to them. Essentially party political broadcasts where they're given a clear run at declaring why the public should vote for them...

Doing all that and more is evidence of bias against them???


You really need to stop trying so hard to be offended all the time. It's not a good look.

that's presuming you have any forte of course

The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.

    All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

–Andrew Marr

    “It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat.

    “If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”

– Jeff Randall, former BBC business editor

    By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

–  Peter Sissons, Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter

     “In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people’s personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

    “Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We’re like that, too.”

– Mark Thomspon, former BBC Director General

    “I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”

– Jane Garvey, Radio 4 presenter, recalling Tony Blair’s election victory in 1997

    I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education. But perhaps our most powerful antagonism was directed at advertising. This is not surprising; commercial television was the biggest threat the BBC had ever had to face.

– Sir Antony Jay, former BBC producer and creator, inter alia, of “Yes, (Prime) Minister”

    “Liberal sceptical humanists tend to dominate television”.

    The “default position in broadcasting” – when covering issues such as gay marriage and the Roman Catholic position on IVF – revolved around human rights, and that opponents should not be treated as “lunatics”.

    “All I’m saying is, if you have at the centre of News an editor, he could explain why people in particular areas…are motivated, why they behave as they do and I think that would just increase understanding.”

– Roger Bolton, Radio 4 presenter and former head of Panorama and Nationwide

    “And, in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride. We don’t give America any kind of moral weight in our broadcasts.”

– Justin Webb (pg. 66), Today presenter and former BBC North America editor

    “We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”

– Ben Stephenson, BBC controller of drama commissioning

“The BBC has wholeheartedly thrown its lot in with the liberal reformers; there has been no ‘impartiality’ on any of the big moral issues of the past half-century. In every instance, the socially conservative argument has been depicted as callous, reactionary and dogmatic. Any counterargument to the prevailing liberal consensus is now ignored altogether; social conservative voices are conspicuous by their absence on mainstream current affairs programmes.”

Aitken accuses the Corporation of maintaining “an elaborately constructed pretence” of neutrality, while acting as

    “a strident cheerleader for globalisation, immigration and ‘diversity’ (a quality which, in BBC usage, is always to be applauded, even though academic studies have shown that too much diversity lessens community cohesion).”

He suggests that in “BBC-world we are all liberals now”, and posits the existence of

    “a nexus of media interests which is militantly liberal in outlook, and which has systematically destroyed the foundational beliefs and practices which informed the lives of previous generations. This process started in the post-war years, gathered strength in the 1960s and, since then, has enjoyed virtually uninterrupted success in the furtherance of its goals (the EU referendum is the exception and, at the time of writing, it is not clear whether the wishes of the voters will actually result in Britain leaving the EU, such is the ferocity of the fightback against Brexit).”

He illustrates his thesis with many striking observations. It is true, as he says, that BBC people quite often go on nowadays to be heads of Oxbridge colleges – by his count there are now six of these. And it is also true that our universities and schools contain a far smaller proportion of teachers who think of themselves as conservative than was the case only a generation or two ago. There has been a long march by self-righteous liberals through many of our institutions.

Divorce, feminism, mental health, abortion, euthanasia, Christianity, Islam: on all these questions, the BBC tends to promote  whatever the latest progressive orthodoxy may be, and to ignore the huge volume of evidence which contradicts that orthodoxy. Aitken examines these issues in turn, and points to the inconvenient facts.

In Aitken’s view, the BBC propagates “a series of noble lies in pursuit of a political agenda”, but “sooner or later people will realise they have been duped”, which will be “a moment of great peril for the established order”.

One of the errors he makes here is to exaggerate the credulity of the public. Go into any pub in the land and one has always been able to find people who do not believe a word either politicians or journalists (even BBC journalists) tell them.

A second error is to exaggerate the influence of the BBC. Towards the end of the book, he glances across the Atlantic:

    “When President Trump was merely ‘Candidate Trump’ on the campaign trail, he hammered home one message in particular; he turned on the mainstream US media and accused it of peddling ‘fake news’. As anyone who has had any experience of US journalists will know, they do not, as a group, lack self-esteem; on the contrary, American media folk are monumentally self-important. Trump’s assault on their profession was bitterly resented and dismissed as the words of an inveterate liar who lacked the righteous virtues they see themselves possessing.”

But as Aitken points out, proving the facts in a story are correct – something over which The New York Times and other liberal American newspapers take inordinate pains – does not in itself exonerate the media from the charge of printing fake news:

    “Trump wasn’t saying that the press and the TV networks were getting the facts wrong, rather, they were telling the wrong stories. And Trump had a good point: it’s a question of fairness, not facts. A report can be accurate and yet deeply unfair whether by selection or omission. ‘Fake news’ is not so much about factual inaccuracy as about ideological bias…”

Aitken often implies there can be such a thing as journalism written without bias. That strikes me as a very dubious assumption. Whether one is a historian or a journalist, one can to some extent be aware of one’s own assumptions, and can try to admit these to the reader. But one cannot write without preconceptions, or bias as it will be called by one’s critics.

He also tends to underestimate the extent to which egregious errors, though they may persist for a long time, do eventually tend to be noticed and perhaps even corrected. So immigration, which for a long time was a suppressed subject, is now quite openly debated. And the oddity of Western feminists standing up for Islamic dress codes is more and more noted, even though the discrepancy has not been resolved.

Part of Aitken’s horror is at the “trashy, tawdry and shallow” culture which we inhabit, and which he believes to be “in large measure the creation of our media”. But he does admit, on page 128, that the “collapse in the prestige, influence and centrality of Christianity in Britain” has its roots a long way before the BBC. Arnold wrote Dover Beach, about the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of the Sea of Faith, in 1867.

Typical BS hypocritical propaganda as with the coverage on Boris there PP.

I only posted it because someone asked.  Had I not posted it I would've avoided his question.  By posting it I'm a snowflake going to extreme lengths.

For the record I'm a staunch remainer and not a fan of Trump, but I'm not too stupid to realise that that TV is highly bias against Farage, (who resembles a car salesmen to me) BREXIT and Trump.

It's in your face almost every day.

As one of Trump's supporters said.  Better to be a bare faced liar, than a self righteous hypocritical one.

It's hard to edit him in a way that makes him sound bigly intelligent.

Yes, they brushed Corbyn's man hole obsession under the carpet.

Right wingers spend all day calling liberals snowflakes and then when it comes down to it, they are just as triggered as those they hate.

Clydebank's question with regards to it being a minority would have to depend if it was a hobby based within that culture. As it is, I dont think making model buses is a corner stone of British culture

That's the problem with hypocrites.  Heads so far up their self righteous backsides they lose all sense of reason

To point out self righteous hypocrisy one does not need to be offended.  I would be offended if someone mocked me, but I'm not offended for Boris.  Haven't read the story, just noted the headline.  The hobby is irrelevant

I suppose you can just shout hypocrisy if you like.

It might be complete crap like, but don't let us stop you.

You're so deeply offended by this "self-righteous hypocrisy" having bothered yourself to read an entire headline.


Maybe the lesson of the day is to be a tad less ignorant. Maybe try to understand more. In this case, read the article and find out why he was mocked. Maybe see if you think it was worthy of mocking first before letting your blood pressure jump through the roof.

I mean I could move on and rip apart the whole MSM thing too if I had more time. As if you can throw the beeb, fox news, the guardian, the mail etc into one neat package and treat them all alike.

It's utterly ludicrous.

And it's only spouted by online sites in competition. Hey, get yoyr news and views from me instead. Pay your subscription here. Keep up the traffic for my sponsors here. But the brain juice here.

People not seeing through this charade is one of the most depressing features of the 21st century.

We get what we deserve.

But the night is young and it's summer so let's stick to Johnson and his defence force.

So looking at MSN today.  2 more anti Boris, Guardian articles featured, 2 no deal BREXIT warnings featured, and a link to an anti Farage piece from The Independent.  No anti Labour posts today or yesterday.  I repeat I'm anti BREXIT, anti no deal and anti Farage, and very anti Corbyn.

Maybe The Guardian pay MSN to cover their stories?  Either that or the editors are seemingly lefties.

Have you checked the Burpton Upon Fart Enquirer?

To be accurate that's starting today, in reality it must be already a high number .. well can anyone remember anything that wasn't 100% negative about Brexit since Boris took over or long before that? It's just since The Rise of Boris (and the period before) they've ramped up the hysterical anti Brexit propaganda to fever pitch again.

OfCom apparently complaining today about diversity in radio presenters, we can see which way that shower of ***ks bread is buttered, no wonder they turn a blind eye to the BBC. They are a like minded bunch of sad SJW snowflake twunts, them trying to keep the BBC in line is liking get the SS to make sure the NSDP weren't too right wing.