That the BBC is biased and is not impartial as required by its Charter is self-evident and incontrovertible. This did not stop the renewal of its Royal Charter and Framework Agreement this year. It does not matter who is in charge be it Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg, or now May. They all complain about the BBC being unfair to them, but the reality is they all share the same liberal perspective of the BBC. This is the only logical reason for the Charter being renewed without reform. Added to which there is a regular interchange and job switching between their political parties and the higher echelons of the BBC. The Government tinkers about with the governance and management of the BBC but does nothing to enforce standards for fear of accusations of interfering with the independence of the BBC and the freedom of the Press. The BBC is quite adept at manipulating this predicament to achieve its own ends. In so far as the public are concerned they can complain as much as they like, it will get them nowhere. The BBC complaints procedure is not designed to acknowledge and resolve any complaint, only to manage it and suppress it before it goes any further. Very rarely is a complaint acknowledged and rectified with an apology and a correction. This is usually achieved by using external pressure and publicity. Last year the BBC wrongly accused the Catholic Church of silence about the Holocaust. Six months later their internal watchdog found the report to be unfair. Their sanction was to notify the news team responsible so that any future coverage might reflect historical understanding more closely. That is not even a slap on the hand. Although it took the involvement of Lord Alton to get that much. There was no apology or announcement of a correction, and no investigation as to why the news team made that erroneous assertion. It did reveal a strand of anti-Catholic sentiment within the BBC. Go to > http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/bbc-admits-it-underestimated-the-churchs-opposition-to-hitler/
Norma McCorvey died yesterday (18th February) at the age of 69. This is a sad loss and at such an early age she still had much to contribute to the Pro-Life Movement. She had inside knowledge of the abortion industry and like most converts became more pro-life than cradle-pro-lifers. She was a born-again Christian who in due course converted to the Catholic Church. She had personally tried to overturn the US Supreme Court judgement – Roe v Wade – but was unsuccessful. The significance of this, as we know, is that she was the Jane Roe in that lawsuit. She did not get the same mainstream news media coverage under her given name, compared to the notoriety of her court name. Her pro-life views and efforts, although widely known by us, were largely ignored by the pro-abortion news media and suppressed by pro-abortion groups. Only now with her death are the real facts being given a higher profile in the news media, albeit with spin, and the truth reaching a wider audience. In her death she is still fighting the good fight.
Eternal rest grant unto her O Lord; and let perpetual light shine on her. May she rest in peace. Amen.
Please go to this more comprehensive obituary at > http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/18/norma-mccorvey-jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-passes-away-she-never-had-an-abortion-and-became-pro-life/
Then compare this with the BBC online news report at > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39016181
The original report was briefer and more in the style of an obituary. Within a short period of time it had been greatly expanded and included parts of previous reports pertaining to the abortion debate during the US Presidential election. The BBC will claim that this was to achieve balance and they were being impartial. However, obituaries do not have to be balanced. The BBC cannot miss any chance to air its pro-abortion agenda. Is this just a different perception or is it news media spin? On the face of it this report is balanced, but it is the subtle references that the ill-informed just accept as fact, when the truth is somewhat different.
The BBC report, “McCorvey first filed the case in 1969. She was pregnant with her third child and said she had been raped. But the case was rejected and she was forced to give birth.” In this example of spin, it is the statement ‘she was forced to give birth’. In fact she did not want an abortion in the first place. She did want a divorce, but was in a vulnerable position and was taken advantage of by an activist lawyer. She was not raped and not forced to give birth. As she later confirmed, this case was fabricated on the basis of lies. Since then more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the US. A crime against humanity, but that is not how the BBC sees it.
Post Script an additional comment and reflection on Norma > http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/20/roe-v-wade-attorney-sarah-weddingtons-shocking-answer-when-asked-whatever-happened-to-roe/
You heard it here first; Donald Trump is an American Bulldog. He may not even realise it himself, but he has all the characteristics of that breed. The Australian Prime Minister found this out when speaking to the new President on the telephone for the first time. Given Australia’s strict immigration rules it was hardly courteous, diplomatic or good sense to lecture DT about his Executive Order reinstating a temporary travel ban before tightening up the procedures for entry to the US. He got short shrift when DT reportedly put the phone down on him. The PM retired with his tail between his legs. The rat-pack press corps at the White House have also been savaged and put on notice that they will not be allowed to challenge and undermine the democratic legitimacy of the new Administration. One of DT’s first acts by Presidential Memorandum was to reinstate Ronald Reagan’s ‘Mexico City Policy’ that prevents US taxpayers money being spent on carrying out and promoting abortions in foreign jurisdictions. The liberal progressives of the rat-pack press immediately attacked the move. Was DT bothered? Not a bit, as he sent out the White House Press Secretary to admonish them and put the whelps in their place. Sean Spicer was uncompromising, asking why were they howling when DT had campaigned on that promise and the electorate had backed it? Going further he made clear that DT was a Pro-Life President who was leading a Pro-Life Administration. It was for that reason that 52% of Catholic and 81% of Evangelical voters carried DT and his pro-life campaign team over the finishing and winning line. And it is for that reason that I am fine with the new President and his Vice-President, Mike Pence, and happy that they defeated pro-abortion Hillary Clinton. I will judge them on what they do during their term of office and not on anything that they may have done previously.
In the previous post the emphasis was on abortion, because that is a fundamental issue and a defining issue (the biggest) in the presidential election. Not that you would know it by reading the British press or listening to the BBC. Abortion has been airbrushed from their news coverage. This is of particular concern with regard to the BBC, as they are a public corporation with a responsibility to be impartial and unbiased. The CDP have taken them to task concerning their leaning towards Planned Parenthood and their non-reporting of the undercover videos published by the Center for Medical Progress, proving PP have been selling the body parts (and whole bodies) of aborted babies to intermediaries in a market that has been created in the US. The BBC has gone along with the PP strategy to suppress, spin and smear the story and the CMP. Not a hint of it on radio or television, with only the briefest of indirect press-agency reporting online – all in favour of PP, especially the indictment of CMP Director (David Daleiden) by a Texas grand-jury. When all charges against him were dismissed, not a dickybird or tweet from the BBC updating the ‘good news’. Why is that? David Lord, the top man at BBC with responsibility for impartiality, is on record saying that the BBC has an agenda based on “liberal democratic Western values”. Not British conservative democratic values or Christian enduring & traditional truths & values. It is clear the BBC is biased and acting contrary to its Charter . Not that you will find any declaration to that effect in a BBC document, it all rests on the generic mind-set of producers and reporters. The same situation has applied to their reporting of the US presidential election and Hillary Clinton, presumably because she and the BBC share the same liberal democratic Western values.
You probably know who Cecil is, but have you any idea who Cecile is? At this time of year, when Parliament is in the long summer recess and news is scarce the print-press struggle to publish real current affairs; resulting in the perennial silly season. This year is no different. Stories that would normally be buried on an inside page appear on the front page. Many of these are of the could or may variety. The research department of a university publishes the findings of its latest study saying that something might happen if we continue to behave in a particular way, and the press seize upon it. It is reported as fact when in truth it is only a theory. A think-tank releases the results of a piece of social research based on statistical analysis, that could have dire consequences, resulting in a misleading headline. On further reading it appears that the statistics are dubious and it contradicts a similar report from a similar think-tank they printed a short time earlier. Then there are the opinion polls telling us that a majority of people support or oppose this or that. Further scrutiny reveals it was based on a small number of interviewees and is worthless. Or, the poll was commissioned to bolster a campaign, with the questions being loaded to achieve the desired result. And, we see the shocking behaviour of a celebrity or public figure (usually deceased so they cannot dispute it) uncovered, only to find it is taken from a book that the author is promoting. Read the rest of this entry »
Information and communication technology is a vital system in the functioning of any community or society. Until relatively recently skills and knowledge were passed on from master to apprentice, teacher to pupil, and preacher to congregation by example and orally. This was a very personal process with group or tribal leaders aware that knowledge was power. It was essential to maintain the unity and identity of the group through origin legends and history, which had to be passed on from generation to generation unaltered. This need was met by the elevation of a class of learned men who memorised those legends and history, and passed them on to students who after many years could also pass on the knowledge word-perfect. This human memory and word might be described as the first ICT. The important and enduring elements were accuracy and truth. News was spread in the same way with travellers visiting hamlets, villages, towns, manors and castles. The service they provided was so valued that they were treated as honoured guests with free hospitality. Entertainment was also provided in the same way with travelling troubadours. Story-tellers were welcome visitors in rural communities, going from cabin to cabin, sat beside the firelight at night imparting fables, myths and legends, and the latest popular story. This was happening up to one hundred years ago. All imparting – impartial and accurate – information, education and entertainment, much like the British Broadcasting Corporation is supposed to do by virtue of its Charter. Read the rest of this entry »