Monday, 1 September 2014

More BBC Balance?

I think this qualifies as taking the piss, I mean, compare and contrast...

I had to zoom right out to make it fit into the image - the words don't really matter (its the BBC) its the imagery that counts. The story above concentrates on Jim Murphy's ordeal at the hands of a vicious assailant armed with a highly dangerous egg. 

The header from the story goes:
"A Labour MP has been hit by an egg after being confronted by pro-independence supporters while campaigning ahead of the referendum."
A total of 331 words in which pro-Yes supporters are expressly identified as the culprits (with no supporting evidence what-so-ever) in the first line of the article.


...This story is about the Treasurer of the Britannica Party kicking a pregnant (we assume Yes-supporting) woman in the stomach. This tail - as told by the BBC - amounts to 81 words - check out that gap: the one between the ears of who ever at the BBC decides these thing is comparable.

The header for this story goes:
"A 55-year-old man has been charged in connection with an alleged assault, following a disturbance between Yes and No supporters in Glasgow."

In this much shorter article, the culprits are not identified - but Yes and No supporters are both implicated in the first line. I don't suppose the treasurer of the Britannica Party spends much time kicking other Better Together activists in the stomach - so make of that what you will.

Readers might also note, on the second story where the No Campaign might have been a bit naughty, there is no -

- section. This is easy to explain, when pro-independence supporters are said to have done something villainous & terrible; the BBC has many stories offering assertions & anecdotes (but nothing approaching actual proof) of the Yes Campaign's - ummm - campaign of violence & intimidation. 

When the No Campaign might have got a bit ornery - strangely - they have absolutely nothing.

There are those who think the BBC isn't biased, but just a bit crap. I reckon one begets the other, if the BBC in Scotland had a shred of integrity - which is to say was not so woefully execrable - then it probably would be a fair reporter.

As things stand and as I hope the images above convey - it is not a balanced source of information, not by a long shot.

(As usual, the links to those BBC articles were as reported when I pressed the 'Publish' button. The BBC have a habit of revising articles - usually once the damage has been done.)


  1. I read an interesting article about the BBC's connections to New Labour.

    This probably explains with all the intermarriage and what have you, when they take the line they do.

    Someone pointed out that Labour supporters followed John Major and his soapbox around in 1992 and jeered at him, barracked h9im and eventually threw eggs at him.

    Although I'm no apologist for Major, it seems that he simply ignored them and carried on doing what he was doing.

    Jim, on the other hand, seems to have given up. But then, Jim is such a showman.

    As for the BBC, it's one of the things I'll enjoy no longer having to pay for.

    Subsidising extravagant expenses, salaries and the lifestyles of sexual perverts isn't high on my list of priorities.

  2. Ooops... sorry. Here's the link:

  3. Pa

    I have given up on the media in Scotland now, mention it a little in my latest blog which I will post tonight at some point.

    Whatever happens with the vote someday these people have to be held to account, of course in the event of a no vote it will all be too late but what they have done is convince me that my days of buying newspapers and watching the news are virtually over. I would have no issue with every newspaper dying in Scotland and the BBC can just gtf, sorry but I hate them all.

    As far as Murphy's egging, some people have suggested that it was staged, I would not put it past him, he is the scum of the earth. He has claimed something like 2 million pounds ffrom the taxpayer since being elected in 2001. I wonder if his constituents think they are better together with that prick as their MP.


  4. Aye...

    The BBC are a bunch of troughers, part of the British establishment through and through. I no longer pay for a TV licence and never will again.

    As for Jim Murphy, he's an arsehole and a liar - a self serving wee nyaff who's only endearing quality is his absence. Someone on facebook just tried to defend him by stating he (Jim Murphy) helped during the Clutha Bar disaster.

    Well gosh, all is forgiven. (Apart from using a pretty awful event to defend the indefensible... The facebook commentor and Murphy are cut from the same cloth.)


Thanks for comment as always and I apologise if you have to jump through any hoops to do so. Its just that, I'm still being spammed by organisations who are certain I can't get it up or when it is up its not big enough or that I don't have anyone to get it up for.

Who knew blogging could be so bad for ones self-confidence?