The BBC seem to have (by and large) ignored this case of another bomber Lib Dem – just as they did the other bomber Lib Dem.
I wonder if they would largely ignore the case of a UKIP councillor who planted bombs?
– Paul Marks
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the dayThe BBC seem to have (by and large) ignored this case of another bomber Lib Dem – just as they did the other bomber Lib Dem. I wonder if they would largely ignore the case of a UKIP councillor who planted bombs? – Paul Marks 14 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
|||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
One could say the same for anti-Semitism.
With Lib Dems anti-Semitism (when it is reported at all)is reported as someone whose compassion the Third World underdogs has led them to by critical of the “Zionist entity” (or whatever).
If a UKIP person expressed the same anti-Semitism the BBC would present them as Nazis.
The BBC Wales site fails to mention his affiliation, as does the Guardian.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-24653507
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/24/denbigh-ex-mayor-jailed-explosions
Sky manage to drop it in.
http://news.sky.com/story/1159292/denbigh-ex-mayor-jailed-over-bomb-blasts
If he were UKIP, I believe that would have been mentioned in the first two sites.. …And ye shall know the truth…
Btw links don’t close on iPad.
The only bomb a UKIP member would drop is a lager bomb.
I googled him, and I can announce, to applause, that the Indy mentioned his party affiliation. Amazing but true.
An ex-SNP MSP, who became an independent, jailed for violence did have a mention of his affiliations here on the BBC site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-24173669
Mr Ed : “An ex-SNP MSP, who became an independent, jailed for violence did have a mention of his affiliations here on the BBC site”
Indeed. I counted 42 sentences in this very long story. The SNP was mentioned in sentence 38. My guess is that Conservative / Tory would have appeared in the headline or within the first two sentences. Still if anyone spots a Conservative or UKIP politician being convicted of something and the party affiliation waiting for a mention till sentence 38 of a BBC story, do let me know.
The (now ex) Mayor of San Diego is an abuser of women – he has been for years (but he will not be doing any jail time – because he has political connections and cut a deal).
“Typical Republican – WAR ON WOMEN”.
Accept that the man is a Democrat (and a far left Democrat – he has awards from the top leftist groups and so on), but one would not know this by watching media reporting (when there is any).
If he was a Republican it would be reported as the “REPUBLICAN Mayor of San Diego….”, as he is a Democrat it is reported (when it is reported at all) as the “Mayor of San Diego”.
This is how it works – and it has practical consequences.
For example, the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia looks like he is going to lose – and one of the reasons why is the standard SMEAR FEST “War on Women”.
The Republican is smeared – and the real, “Progressive”, abusers of women carry on. Both verbally abusing conservative women (such as Sarah Palin and Michelle B.) in the most vile ways they can think of (including sexual scenes in television “comedy” shows – where people such as M. Cyrus are drafted in to be act the role of the conservative women the media wish to smear) and PHYSICALLY abuse women also.
The media does not care – no more than academia (that home of “feminism”) does.
They, the “Progressives”, are not good people with mistaken ideas – they are evil people, their actions (and inaction) prove this. And it is about time we all faced up to this truth.
Just title this “Name That Party!” Since we tend to house all our committed leftists in solidarity with their media friends in a single party in the USA, this exercise is a long time favorite. When we read this headline, we just need to know who and where, cause the answer is always the same.
So the fellow liked blowing things up, goodness if I thought I could get away with it I’d quite like to blow stuff up as well. Albeit with a little more attention to H&S. At least a completely barking explosives nut makes a bit of a change from the smug, self-serving and often pettily corrupt suit one usually finds in local politics.
Do a BBC site search for “UKIP Councillor” and you will find this one where the UKIP affiliation is stated in the 2nd sentence
Rutland Council chief executive may sue councillors
and these three, where UKIP is in the title and first sentence:
UKIP councillor Chris Pain to face no action on Facebook post probe
UKIP councillor Eric Kitson faces no ‘racist cartoon’ charges
UKIP councillor Matthew Smith ‘not concerned’ at election probe
16, very illustrative, and the Rutland Council gives material for another topic, how the Council pays for its staff to sue members of the Council (democratically elected), and the tone of the Council Chief Executive’s words.
What could be more outrageous a charge on the taxpayer (other than fraud) than a council paying for a member of its staff to sue those elected to be part of it? Note that a councillor is part of a council, and the role of councillor is to be part of the council, not to oppose it.
By coincidence and by contrast, I’ve just happened across this recent story on the BBC website
Sheffield City Councillor quits over unpaid rates
No mention of his party affiliation at all. Funny that.
Would that be anything to do with the former Councillor’s membership of the Labour Party?
All good comments.