The BBC: Out of touch with Reality?

As a regular BBC viewer and particularly of the News Watch feature, its good to see viewers complaints about standards being represented however, it seems when ever a response is issued by the BBC, all to often it seems to amount to little more than a lame excuse and desperate attempt to justify whatever the action was in the first place that prompted the complaints.

Why can’t the BBC collectively,  just accept that there are at the very least a percentage of UK viewers (Viewers who have no option other than to bankroll the BBC via the compulsory UK TV licence) who consider the action to be suitably unacceptable to the point of complaining in the first place, and issue an straight forward apology? and ideally learn something from it all as well?

A good example was the complaint about coverage of the Thai police officer being maimed by a grenade.. Which ever idiot came up with that pathetic response from BBC News MUST be sacked along with the idiot who decided to screen the obscene footage in the original report in the first place!

The BBC, National asset or National Disgrace?

Do overseas Police Officers deserve less respect than UK police?

The point being made was that the BBC graphically covered a Thai law enforcement officer being seriously maimed by a grenade thrown by what was represented as a protester!

Would the BBC show a British soldier suffering the same fate in the Middle East so graphically? No.

or a British hostage being beheaded by the Taliban? No.

So what makes it ok to do the same to a Thai Police Officer being dismembered by a grenade?

To put it simply, screening a police officers leg/boot being blown off and through the air by a grenade and focusing on the maimed officer on the ground while referring to the perpetrators as ‘protestors’ is just SICK! regardless of his nationality and even more so on a broadcast when kids will be possibly be watching.

Does the BBC understand basic concepts?

1.Protesters wave placards about, sing, shout and march through the streets bleating about their perceived grievance.

2.Terrorists throw grenades and use firearms, explosives and petrol bombs against police.

3.Nationality is unimportant. It doesn’t matter whether its in the UK or Overseas the basics are still the same.

All to often these days, we are seeing the BBC describing armed and petrol bomb wielding rebels as ‘protesters’ . Why? Do the BBC now support armed uprisings? Regardless of the style of regime in power, any protester gives up all claim on the title of ‘protester’ when they take up arms against and start killing police officers. Even in the harshest of regimes  in most cases the police have little choice but to do as they are told often with their own families safety threatened if they fail to stand against the protestors/armed rebels and no ability to deliver what the rebels want, so surely that is little more than violence for violence sake?

Does a lack of intelligence exist in parts of the BBC?

Regrettably in recent years, when it seems the BBC has so much money that it can waste it on pointless and blatantly stupid special effects like the neutrino article highlighted in the same episode of NewsWatch, the BBC still seems incapable of hiring producers and management who have evolved an intelligence level, beyond schoolboy video game mentality!

One would have expected that the BBC would be keen to rise above the commercially funded competitions lack of morals and sensitivity, and all to often their attitude of never letting facts and morals get in the way of a good story and in turn assert the BBC’s historic reputation based on intelligence and integrity within the News Industry. Evidently thats not the case.

Will the BBC ever learn?

In short probably not. even at the time of writing this article the BBC is covering the Ukraine uprisings in Kiev and describing the cop killing rebel thugs in Independence Square at the centre of Kiev, as protesters again. The Ironic bit of both this uprisings is that they are in countries with elected governments who only need to field a credible candidate in opposition to the previous government surely? In that case how can the killing of Police Officers who have no power to change anything resolve their claimed greivences? And still they are described as protesters!

So how much sympathy should be given to these armed and violent rebels?

The current news is that a deal has been done between the opposition leaders in the Ukraine and the elected government, a deal that will see new government and presidential elections by the end of the year brokered in part by EU and Russian diplomats. That should end it yes? It seems not, The rebels have now turned on their own leaders branding them traitors and are once again rebuilding barricades in readiness for yet another round of arson and violence, while demanding the elected president step down by tomorrow morning, and still they are called ‘protesters’.

How can these types of people even be classed as legitimate protesters?


Posted on February 22, 2014, in National Disgrace, World Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Mind Nectar

Quenching your thirst for knowledge

Cheri Speak

Are you listening?

Top 10 of Anything and Everything!!!

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Photograph Unscripted

Photography passion examined from all angles

Natalie Dobbyn


Politics Digest

Where opinion is presented as fact


easy reading is damn hard writing


the secretion of art by Rhian Ferrer

%d bloggers like this: