Thursday, May 05, 2011
So lets test their claims overall.
Compare the number of votes each party got at the last election with the number of hits a Google News search of "BBC" and the party name. This us a simple procedure, easily checkable, and while somewhat rough and ready (the BBC not yet having supplied the FoI information they claimed they had "closely scrutinised") it is not subject to any visible bias.
Google News hits 2,174 CPPP ratio* 75
*CPPP means coverage per percentage point, a term not derived from other pepsologists, or practicing politicians or anybody else.
That makes the party political bias of the BBC unequivocally obvious, even during an election when they have been slightly constrained by electoral law.
I must admit to some surprise that the Conservatives only get half the coverage of Labour, even though, as the party in power they have more influence on our lives than the pure vote ratio suggests. The same applies to the LibDems who get 1/3rd the Labour coverage, though right now they perhaps don't want to be noticed. UKIP at 1/5th the coverage for every voter is quite obviously the most discriminated against. The BNP figure at 70% of the Labour one looks good except, of course, that virtually every time they are mentioned it is to be attacked by the BBC fascists - the high ratio of mentions looks more like a way of associating anybody else on the anti-EU/big state side with them. The SNP one is twice the Labour one but I assume this is because Google has noticed I am in Scotland - their overall number of hits is a 10th of Labour's though they are about to beat Labour in Scotland - I think this figure is to skewed to make any conclusions about BBC fascism for or against the SNP.
And the Green party gets 8 times as much coverage as Labour, per voter, and 40 times as much as UKIP.
Obviously if the BBC were not corrupt the ratios would have to be close to equal. Arguably there could be some extra coverage for the parties in, or close to, government. Equally arguably there should be slightly more for small parties to promote "rigorous scrutiny of the policies and campaigns of all parties" - but neither argument can apply to the difference between UKIP and Green coverage. In any case, since it is funded by licence fees from everybody being unbiased towards their customers requires a CPPP closely equal between all parties, particularly during elections, and the holders of all views over the long term (eg the BBC's admission that they have produced 10s of thousands of hours of warming alarmist propaganda and have no slightest intention of doing even 1 hour of balanced debate).
If anybody can think of any alternative explanation other than that the BBC is at least 97.5% (ie 39/40th) a corrupt, lying, fascist, propagandist organisation of which no remotely decent human being could ever be part I will be happy to publish it? If not there can be no doubt the BBC are deliberately breaking the law both over its legal Charter & the Human Rights Act ("Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience ... in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief" Article 9) whereby it is clearly unlawful to try to force anybody to pay for propaganda they don't believe in.
Note that, except in the undeniable BNP case no account here has been taken of the generally favourable attitude the BBC display towards parties committed to a larger and more controlling state (& EU superstate) than to those parties, like UKIP and individuals within parties who don't kowtow to big state fascism. This is not because it is not important, nor because I doubt it would prove the BBC to be far more than 97.5% a corrupt fascist organ, but because it is not so quickly and easily proven. Nor has any account been taken of the fact that, in foreign affairs, even the BBC do not deny their journalists are, without exception, obscene fascist scum actively involved in supporting war crimes, genocide, child rape and the dissection of living people.
Democracy cannot exist where the people are deliberately prevented from hearing the facts. It can survive politicians on one side lying, where both are able to speak and people may judge, but not the total censorship of the other side
BBC delenda est.