Trump Tower Bugged by BHO?

[Speaker to Animals]

A Syrian which failed to get into Germany legally, blew himself up... yet the BBC calls him a Migrant... seriously? You don't see a problem with that?

I'm sorry but I don't understand the question.
A person gaining entry to Germany from abroad is clearly a migrant. Are you objecting to the lack of the prefix "illegal" ?
The words failed asylum seeker appear to have made that distinction clearly enough.

The correct term is Illegal Alien.

We need to stop blurring the lines between Legal Immigration and Illegal Aliens with language. This is done intentionally to move the goal posts.

Illegal alien is a confusing term too, though. Illegal immigrant makes more sense and is accurate.

A person who has lived here illegally for the past ten years is hardly an "alien". They are an immigrant who happens to have immigrated here illegally.

Also, to modify the word alien with the word illegal implies there could be such a thing as an illegal human being. That could have some dangerous repercussions down the road if we start accepting that kind of language as normal. Immigrant refers to a person, but also to a specific act (of traveling to another country for the purposes of starting a new life). It's the act, which was not done within the bounds of the law, which is illegal, not the person.

[Montegriffo]

The BBC is under constant attacks for it's left wing bias yet it is also attacked by the left for being run by the right wing establishment. To me this indicates that it is doing it's job.....

To me this indicates that many folks on your left are extremists. Anyone calling the BBC right wing establishment is fucking high as a kite bro. If you can't see their obvious left leaning bias, it's because you lean to left and your blinders prevent you from seeing a clear and obvious bias. If someone thinks the BBC are actually right wing establishment, than it's because they are a left wing nutjob and they think anything to right of them is a nazi.

I haven't claimed the BBC has a right wing or left wing bias so try to stop strawmaning me as someone who thinks everyone to my right is a Nazi.
I am pointing out that both sides accuse the BBC as having a bias which I think shows they are trying to be impartial.
There is evidence to support both sides but as you seem ignorant of the evidence put forward by the left here is the Guardians info...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... stent-myth

The Daily Mail is at the forefront of the campaign to prove the BBC is a den of socialism, and has even attacked Sherlock Holmes as "more evidence" of the corporation's "leftwing bias". The Mail on Sunday's Peter Hitchens claims that the BBC "is hopelessly morally, socially and culturally biased against conservative ideas". Ironically, I recently discussed the issue with him when he interviewed me for a BBC Radio 4 documentary he was presenting. Earlier this year, George Osborne's private secretary wrote to the BBC director general to complain, among other things, that I had been introduced on the BBC news channel as a "social commentator" rather than a "high-profile leftwing activist." It was amusing, not least because I am routinely introduced as a "leftwing firebrand", but have yet to hear the likes of Hitchens or the Times's stridently Conservative Tim Montgomerie described by BBC presenters as "rightwing firebrands".

It is a campaign based on myths and deception, but it is extraordinarily clever. It allows the right to police the BBC: to make the corporation fearful of crossing certain lines, and to ensure that the right sets the political agenda. Leftwingers are reluctant to return fire for fear they will help to fatally undermine the BBC. After all, its existence is refutation of the dogma of "private good, public bad", and much of the right would like to privatise it. The Murdoch empire, only temporarily cowed, is always circling: a few years ago, James Murdoch attacked the "dominant BBC" and called the scope of its activities "chilling". But the left's reticence is symptomatic of a wider phenomenon – of a right with few scruples about going on the offensive, while the left adopts a relentlessly defensive posture.

The truth is the BBC is stacked full of rightwingers. The chairman of the BBC Trust is Chris Patten, a former Conservative cabinet minister. The BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, was once chairman of the Young Conservatives. His former senior political producer, Thea Rogers, became George Osborne's special advisor in 2012. Andrew Neil, the presenter of the BBC's flagship political programmes Daily Politics and This Week, is chairman of the conservative Spectator magazine. His editor is Robbie Gibb, former chief of staff to the Tory Francis Maude. After the BBC's economics editor Stephanie Flanders left for a £400,000-a-year job at that notorious leftwing hotbed, JP Morgan, she was replaced by its business editor Robert Peston. His position was taken by Kamal Ahmed from the rightwing Sunday Telegraph, a journalist damned by the Guardian's Nick Davies for spinning government propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq war.

BBC stalwart John Humphrys last week joined the chorus of voices alleging "liberal bias" at the BBC. Here is a man who was slapped down by the BBC's own trust last year for violating impartiality and accuracy guidelines in BBC2's The Future State of Welfare. It was an extraordinarily biased piece of TV that fuelled widespread myths about social security. With such coverage, this "liberal-biased" BBC shares the blame for leaving the public completely ill-informed, with, for example, voters estimating that 34 times more money is lost through benefit fraud than is actually the case.

Tory politicians favour the BBC as a useful recruitment service too. After Andy Coulson was driven from No 10, David Cameron replaced him with the then BBC news controller Craig Oliver. Boris Johnson's former communications supremo was the former BBC political correspondent Guto Harri; after moving to News International in 2012, he was replaced by the BBC's Westminster news editor, Will Walden.

Rather than having a leftwing bias, research actually suggests the BBC's output is biased towards establishment and rightwing sources. A study by Cardiff University academics found that while there is always a bias towards political incumbents, the ratio in favour of Conservative politicians appearing on BBC news is far greater than it was in favour of Labour figures when Gordon Brown was prime minister. Business representatives appear much more than they do on commercial news, and appear 19 times more frequently than trade union voices on the BBC Six O'Clock News.

When the financial system went into meltdown, BBC interviews were dominated by City voices like stockbrokers and hedge fund managers, rather than critics of a sector that had plunged the country into disaster.

Take the privatisation of the NHS: it is barely given any coverage by the BBC, and when it is, it is repeatedly presented on the government's terms. When the legislation was voted through, the BBC reported it as "Bill which gives power to GPs passes."

The same goes for foreign issues, too. When Israel invaded Gaza in 2009 the BBC provoked uproar when it refused to give the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal any airtime. It was left to the late Tony Benn to read out the number on air, while BBC journalists who asked to put their names to the appeal were privately warned they would be sacked.In part, this is the legacy of the BBC's bruising battle with New Labour over the Iraq war, which led to its chairman, director general and journalist Andrew Gilligan being driven from the corporation. The episode left the BBC supine and fearful. Its news output is deeply reactive, rather than agenda-setting, structured along the lines of government announcements.

For too long, the right has got away with weaving a fairytale of BBC leftwing bias. Until the left starts complaining – and loudly too – the BBC's agenda will be shaped by supporters of government, big business, the free market and western foreign policy. That does not just subvert honest journalism: it undermines our democracy.

[Speaker to Animals]

We really need to dispense with the right-left paradigm. It's hurting our ability to reason out the truth in so many ways.

In this case, the BBC more accurately represents the interests of the British government. It's not right or left, per se, but in support of the faction which controls the British government, since they control the funding to some degree.

They do, however, have a huge anti-white, pro-mass migration agenda. They push political correctness to the extreme over there, which is nothing more than cultural marxism. They even went so far as to try to force everybody to stop using the name Islamic State and use some made-up word instead, which doesn't contain the word Islam in it.

Most big media outlets do this type thing, though. They are all rubbish, honestly. You have to process the information they are feeding you knowing who they are and what their bias truly is. Only really accept the stories where the evidence is provided forthwith.

Imagine everything is RT. RT is a propaganda for the Russian government. But knowing that, you can still get some interesting perspectives and information from them, since the Russian government is in total opposition to the globalist NWO that controls most of the NATO-aligned world. For instance, it was RT that exposed BBC for faking that chemical weapons attack. People can scream, "but that's RT!!!", all day, but RT provided the footage of the actors prepping for the scene, and they exposed the people involved as being frauds. The video of the actors prepping the scene is self-evident and you can confirm their assertion that the nurse is not who she claimed she was for yourself.

BBC is not very different than RT.

Here in America, outlets like NYT and WaPo seem to have been almost entirely coopted by the American intelligence community. CNN has always been caught lying (since the Gulf War at least, when they were caught faking a SCUD missile attack on live television), but it's starting to seem like they were in bed with the intelligence services as well.

[StCapps]

I haven't claimed the BBC has a right wing or left wing bias so try to stop strawmaning me as someone who thinks everyone to my right is a Nazi.

Never strawmanned you. If you want to lump yourself in with the idiots on the left, that's on you, not me.

I am pointing out that both sides accuse the BBC as having a bias which I think shows they are trying to be impartial.

I am pointing out that is it is far more likely that those complaining about the BBC being too right wing are just full of shit and that those complaining that it is leans too far to the left actually know what they are talking about. Extreme lefties complaining that BBC is right wing establishment is no indication that the BBC is less biased than most mainstream media news sources.

Some people think that if you are being criticized by extremists on both sides it automatically means you are doing something right and they have found a good balance between those extremes, but it could just as easily mean that you are fucking up real bad and people on all sides can see it, or it could mean that one side thinks you are guilty of something you never did. The BBC falls into one of the latter scenarios, not the former.

[Montegriffo]

I am pointing out that is it is far more likely that those complaining about the BBC being too right wing are just full of shit and that those complaining that it is leans too far to the left actually know what they are talking about.

This statement says far more about your own personal bias than the BBC's bias.

[StCapps]

I am pointing out that is it is far more likely that those complaining about the BBC being too right wing are just full of shit and that those complaining that it is leans too far to the left actually know what they are talking about.

This statement says far more about your own personal bias than the BBC's bias.

No one on the left who is claiming the BBC is too right wing has a good argument, they are complete morons, the BBC is not right wing, that's a fact. The BBC are biased in favor of the left and their viewpoint is further to the left than Democrats and CNN, any rational person can see that and anyone claiming otherwise is too blinded by their left leaning bias to see the forest from the trees. The British public are more left wing than the American public on average, and the BBC's news coverage is slanted to reflect that.

The CBC and BBC, have a very similar left leaning bias, so stop pretending the BBC is better. I remember when Dr Youth used to think the CBC was on the up and up, now he knows better, what's your excuse? If I had to guess I would say that your sense of nationalism blinds you to the fact that any government regulated news agencies, British or otherwise, are biased as all get out. If anything government regulation of a news outlet leads to more biased news, not less. Time to wake up to reality, if you haven't already.

[Speaker to Animals]

We are now witnessing huge numbers of people getting red-pilled on the MSM, and a few of the blue-pill folks clinging desperately to their old illusive worldview in which the MSM is not an enormous apparatus built for the purpose of expanding and defending globalist policies, and pushing the cultural marxism on domestic populations in order to weaken them.

There are a certain number of people who were just born to be blue-pill people for life. You can sit there and expose them to videos showing the MSM fabricating stories, or show how their own stories contradict one another, or show how they were caught lying repeatedly, and it won't matter. Natural blue-pill people will never turn away from it.

It's the allegory of the cave made manifest in a technological world. Some folks like the shadow show.

[Montegriffo]

The British public are more left wing than the American public on average, and the BBC's news coverage is slanted to reflect that.

Then perhaps you can explain to me why voters have only voted a Labour government to power twice since 1979. New Labour at that, which was actually to the right of the Liberal party and barely left wing at all.
In fact the majority of British governments since the war (WWII) have been Conservative.
As StA says the BBC is more pro establishment than pro left and since the establishment is usually on the right then calling the BBC left wing is ignorant of the truth.
The BBC has left and right wing journalists each with their own personal biases and the organisation reflects this and not a left slanted coverage.
There can be no such thing as an unbiased news outlet but to say the BBC leans only in one direction is proved untrue by arguments of bias from BOTH sides.

[C-Mag]

BREAKING:
CIA Lost 5 good agents bugging Trump Tower.



Died of boredom.

[StCapps]

but to say the BBC leans only in one direction is proved untrue by arguments of bias from BOTH sides.

That isn't proof of anything as I've already explained.