Here’s an interesting story. A journalist has been plagued by a troll who has followed all her writings and articles, and infested the comments section with mean and nasty little snarks. So the journo decided to find out exactly who this person was, and she actually went to the troll’s house (lair!) to confront her; but the troll wasn’t home. Go and read the details. (I couldn’t post an excerpt because the article has been preserved as a screen save rather than as text, but the link should be good.)
Category: Journalist Scum
Expected Outcome
When you attempt to present a factual alternative to a narrative (in this case, The Narrative About EEEVIL Global Cooling Climate Warming Change©) in a forum run by the BBC, you should expect to be shut down, muzzled or otherwise gagged.
But Charlie Spedding nevertheless tried, and was of course shut off:
The website moderators informed me that my post had been deleted because it broke their house rules: ‘We reserve the right to fail comments which . . . are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others, are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable; contain swear words or other language likely to offend.’
It will come as no surprise to anyone that absolutely none of the above applied to what he tried to post, but that didn’t matter:
‘In this instance, we believe the moderator made the correct decision so we will be unable to uphold your appeal. Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.’
And that, as the actress said to the bishop, was that.
The problem, of course, is that some people still think that the BBC still behaves in the WWII-era of trusted news source, whereas they are more like the Soviet-era Pravda than anything else.
At least with Pravda, though, they had reason to fear retribution from an actual hostile government, whereas in the U.K. the government isn’t involved at all: it’s the BBC who are the censorious (and self-censuring) types.
Which of course is why the Beeb is at the forefront of all attacks on independent media (like Twitter and no doubt TCW) who dare to give a voice to the unruly members of the public whose views (the BBC considers) are either “fake” or “disruptive, provocative, offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable”.
That “freedom of expression” thing? That’s just so American, and therefore vulgar (from the Latin word vulgus, a crowd).
Spot The Mistake
Even for the execrable Daily Mail, this is a bad one. See if you can understand why I say this, from this pic:
(sorry about the small type)
Malice Aforethought
I haven’t been keeping up with the Trump vs. BBC saga much, because as a rule trials make my eyes glaze over. This one, however, may be different:
MAKE no mistake, Donald Trump’s $5billion (£3.7billion) defamation lawsuit against the BBC, filed yesterday, is a formidable document: it is a tightly constructed, meticulously argued claim that accuses the Corporation not merely of error but of intentional deception on a scale that, if proven, could be the most damaging legal defeat in its history.
Filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the complaint names the BBC, BBC Studios Distribution, and BBC Studios Productions as defendants. It seeks $5billion in damages for defamation and for alleged violations of Florida’s consumer protection laws.
What makes the filing so potent is that it weaves the BBC’s factual admissions, internal whistleblowing, patterns of bias in BBC coverage, timing, motive and governance failure – caused essentially by the BBC acting as its own judge and jury – into a coherent narrative of wrongdoing.
…and the article just gets better and better as Dave Keighley lays it all out for TCW’s Brit readers. Read the whole thing.
Best part of all this? The suit has been filed in Florida, where Trump’s a longtime resident (at Mar-A-Lago, for my Brit Readers). In Florida (as opposed to NYfC or Kollyfornia) the jury is going to be made of Floridians, nay even a goodly number of Trump voters who, if all goes Trump’s way, will deliver a sound financial wacking to the BBC’s corporate pee-pee.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of smug, Leftist assholes, who will have their bias and underhanded skulduggery exposed to the entire world.
It’s just too bad that in the end, the financial penalty will be borne by the BBC’s license holders, i.e. the public, rather than by the BBC executives who perpetrated this travesty.
But hey… all the more reason for the Brits to dump the whole licensing bollocks altogether. The public hangings can come later.
Quote Of The Day
Whiny little Commie bitch TV interviewer: “So just bottom line, Mr. Secretary, do you acknowledge that these tariffs are a tax on American consumers?”
SecTreas Scott Bessent: “No, I don’t. You’re quoting Goldman Sachs… I made a good career of trading against Goldman Sachs.”
Priceless
Okay, the bullshit is strong with this one [Brian Stelter alert] :
Trump’s victory over PBS and NPR ‘bias’ will be ‘devastating’ for rural areas, station leaders say
Of course, given that “rural areas” happen to be where conservative talk radio programs find their biggest audience, I think we may safely say that the disappearance of these pore rural NPR broadcasters will hardly be missed.
One could test this hypothesis, of course, simply by polling said audiences to make a simple choice between “NPR federal funding” and (say) “federal funding for rural road improvements”. My guess:
(sent to me by Reader Mike L., thankee; I would never have seen this, coming as it did from CNN)