Why do the losers keep winning?
Several bloggers have already passed comment on a recent BBC poll which formed part of the "who runs your world?" season.
The aim was to pick a fantasy XI to run the world, from a selection of "thinkers", "poiticians", "economists" and "wildcards" - i.e. people who don't fit into the first three categories. Why the inverted commas? Well, I know it's a wee bit pedantic, but I certainly wouldn't describe Richard Branson as an economist. And similarly, there are some people who I would not even have considered to be "thinkers" or "politicians".
Anyway, back to the point. The concept of the global "election" and the list of eligible candidates provides a textbook example of the institutionalized mode of thought which now prevails in the BBC, and in most universities.
First, let's take the very concept of the "who runs your world" season. A season of programmes, so titled, might sound like an interesting exploration of, say, the relationshipsbetween church, state and individual in various countries throughout the world. However, even if one were to adumbrate the concept in very vague terms, it's obvious that it's a sitting duck for any anti-capitalist hack with a right-on socialist agenda to push. And, lo and behold, the BBC, which normally has a bit of a soft spot for soft furry creatures has got a bit too excited, whipped out the 12-bore and blasted away at the sitting duck with a gusto that would make even the Duke of Edinburgh feel a tad uneasy. The essential, but unstated idea of this season of programmes seems to be to promote the Beeb's socialist agenda. Have a look at the list of programmes here. I'll provide a few programme titles just to whet your appetite:
WRYW: The Interview - Are corporations dangerous?
Who Runs Your World? Live in Washington - Does the US run the world?
Meeting Ameria's religious right - The power of the Christian religious right in the US
I'm half surprised they didn't go the whole hog, rope in the likes of Tam Dalyell and George Galloway, get a few anti-capitalist NGO's on board, a bit of further publicity from Ken Livingstone and give us a great big taxpayer-funded Jew-bashing, anti-capitalist jamboree. Just imagine it. That avuncular sage, the Viscount Stansgate, giving a "fireside chat" evening broadcast on Radio 4 about the "oppression" of the people of the "occupied territories", followed by a poetry reading from Tom Paulin before bedtime. Then wake up next morning and it's a news report from the "occupied territories" by Orla bin-Guerin on the Today programme. Given such an abundance of eager Jew-bashers, Christian-bashers and anti-American conspiracy theorists, the BBC rather missed an opportunity.
So, if you'll excuse my digression, the first point to note is that the concept of the series of programmes makes them very vulnerable to having a good deal of spin put on them by people with an agenda.
Secondly, the list of eligible candidates reads like a who's who of the moonbat left. Noam Chomsky? I've yet to meet an apolitical person who has ever heard of Chomsky; why not balance the list by giving us the option to vote for Mark Steyn? Eric Hobsbawm? - why can't we choose Paul Johnson or Niall Ferguson?
Predictably, the former terrorist St. Nelson of Qunu won the contest. It really is amazing how few people have ever thought critically of Mandela, especially BBC journalists, who should be capable of critical thought. Why is no one in this country aware of the communist nature of sections of the ANC?
Might the bias be due to people who work for the mainstream media having an agenda and an axe to grind? Unlike the MSM's hallucinations about Jews and Americans pulling the strings of power, the theory that there is some sort of institutionalized group-think muddying the waters of media discourse and obscuring the view has an instinctive ring of truth to it, and it is at last being written about and talked about. The Spectator, Telegraph, Melanie Phillips and others have noticed this too. And of course, there is the excellent Biased-BBC. So, perhaps I might end on a positive note, but then, as I mentioned in a previous post, some things are a matter of mass and momentum, and right now, us critics are small in number, we're gaining speed and snowballing along. Let's hope that history will be our court of justice.
Several bloggers have already passed comment on a recent BBC poll which formed part of the "who runs your world?" season.
The aim was to pick a fantasy XI to run the world, from a selection of "thinkers", "poiticians", "economists" and "wildcards" - i.e. people who don't fit into the first three categories. Why the inverted commas? Well, I know it's a wee bit pedantic, but I certainly wouldn't describe Richard Branson as an economist. And similarly, there are some people who I would not even have considered to be "thinkers" or "politicians".
Anyway, back to the point. The concept of the global "election" and the list of eligible candidates provides a textbook example of the institutionalized mode of thought which now prevails in the BBC, and in most universities.
First, let's take the very concept of the "who runs your world" season. A season of programmes, so titled, might sound like an interesting exploration of, say, the relationshipsbetween church, state and individual in various countries throughout the world. However, even if one were to adumbrate the concept in very vague terms, it's obvious that it's a sitting duck for any anti-capitalist hack with a right-on socialist agenda to push. And, lo and behold, the BBC, which normally has a bit of a soft spot for soft furry creatures has got a bit too excited, whipped out the 12-bore and blasted away at the sitting duck with a gusto that would make even the Duke of Edinburgh feel a tad uneasy. The essential, but unstated idea of this season of programmes seems to be to promote the Beeb's socialist agenda. Have a look at the list of programmes here. I'll provide a few programme titles just to whet your appetite:
WRYW: The Interview - Are corporations dangerous?
Who Runs Your World? Live in Washington - Does the US run the world?
Meeting Ameria's religious right - The power of the Christian religious right in the US
I'm half surprised they didn't go the whole hog, rope in the likes of Tam Dalyell and George Galloway, get a few anti-capitalist NGO's on board, a bit of further publicity from Ken Livingstone and give us a great big taxpayer-funded Jew-bashing, anti-capitalist jamboree. Just imagine it. That avuncular sage, the Viscount Stansgate, giving a "fireside chat" evening broadcast on Radio 4 about the "oppression" of the people of the "occupied territories", followed by a poetry reading from Tom Paulin before bedtime. Then wake up next morning and it's a news report from the "occupied territories" by Orla bin-Guerin on the Today programme. Given such an abundance of eager Jew-bashers, Christian-bashers and anti-American conspiracy theorists, the BBC rather missed an opportunity.
So, if you'll excuse my digression, the first point to note is that the concept of the series of programmes makes them very vulnerable to having a good deal of spin put on them by people with an agenda.
Secondly, the list of eligible candidates reads like a who's who of the moonbat left. Noam Chomsky? I've yet to meet an apolitical person who has ever heard of Chomsky; why not balance the list by giving us the option to vote for Mark Steyn? Eric Hobsbawm? - why can't we choose Paul Johnson or Niall Ferguson?
Predictably, the former terrorist St. Nelson of Qunu won the contest. It really is amazing how few people have ever thought critically of Mandela, especially BBC journalists, who should be capable of critical thought. Why is no one in this country aware of the communist nature of sections of the ANC?
Might the bias be due to people who work for the mainstream media having an agenda and an axe to grind? Unlike the MSM's hallucinations about Jews and Americans pulling the strings of power, the theory that there is some sort of institutionalized group-think muddying the waters of media discourse and obscuring the view has an instinctive ring of truth to it, and it is at last being written about and talked about. The Spectator, Telegraph, Melanie Phillips and others have noticed this too. And of course, there is the excellent Biased-BBC. So, perhaps I might end on a positive note, but then, as I mentioned in a previous post, some things are a matter of mass and momentum, and right now, us critics are small in number, we're gaining speed and snowballing along. Let's hope that history will be our court of justice.
posted by Henry at
10:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home