From ... in Propaganda — Aug 19, 2021

The BBC Are A Disgrace

We have tagged this article as propaganda as it imposes a serious spin on the topic.
If not more explanation provided, this article is included as propaganda because it shows clear manufacture from a government controlled dialectic, where a topic is misdirected by some actors in order to mislead people during early stages of a narrative.

Recently the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 received a call from John in Manchester who Vine and the BBC labelled as an “antivaxxer.” John’s conversation with Vine was revealing.

Not necessarily for the content, although John made some good points, but because it exposed the BBC for what they are: an agenda driven propaganda organisation.

Similar calls from Bristol based Nigel Jones to BBC Sounds’ Any Answers and a caller from Sussex to Sarah Gorrel’s BBC Radio Sussex phone in, exposed exactly the same bias from the BBC. This isn’t one or two talking heads going off script. It is corporate policy.

In all three cases, any questioning of the COVID 19 vaccines by the callers was met with the same response. Belligerent denial, logical fallacies, a refusal to rationally debate the evidence and, relatively swiftly, cutting them off.

The BBC aren’t alone of course. The MSM, as a whole, is a cohesive propaganda organisation. When Dr Zoe Williams started talking about vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia on Good Morning Britain she too was shut down. The ITV presenters hastily instructed to announce another weather report, as if this were a scheduling necessity

The first claim in the BBC mission statement is that they allegedly provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.” As we shall see, they don’t. The BBC have a very clear agenda and are in the businesses of promoting a single version of the truth. It is crucial to the BBC, and other propagandists like them, that you believe them. They claim:

Trust is the foundation of the BBC. We’re independent, impartial and honest.”

The Oxford English Dictionary definition of “trust” is:

Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something… Acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation.”

The “trust” that the BBC demand from their audience is not based upon their thorough investigations of the evidence, their objective reporting of the facts or their balanced opinion pieces. They beseech you to have faith in them as an organisation, simply because they are the BBC. You must believe them because they are the official purveyors of the official truth. It is self aggrandising bunk. They are just a media corporation like any other.

The inherent trustworthiness, claimed by the BBC, is asinine. Yet it seems millions are taken in by it, simply because the BBC keep claiming credibility that doesn’t appear to exist.

Did I mention that I am the most trusted blogger in the world. I consistently achieve the very highest standards of objectivity and impartiality. This isn’t true but so what? It seems just saying it is enough.

The BBC are governed by Royal Charter. They are not independent of the State, hence “State broadcaster.” Trusting the BBC is no different to trusting the political establishment, they are synonymous. The Charter is full of vacuous soundbites about independence, fairness and impartiality. The question is who judges that alleged “impartiality.”

The independent BBC board is controlled by the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS.) The Foreign Secretary also sets BBC objectives by stipulating their annual reporting requirements. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Island ministers are likewise “consulted.”

The BBC are largely reliant upon the license fee. This is agreed by the Secretary of State under the The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004. The political establishment is literally the hand that feeds the BBC. It is ridiculous to suggest the BBC are “independent.” They are a State-run, State-managed, overtly political organisation.

Certainly when it comes to COVID 19, along with every other “regulated” broadcaster, the BBC are wholly controlled by the apparatus of State. The BBC are regulated by Ofcom and on 23rd March, just over a week after the WHO declared their global pandemic, Ofcom published their official Coranovirus Guidance. They decreed:

“We remind all broadcasters of the significant potential harm that can be caused by material relating to the Coronavirus…..We strongly advise you to take particular care when broadcasting….statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies on the Coronavirus, or otherwise undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources of information about the disease…..Such views should always be placed into context and not be presented in such a way as to risk undermining viewers’ trust in official health advice….Ofcom will consider any breach arising from harmful Coronavirus-related programming to be potentially serious and will consider taking appropriate regulatory action, which could include the imposition of a statutory sanction.”

In other words the BBC, and other members of the mainstream broadcast media, are compelled by regulatory law to promote government COVID 19 policy and must not “undermine,” meaning question, the proclamations of the State or other “public health bodies,” such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Public Health England.

The BBC isn’t part of a free and pluralistic media, unafraid of questioning power. It is part of a State policy communication strategy which aims to convince the public to accept the authorised reality. Among these propagandist outlets the BBC is perhaps the most servile by virtue of its Charter and its reliance upon State funding.

The commercial broadcasters are also limited by Ofcom regulation and their dependence upon government advertising. The alleged pandemic saw the State become the UK’s leading advertiser.

When we consider that their second-biggest source of advertising revenue are the pharmaceutical corporations, the notion of an “independent” mainstream broadcast media in the UK is laughable.

It is set in this context that we should consider Vine’s betraying conversation with John from Manchester. When we do, the BBC agenda is laid bare.

The first thing to note is that John had to lie to get on the show. It was about so-called “antivaxxers” who had supposedly come to regret their stance. Therefore John had to tell the researchers some porkies. Vine admonished him for this as he said that was not what the show was about.

This would be fair criticism if the BBC ever aired, or planned to air, a program which questioned the vaccines, perhaps highlighting the stories of the vaccine injured. There is no chance that the BBC will report facts like the lack of COVID vaccine clinical trials.

They won’t question State narratives because they are a regulated propaganda organisation. The only way to be heard on their consciousness stream is to trick them into accidentally reporting your comments.

Vine’s first accusatory comeback was to try to undermine John’s opinion by pointing out that he did not accept the “science advice” alleging that 60,000 lives had been saved by the vaccines. Quite rightly, John did not accept these figures. The State claim that 60,000 lives have been saved by the vaccines is dross.

This is standard BBC fare. They report claims from government bodies like Public Health England (PHE) without any investigation whatsoever. Despite their pretensions of offering “a range and depth of analysis” using the “highest calibre presenters and journalists,” all the State need do is issue a statement and the BBC will dutifully report it, no questions asked.

PHE have used baseless estimates as the input to a model, constructed from a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, to produce a projection of claimed efficacy, which then becomes the input to their own model. It is a statistical feedback loop. You don’t need to be a scientists to pull apart PHE’s farcical claims. Just reading the Cambridge Nowcast and Forecast model parameters would do:

Assuming that it takes three weeks for vaccine-derived immunity to develop. Vaccine efficacy is assumed against both infection and death, using values for the efficacy in agreement with those found here.”

Where “here” refers to the PHE models which are…er…informed by the assumptions in the Nowcast and Forecast model, which in turn becomes the input for the PHE model it is itself based upon. It isn’t science, it’s not even bad statistical analysis, it’s just make believe.

Yet the BBC, with their multi-billion-pound budget, authoritatively report the PHE number salad as the “science advice” proving vaccine efficacy. The BBC are the best news organisation in the world, or so people keep saying. If they pronounce something it ostensibly becomes “fact” for millions. Can you see how this works?

As long as people trust the BBC and don’t question them, the State can simply feed propaganda into the machine and vacuous BBC mouthpieces will repeat it until you believe it. It washes over you like a heavy dose of soma, and none of it is even vaguely plausible.

The BBC’s own mission statement announces that they will “accurately and authentically.. raise awareness of the different.. viewpoints that make up its society.” These are just empty words. They have no intention of honouring this commitment.

John rightly highlighted the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA’s) yellow card system. This has reported nearly 1,600 possible vaccine deaths and more than 1 million total adverse reactions. John was mistaken that these are proven vaccine deaths and Vine pounced upon this, saying:

The yellow card system is a self-reporting thing. No one has established the connection between the vaccines and any of those deaths yet, not a single one. It’s simply a reporting thing. If somebody has the vaccine and they are dead the next day, that’s reported but it doesn’t mean they died from it. Do you understand that?”

Vine was technically correct and appeared to feel he had made an irrefutable point proving his own argument. Listeners may have been convinced. This was disingenuous tripe form the BBC. As John immediately responded, exactly the same could be said for an unknown number of claimed COVID 19 deaths.

Just because someone tested positive for a virus and died the next day, it does not mean they died from it. Yet the BBC have reported every single claimed COVID death, within 28 or even 60 days of a positive test, as if that were true. It most certainly is not. Yet, were it not for concerned citizens like John, they would never fairly report a single potential vaccine-related death.

The BBC need to propagandise runs so deep that they can’t even investigate properly when one of their own colleagues dies from a vaccine injury. Given the yellow card statistics were reporting more than 1,400 deaths when Lisa Shaw sadly passed away, you would have thought the BBC would have launched an investigation. This is exactly what a real news organisation would do. It is not what the BBC did.

Doing so could undermine “viewers’ trust in official health advice.” Rather than apply any journalistic standards, and question why the MHRA aren’t investigating the mounting death toll, the BBC simply reported unfathomable apparent comments from Lisa’s widower that the jabs were “outstanding.” They didn’t even mention the yellow card system in the report of her death.

When John confronted the BBC with this evidence, their corporate response was to spread disinformation and downplay it. The scant disregard they showed for the victims families means nothing to them. They are propagandists and couldn’t care less about the people, not even their own staff.

The BBC have persistently asserted that a positive RT-PCR test defines a “case” of COVID 19. This is disinformation.

If you test positive for varicella-zoster virus it does not mean you have Shingles.

They have consistently reported an unremitting stream of scientifically illiterate garbage to the public and have failed to abide by a single one of their fatuous mission statement objectives.

Vine’s condescending triumphalism was misplaced. While it is true there is no “proof” that these deaths were caused by the vaccine, nor is there any that they were not. That would require an investigation of the evidence, something which the MHRA have not undertaken in a single case. We might wonder if the BBC “understand that.”

Vines spurious claim that the yellow card system is simply “a reporting thing,” leaves the public he casually deceives with the impression that the system is meaningless. There is some truth in that. If the MHRA don’t use it as intended it becomes nothing but a black hole for victims and their families to scream into. Nonetheless, according to the MHRA:

The scheme relies on voluntary reporting of suspected safety concerns or incidents by healthcare professionals and members of the public.. The purpose of the scheme is to provide an early warning that the safety of a product may require further investigation.. By reporting through this site, patients and healthcare professionals can help gather valuable evidence to inform decisions on the safe and effective use of medicines, vaccines and medical devices.”

Vine may imagine it is for telling stories but that’s probably because he was regurgitating whatever his editor told him to say. It’s an early warning system which the MHRA spent £1.5 million upgrading in October 2020, just before the vaccine roll out, for what they said were the “the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reactions.”

According to the BBC and Vine, they undertook this expensive system overhaul for a few sore arms. In reality, it was because it was “not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine.”

Obviously the MHRA were anticipating a high volume of COVID vaccine Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs.) As there seem to be millions of them recorded on the yellow card system, including people suffering seizures, paralysis, blindness and many fatalities, the BBC should investigate this and report their findings. However, that isn’t really their role, so they hide the purpose of the yellow card system and pump out “fake news” instead.

The MHRA have already stated that the system is prone to massive underrecording of ADRs. So John’s estimate of thousands of COVID 19 vaccine-related deaths is almost certainly accurate. We won’t know until they are investigated but, with the MHRA in charge and the BBC covering for them, any chance of that happening appears remote.

For Vine and the BBC it is essential that you don’t know about or understand any of this. That’s why they never report it, don’t investigate any of the thousands of vaccine injury reports, never inform the public about the raft of scientific papers that raise serious concerns about the vaccines and instead mislead, misdirect, spread disinformation and propagandise the population.

While John from Manchester tried to highlight these “facts” to a UK audience, Vine decided that responding with drivel was insufficient. He felt it was necessary, or was more likely instructed, to throw in some logical fallacies too.

He chose the “appeal to authority” fallacy to start with, asking John if he was a qualified scientist. John stated he wasn’t but had researched the science for himself and so Vine doubled up and used the straw-man fallacy as well. He claimed John had said the scientists were all lying, which he hadn’t.

Vine’s “appeal to authority” is automatically an invalid argument because simply claiming that “experts say” doesn’t exempt you from critical thinking and is no dialectical trump card. Vine isn’t a qualified scientist either so what makes him think his grasp of the science is any better than John’s?

Vines accusation that John wasn’t an epidemiologist was jaw-dropping. The BBC don’t care about qualifications and will misreport them whenever they want to convince the public of their selected expert’s credentials.

Throughout the 2020 phase of the so called pandemic, the BBC incessantly reported the opinions and wildly inaccurate models of Professor Neil Ferguson, habitually referring to him as an epidemiologists.

Ferguson is not a qualified epidemiologist.

He has no qualifications in the biological sciences at all.

Yet that didn’t stop the BBC espousing every inaccurate statement and woeful prediction he made as if it were pandemic lore.

The BBC use of “appeal to authority” is even less edifying when we understand that they completely ignore huge swathes of scientific opinion simply because it doesn’t fit in with the narrative they have been told to foist on the public. John quite correctly pointed this out to Vine and the BBC so they cut him off.

This is an essential tool of the propagandists. They highlight everything which supports their agenda and ignore or, where needed, flatly deny the existence of anything and everything which challenges it.

This is precisely what the BBC have done throughout, what I refer to, as the pseudopandemic. Vine wasn’t misrepresenting the BBC. In a brief moment of clarity he personified them. There is no objective difference between the BBC and Soviet-era Central Television or Lord Haw Haw demoralising terrorised Blitz sufferers. The BBC are a disgrace.

You only need to buy a TV license if you absolutely must watch live broadcast television. As someone who hasn’t owned a TV for decades I can’t really understand why you would want to. However, if you continue paying it you should understand what you are paying for.

You are paying for your propaganda. You are forking out to be lied to, showered with disinformation, misled and psychologically manipulated, primarily through the use of utterly preposterous fear porn. People often wonder what they can do to resist this onslaught by the State. Well, you could stop paying them for the privilege if you like.

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

The BBC Are A Disgrace

Search Results

Bookmarks

Subscribe to The Article Feed