Promoting this Board

[indikit]

As an active member I would like to know what can be done to promote this forum more heavily. It's difficult getting people to post I'm sure, but getting them to read isn't quite so tough.

If the moderator has any views on what can be done to promote this forum heavily I'd like to participate and I hope others will join in too.

[Teddy Bear]

Indi' I appreciate your concern, and your efforts in this forum, as well as those of other regular contributors.
Our purpose is to provide an accessible record of the inconsistencies of the BBC in line with their mandate, and show the negative impact it has on our society. Clearly our hope is to 'open the eyes' of as many as possible to this immoral and unethical evil, feeding off us like a giant cancerous parasite and laying us open to further attack from other influences.

I do link to various posts here on other sites that I frequent as pertinent which is as much as I believe can be done to 'advertise' the site. Perhaps those that read and are 'converted' enough to look at the BBC with new eyes wonder what can then be done about it, and don't wish to fill their day with further examples of BBC transgressions. For this reason I link on our site to the anti-TVL site, to empower those desiring not to support the BBC through a forced tax.

I think so long as we maintain the records that we do, and the quality of those observations, it will naturally create more interest and awareness. If one day we have a scoop, then this itself will create a larger audience.

But I'm certainly open to suggestions that anyone might have to increase our membership and contributors.

Thanks again for the topic.

[ascendinglark]

One way to promote this forum would be to take a really mind-boggling example of BBC bias, and post it in full on as many other forums/news groups as possible, with a link to this site, asking people to voice their opinions and talk about other bias they've seen. I'm pretty sure there'll be some new members.

Mind you, I have no idea which forums most people use. Maybe it would even be possible to do a general search for forum activity that talks about or mentions the BBC. Then of course there's pro-Israel sites and forums - I bet they have entire dossiers on anti-Israel bias they'd like to share.

There's really no reason why this couldn't be the #1 place to discuss and catalog BBC bias.

[Teddy Bear]

So far the story that I would claim as my biggest 'scoop' on BBC bias as affects this country, particularly in light of the seriousness of the terrorist threat to our society, and mankind in general, is this one concerning Mohammed Bakri.

At the time I did send it to various newspapers to no avail. While I posted it on several other forums it wasn't 'picked up' to any significant degree, which I did find surprising and disappointing. As you've seen in the discussion with Paul Reynolds, he totally evaded the subject.

A few months ago, 18 Doughty Street had a TV interview with Richard Sambrook, director of the World Service and offered their audience the chance to post questions for him. Since 18DS didn't give much advance notice at that time, I hurriedly sent off the questions below about an hour before the interview. Unfortunately they didn't get used, and I felt the presenter Iain Dale gave Sambrook a very easy time of it, which I later criticized him for.

I think it's important that we don't lose heart. We can trust in our observations of how the BBC is in conscious breach of its remit, even sacrificing our society to be so. We can trust in our assessment of how serious the impact of this breach is. It is not a case of 'if' but 'when' this breach becomes widely recognized, then our work will be a record to open more peoples eyes as those who now accept BBC output without a thought, suddenly question it.

Questions for Richard Sambrook
We got CNN's, but where is the BBC acknowledgement of bias in Iraq?
Following the ousting of Saddam, Eason Jordan, head of CNN news. finally admitted to the NY Times after previous denials, that while Saddam had been in power, they HAD to be biased because of physical threats to their staff, and closure of their offices if they did not get approval for each story they ran.

The BBC was surely subject to the same restrictions but to this day they have not uttered one word about it. Is it because the Saddam line is their chosen coverage anyway, in order to ingratiate themselves with the other similar type of regimes in that area, or do they believe their bias and subsequent denials of it will go unnoticed?

2. On the 11th March, the Telegraph ran an article on a report by the Palestinian finance minister Salam Fayyad, that millions of dollars given in aid has simply disappeared and is unaccounted for. I've been waiting to see if the BBC was going to run the story themselves. I know they like to present the plight of the 'poor Palestinians' as a result of Israel's actions, and this story would confute this, and present the reality as having other causes. Over 3 weeks later, it still hasn't entered the world of the BBC, nor do I really expect it to.

What feeble excuse will Sambrook offer for its ommision in the BBC newspages?

Palestinian minister admits aid millions lost


3. Following Alan Johnston's abduction in Gaza, many articles have proclaimed what a 'friend to the Palestinian's' he was. Without a doubt he was, but is it right that a supposed impartial and balanced journalist covering a very complex conflict should be a 'friend' to either side?

4. Since WMD was a critical fact in launching the war against Saddam, the man in charge of finding them, Hans Blix, is obviously of key importance.

As director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997, he was in charge of overseeing inspections of the country's nuclear programme. During that time, the Iraqis managed to hide an advanced nuclear weapons development programme from the IAEA. It was only discovered after the Gulf War in 1991. He also didn't 'find' the nuclear reactor that was destroyed in the 80's by Israel.

They also did not make public that France and Germany had huge contracts with Saddam, which would obviously affect how they would vote against removing him. Nor did they present the Oil for Food scandal of the UN that would influence how this organisation would view a change in the status quo, which probably accounted for the choice of Hans Blix to head the weapons inspections.

How does Sambrook see the failure of the BBC to report this in context as fair and balanced reporting, especially on an issue of this magnitude?

[indikit]

I've never managed to get my head around how the DIGG site works, but it seems like a perfect place to post some of the more min-boggling examples that ascending lark mentions.

The best thing about this forum so far are the reasoned and intelligent postings that are made, therefore making it difficult for the BBC to just pass it off as 'a nutter site' as they are akin to doing.

No, we are a collective of conspirators instead, no doubt.

[Teddy Bear]

indikit said:

The best thing about this forum so far are the reasoned and intelligent postings that are made, therefore making it difficult for the BBC to just pass it off as 'a nutter site' as they are akin to doing.

This is why I believe eventually our efforts, and those of other sites reporting similar observations will be rewarded. Truth has to triumph otherwise our society is truly doomed. Children in the future will learn about this period of time as the real 'Dark Ages'.

Not familiar with the DIGG site.

I also don't see us as conspirators since we are not evolving any particular strategy other than expose the one used by the Beeb. Perhaps 'counter-conspirators' would be more apt

[Teddy Bear]

Indi, and team, take heart from this figure posted in todays Times.

Other figures show that 18 per cent of viewers believe that the BBC is biased, compared with 16 per cent a year ago.

[indikit]

Unfortunately, at that rate it would mean another 16 years before we even get a majority to see sense. My guess is we'll all be under Sharia law long before then.

[Teddy Bear]

If you think of it as an inverse triangle \/ you'll find that it grows rather more steadily than that. We have truth on our side, and that's the most powerful eye-opener.

[johnbull]

I think that a good way to promote this forum and to spread its message to the wider public would be to mount a public campaign to get the license fee abolished.This would do more than anything to hinder the subversive activities of the BBC.

[Teddy Bear]

Hi John and Welcome.
There is an eminent site run by the journalist Jonathan Miller which does that very thing, as well as empower individuals to not pay and know their rights in this regard. We do provide the link to there as well at www.tvlicensing.biz.

Our purpose here is to give those of the public who look in reasons why they should consider NOT supporting this insidious organisation. It is precisely because it is the state media, and hides behind the cloak of a mandate that we know it doesn't adhere to, that it can do far more damage in its bias than a private media company.

I have started a petiition quite a while ago, as have others, to end the license fee support for the BBC, but none have had sufficient numbers to be considered 'earth shaking'. All we can really do is help raise the awareness of the public to eventually bring that event about.

[indikit]

I agree that a campaign should be mounted to abolish the license fee, but in my opinion it wouldn't matter if 57 million Brits protested, the select few that run the government would enforce it further anyway. We live in a selective democracy and the BBC are living proof of that.

I personally think a more important campaign would be to educate people on how to NOT pay the license fee. This would kill the BBC in an instant and circumvent any autocratic government enforcements.

The problem is that the BBC preys on peoples FEAR. What will happen to them if they don't pay. They fail to realise that not only do the BBC NOT have the power to detect a TV in your house (TV detector vans are a misnomer and an exaggeration of their true application and ability) they have absolutely no legal powers to enter your house either.

This is what I believe is the achilles heel of the BBC and can bring them crashing down. But unfortunately Brits are by their very nature a fearful and servile breed.

Personally I've never had a licence in my life and never would. I even admitted once to a BBC licensing Gestapo agent that I had a TV and no license. He started cautioning me on my door step. I just laughed at him and shut the door in his face.

They did absolutely NOTHING except send me more and more letters, all of which went into the bin.

[johnbull]

Thanks for your comments and advice. I've had a look at Miller's site and found it interesting. However their campaign seems to have lost it's momentum somewhat. If you click on their 'Whats New Section', the page is dated 2005, and the latest 'Feedback' was apparently on the 24th of January 2006. This site on the other hand is constructed and maintained to a much higher standard.
Have you ever considered trying to raise funds, which could be used to advertise and promote this forum to a wider audience?

PS. Not all Brits have a fearful and servile nature!

[Teddy Bear]

John, if you check out the forum pages of that website you will find it is regularly updated with a variety of related topics. They also do initiate various campaigns advising people not to pay their license fee, as well as raising awareness of TVL tactics and empowering individuals by giving information about their rights. Indi is quite right about how he dealt with these inspectors, and possibly he got that 'empowerment' through that site.

I'm sure all of us appreciate your sentiments about our site here, it's always gratifying to feel the value of what we try and do.

Regarding Have you ever considered trying to raise funds, which could be used to advertise and promote this forum to a wider audience?,.
My feeling is that until such time as people see that they are personally affected by the output of the BBC, they won't be bothered to do anything about it. Those of us who see the negative and insidious nature of this organisation 'awoke' to this realisation only because of a personal involvement in something the BBC was putting out.

Most people want to trust the BBC, as they want to trust politicians, and companies. It makes them feel better about their world and lives than facing the reality that they can't. This is how the corruption we find all across the board in our society has been able to spread. I believe there will come a day when the veil over peoples eyes will be lifted, 'the straw that broke the camels back'. I'd be happy to hear anybody elses view on this, and to be proved wrong if that is the case.

[johnbull]

Thanks again Ted for your help, I've checked out the forum but was unable to contribute because they're having technical problems with registering new members at the moment.
I do agree though with the information and advice about not paying the license fee.
However in regard to 'Promoting this Board'
I am personally affected, in a negative way, by what the BBC is doing. And was bothered by it so much that I decided to do something about it. I came across this site by chance whilst conducting my own research into the BBC. It gave me comfort to realize that there were other people out there who shared the same opinions about the BBC, and has encouraged me to carry on with my activities.
I am certain that there are many more people out there who share the same views and objectives. They also would take comfort and be encouraged to do something if they only knew where to go and what to do.
Therefore I'm promoting this site and the others related to it by 'word of mouth', sending emails and writing letters.
Advertising, in my opinion, certainly works in raising awareness and affecting peoples behavior. If it didn't, successful companies and organizations wouldn't spend huge amounts of money doing it.
As for raising funds, it is to those people and groups who are negatively affected by the BBC's activities that an appeal for assistance should be made. I for one would be happy to contribute.
The BBC has made lots of wealthy and powerful enemies all over the world but particularly in the UK, the USA and Israel.
All successful political parties, groups, movements, organizations and campaigns need to raise funds and build support to carry out their activities and ultimately achieve their objectives.
Waiting for the 'last straw' to 'break our backs' is not a course of action that I would advocate.
To do this would confirm Indikits assertion that the 'Brits'(I regard myself as English) are by their very nature cowards.

[Teddy Bear]

John, to help 'think this through' I'm going to play the devils advocate and see where we come to.

Re: "As for raising funds, it is to those people and groups who are negatively affected by the BBC's activities that an appeal for assistance should be made. I for one would be happy to contribute."

The mindset of the BBC in relation to those outside complaining of bias within is that this is a clear sign they are doing it right, particularly if all sides complain of bias.

It is that they 'are not biased on the side of those complaining of bias, and if all sides are complaining then they have it right'. Do you think for example that the Palestinians haven't complained of bias, to counter the Israeli accusations?

So if a campaign was launched against the BBC by various groups or organisations who feel maligned by them, to counter it the BBC would simply vilify them even more under the pretext that it was a 'sour grapes' campaign. It might possibly increase hostility towards those groups rather than diminish it.

A few relatively new websites like 18 Doughty Street, and Britain and America, have produced TV quality ads about BBC bias and are viewed by a fair number of the online audience concerned in these matters. Point is, it is no problem to 'convert the converted' but how does one reach the masses? Bear in mind the BBC has had eons to brainwash the masses (it's just given me inspiration for another new BBC tag - Brainwashing British Citizens), and they have over £4 billion with which to do it, and easy access to the whole nation. How do you think to compete with that?

I think of the fable of the Emperors New Clothes, and that in the end it was a simple exclamation of a young naive child that dispelled the hype and brought everybody else around.

Please understand, I don't for a moment profess to have the answer, or know what's best in this matter, but our object at the end of the day is to raise awareness of the present insidious and negative output of the BBC. Do you have any ideas for a campaign that could increase this possibility? The answer might not be lack of funds, but simply inspiration.

In defense of Indi, I don't think he meant to imply that Brits are cowards, in fact WW2 showed that when we are pushed against the wall we are a formidable and capable opponent. But until such time as our backs are up to the wall we seek to avoid confrontation.

[indikit]

The general consensus of most middle-class public school educated broadcasters is that "telly" is for the uneducated masses. They regard their audience as simple children and themselves as the all knowing tutors. It's a sub-conscious fact and one they would go at great lengths to deny. Just as much as most of these people that preach muliti-culturalism are latent racists themselves: untrusting of blacks, live in all white communities and will only employ them as a token of patronizing condescension and not because of their skills.

The BBC is one gigantic middle-class guilt trip. A lot of financially and socially privilidged people trying to lance their guilt of having it so easy. They utterly despise white working class people because they regard them as ignorant scum. But their T.E Lawrence or for that fact D.H Lawrence poetic outlook on their beloved black friends - coupled with the guilt of their ancestors taking prime Imperial positions in oppressing them over the years - leads the BBC to their current 'whites wrong - black right' policies.

The problem is, that most licence payers feed these leeches out of pure fear and ignorance. I personally believe that the majority of these people won't look to the internet for any form of re-education and it will only sink in once the Sun newspaper takes a total bleak view of the BBC. That is a sad fact and I'm sorry if I sound disparaging of Brits in general, but I don't believe for one second that the license fee would ever have continued in such a competitive and forceful nation as America.

The only way to turn the tide is to do so one by one by one. Everyone I speak to who pays their licence, I give them a thousand reasons not to and relate my own personal experiences of how to avoid it. The truth is, the British may love their telly, but they love their wages even more. Any excuse to get out paying for this telly tax, they will take.

Only as long as they think they'll get away with it.

And they will. For me, that's the way to destroy the Beeb. Sitting down and explaining to people what lying thieving scumbags the Beeb are - a fact that is plain as the nose on your face to any intelliogent person - won't get you anywhere, because nine times out of ten you'll just hear them say:

"Well I pay my license so I get an easy life."

That's it. Fear. Nothing else.

[steevo]

The problem is, that most licence payers feed these leeches out of pure fear and ignorance. I personally believe that the majority of these people won't look to the internet for any form of re-education and it will only sink in once the Sun newspaper takes a total bleak view of the BBC. That is a sad fact and I'm sorry if I sound disparaging of Brits in general, but I don't believe for one second that the license fee would ever have continued in such a competitive and forceful nation as America.

The only way to turn the tide is to do so one by one by one. Everyone I speak to who pays their licence, I give them a thousand reasons not to and relate my own personal experiences of how to avoid it. The truth is, the British may love their telly, but they love their wages even more. Any excuse to get out paying for this telly tax, they will take.

Agreed Indi.

I am amazed at the conditioning. I thought it was much more difficult to get around, and the likelihood of legal punishment all too real.

I did not know there was not much that can be done to know... first off, citizens have a TV, and then enforce pay. If such a scheme was attempted in the US there would be a huge black market to get around it if necessary. Money does motivate, and sometimes principle.

Although our Public TV and radio does exist on a percentage of tax, extracted without consent of course.

[ascendinglark]

I agree that posting links to this site on as many forums as possible will recruit more members. It's a slow process however.

One thing I've noticed is that this forum doesn't appear on the 1st page of Google results with the search terms "BBC bias". Getting it up there would certainly help matters. I'm just not sure how you do it.

When I created my business website, I wrote tons of content which included the most popular keywords, and I made sure to put them in large print, in bold and underlined, as Google uses such emphasis to weight and rank pages. I also crammed meta-tags with keywords, and added alt-tags with keywords to every photo and button on the pages. It seemed to work - I was ranked on the first page within a month and my business rocketed. I understand that Google used to rank pages based on the number of links to it on other websites, but this got abused so much they're now looking more at content.

Trouble is, if this is a "hosted" forum, you can't just dive in there and tweak the HTML. How about having a few dummy posts crammed with keywords in bold, large print and so forth? Would that work?

[indikit]

Well I've noticed that usernames appear top of the rankings in Google on this forum. I should have joined under the name BBC Bias really.

I think all forums in general suffer from the same rule - the fewer the posting members, the fewer others will post. Some boards can take years to kick off. I'm not sure why so many people use the Biased BBC blogspot to post their points when so many of them up there find excellent examples of bias, and it just gets buried in a mush of examples on the comments pages.

I prefer this forum because it's a more direct way of finding, posting and responding.

[Teddy Bear]

Following your very good observations and suggestions I have added 'BBC Bias' into our title, and we'll see how that might affect our rise up the 'google chart'. As you say AL, we only appear under the search 'bbc bias' on page 2, though we appear on page one under 'biased bbc'. Hopefully now it will change once the new title 'kicks in'.

I would have thought that most keywords appear naturally in the various topics. I think google rating is also contingent on the number of hits a particular site gets. I'll also check out if it's possible to put meta tags in to the various topics.

Indi, naturally I agree with your observation which is why I sought out this type of forum to post and retain individual perceptions instead of their getting lost in time. I think though we're all glad that the blogspot is successful, as anything and everything that helps increase awareness of the insidious nature of the BBC is our goal.

[ascendinglark]

BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS

There, that should do it.

[Teddy Bear]

;D
Now all we need is someone to punch 'BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS BBC BIAS' into their search engine.

[johnbull]

Hi Ted, sorry for the delay in replying to your points, Ive had quite allot on my plate recently.
I wasn't suggesting that the various groups and organisations maligned by the BBC should launch or actively run the campaign against the BBC. But rather that they could be approached privately by letter or email, and asked to donate privately. You could explain what the campaign was about, who was running it, what its objectives were and the tactics and strategies which it proposes to use to achieve these objectives.
For example, Indy rightly points out the influence of the Sun newspaper. Rupert Murdoch is a competitor of the BBC and might well be sympathetic to our cause. Probably for financial rather than moral or ethical reasons but sympathetic all the same. The BBC does have an unfair advantage however over its competitors by the way its funded, and this fact should be used against it.
A full paged advertisement in the Sun might bring in more support, especially if the timing was right. If Murdoch supported the campaign he would probably do it for free and follow it up with sympathetic articles and coverage on Sky and Fox TV.
I believe in this case the ends justify the means. As for the BBC trying to take the moral high ground over funding and donations, thats an argument they could never win. They're funded by an unjust compulsory tax, which is collected by threats and intimidation. These are the methods employed by crooks and gangsters, whereas the campaign against the BBC would be funded by freely given private donations.
Also if the BBC entered the debate with those campaigning against it, they would have to answer the key points being made against them and try to prove that they are not biased and that they measure up to they're own guidelines as set out in the BBC's charter.
In my opinion that would be impossible, especially in view of the evidence documented in this forum and on the Biased BBC Blog.
In effect it would "Promote this Board" even more and add to the numbers actively campaigning against the BBC.

[Teddy Bear]

John, I hope whatever was 'on your plate' has worked out, or will work out okay.

I appreciate the passion you express, and I'm sure each one of us who post here would like nothing better than to see the demise of the BBC for the negative influence they have on our society.

I'm prepared to stand corrected, but I don't believe the strategy that you outline would happen, and I'll explain why.

Re the Sun and Murdoch.
They will not support a campaign against the BBC for a variety of reasons, which are in fact both sides of the same coin.
1. Since they are viewed as competitors, (even though they're strictly not, though you yourself view them as such) it will be seen generally by the masses as a tactical takeover, so the message will be disregarded.

2. They don't want the BBC to be privatized because then they really would be direct competitors.

3. Major businessman and politicians are unlikely to take on the might of the BBC because of how it might backfire. They, their businesses, their reputation would then become targets.

Until such time as there is a mainstream movement to oust the BBC, I don't believe any big business will be involved to assist it. Don't expect any of the MSM (mainstream media) to actively join in unless it would be for them to take it over wholesale.

If its any consolation the once immaculate image of the BBC has been dented and chipped, and it is in the public consciousness now that there is visible bias and poor quality. Given enough rope they will hang themselves, the only question is whether they will have hung us first.

One of the strategies used by the militant Muslims is known as the 'thousand cuts'. You do not need to inflict a lethal wound to your enemy, but subject them to a continuous barrage of nicks by which they eventually bleed to death.

We don't inflict any wound on the BBC, we merely observe and document that which they do to us. I believe in the power of truth over lies and deceit. If the latter is greater the same world that the BBC occupy will come crashing down around them, so they are doomed there too. Hopefully the former will triumph before that happens and we will witnes it.

[steevo]

I don't have a definitive opinion on John's suggestions or much of your reasons to believe such a strategy would not work Teddy, but, maybe because I'm an American and the nature of our competitive society I don't agree with you on one point:

They don't want the BBC to be privatized because then they really would be direct competitors.

That implies that free-will support from the public (individuals and business) for whatever the reasons would not continue with Murdoch's offerings and move to fill the BBC's huge financial void. Murdoch has enough money to sustain for quite a while on his own, the BBC would immediately take a huge hit. They could produce for the immediate future but I find it hard to imagine it wouldn't be long before the considerable quality and capabilities they do posses, decrease significantly. That plays directly into Murdoch's hands.

[Teddy Bear]

I didn't really understand your point in context to what I'd written Steevo. perhaps you didn't understand my meaning either so I'll elaborate.

Murdoch's empire receives revenues from private businesses who advertise with him. Naturally there are others at the same trough, so it depends on the quality of the programmes on offer, or the rates at which they sell advertising space as to how much revenue they each will receive.

Right now the BBC cannot officially sell advertising space, though their has been examples where certain products on their programmes seem to get 'exposure', probably as a result of a kickback to a producer.
If the BBC were privatized they would then be direct competitor to the other companies and would be feeding at the same trough. Because of their size they would be quite a threat to any existing empire and would dramatically effect revenues. I don't believe any of the MSM here want this as a scenario.

[steevo]

Your response implies that you have understood, at least the reason I posted. But, not my reasoning.

I almost feel this could be another 'circular' discussion

So, que sera.

[Teddy Bear]

I fail to understand then why the above scenario would be playing into Murdoch's hands. If the BBC were privatized, they could be expected to take a fair share of the market, which must reduce what is presently available to him. So how is that 'playing into his hands'?

[steevo]

Well I think what has to be acknowledged above all else is we are speculating over a huge dynamic of significant forces in motion.

Murdoch is already in competition with the BBC. His potential to grow (essentially creating and selling information) would be greater without the BBC's current presence. And, their current presence is creating less profit for his current establishment because his private and public support is not as great with the BBC's alternative offerings, taking away readership and viewership.

Government-funded competition almost always stifle's private enterprise.

If the BBC's heart (guaranteed source to exist) was cut out, it is not reasonable to me to expect their current structure and size to sustain long. They are not a proven money-making enterprise and the business world knows that. Its also not unreasonable to me to expect a significant portion of the public to not pay and support a lot of their offerings. So I think their ability to produce quality sources of competition to compete with Murdoch's offerings would take a very serious hit, compared to now.

Again, this is speculation. It is true that companies paying for advertising with Murdoch would also have the BBC's alternative. But, its also quite likely there would be more interest in Murdoch (a proven businessman with a quality enterprise). The BBC's guaranteed tax-supported establishment-enterprise would no longer be the automatic product alternative, and, their leadership and management in a capitalist environment has never been established and tested.

The bottom line here is people willfully trust and support Murdoch. The BBC have never established that. My opinion is this scenario would work to Murdoch's advantage. My opinion, but nothing is a given when coming to a conclusion.

Frankly, I think there is even the possibility, given a pure capitalist competitive playing field, the BBC would implode and end up a skeleton of their former empire