I preferred the days when "British invasion" meant the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show. Now it's dhimmi media -- the BBC and the Guardian. This report does not explain how they will be bringing their own ingenious ways to ignore and downplay the Islamic jihad, but of course they will -- along with, as this report does make clear, their reinforcement of the tired political divisions of today, despite the fact that both sides are increasingly proving themselves inadequate to meet this threat. "AIM Report: British Media Invade the U.S. - April A," an Accuracy in Media Report by Jonathan Boyd Hunt:
Two immensely influential and politically motivated British news organizations are currently establishing serious bridgeheads in the United States, namely: the world's most influential news broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation; and its mentor: the scheming, anti-conservative, anti-American ideologue The Guardian.With an annual income of $6.5 billion, the BBC certainly has the financial muscle to establish itself in America. The Guardian also has more than enough means to become a player, with assets approaching $3 billion.
Beware, patriots of all hues, you have good reason to be fearful. Like the classic sci-fi movie "The Invasion of the Body-Snatchers," the infecting of America's national psyche has already begun but almost nobody has noticed.
Since its inauguration in 1998, the cable channel BBC America has grown such that by July 2004 it was available in 40 million U.S. homes, and it's growing further. In January 2006 the BBC announced a deal with Discovery to bring its 24-hour news channel, BBC World News, to every American home.
As part of its own global expansion, last September the BBC's guru, The Guardian, began rolling off its New York presses. And, like in Britain, it's been focusing its marketing on capturing the hearts and minds of America's youth. It is bearing fruit already: in December last year Apple, Inc. revealed that The Guardian's Podcast of the hit BBC comedy "The Ricky Gervais Show" had taken the No. 1 spot of its Top Subscribed Podcasts both in the U.K. and in the U.S.
Read it all.
I think this is a difficult one, because while there is definite cause for concern the article is weak in places. Someone at LGF commented:
As he goes on to say, Ricky Gervais is hardly a sign of anything sinister going on.
And to be frank, I'd expect from the BBC's point of view this has more to do with moving into lucrative markets (funny how they "need" that licence fee, isn't it?) than a desire to spread their rather putrid Weltanschauung. Of course, the problem is that that world-view comes with the deal.
But there is plenty of damning stuff there. And the connections between the BBC and the Grauniad are real enough, too. As the author of the piece says, the pages of the Guardian are where the BBC recruits.
Americans should read the Telegraph. It's probably better than any of your daily newspapers. And the Guardian is probably worse than anything you've got. Especially Gary Younge and Demented-Loon-Madeleine-Bunting.
Apparently the BBC is biased in favour of Israel. Not.
Something good from the BBC. Very funny spoof radio phone in. Not sure how well this would cross the Atlantic.
Interested,
It's a shame the Spectator (part of the Telegraph group, of course) has been captured by the Cameronian interest in the person of the egregious Matthew D'Ancona. I suppose there is no reliable, independent-minded (small c) conservative weekly in the country now.
The Spectator is still very good. I like Rod Liddle these days.
Last year they had an edition devoted to Eurabia, which was excellent. Not all the writers get it about Islam, though.
you forgot to mention the economist. The magazine that pretends to be conservative while it caters to the left. or if that is what passes for conservative media these days we are in trouble.
As a citizen of the UK I can tell you that the BBC and the Guardian are nothing more than Tony Blairs mouthpiece. They report news as they wish it to be rather than as it is. Total spin at all levels. DO NOT get taken in by the BBC or the Guardian.
An example, they report that "Young muslims are most deprived in England". However what they don't say is that 50% of muslims over 25 are unemployed and living on social security. So they are deprived because they live off of my taxes? Sounds like muslims to me.
Yes, I noticed that, DaveMate. Anyone would think it was the fault of British non-Muslims that Muslims are "deprived".
How is it that Hindus and Sikhs, from roughly the same starting point and facing the same - if any - racial prejudice, are doing very well?
How is it that Hindus and Sikhs, from roughly the same starting point and facing the same - if any - racial prejudice, are doing very well?
I agree with you there. And the difference between the BBC's phrase and that used by the Times is slight but telling.
Indeed Granny W.
Further, if you have a tendency for laziness and through religious "duty" you render yourself useless as an employee whilst assuming a racist supremacy, your self-righteousness justifies being repulsed at the thought of mixing with unclean people unless it's to pick up your benefits and you don't have to learn the language of your host country because the benevolent system supplies translators and fixers to make sure you can squeeze everything out of the idiot infidels, then why would you do anything but stick at what you are good at?
It's an easy game to play, as well, because many of the implied poor and disadvantaged are protected from being made accountable because the system is scared in case it is see as victimising the "victim".
So it goes, so it goes!
Exactly.
I would be interested to see how many of the unemployed muslims - or should I say the muslims claiming unemployment benefit - are working in family businesses.
A true story. My friend, a lapsed muslim, had a wife imported for him from pakistan. She has been working within the muslim community and claiming unemployment benefit. When she tried to refuse my friend access to their child (because he wasn't the muslim she thought he was) he took her to court. In the ensuing investigation it turned out that she had £20000 in savings. When she was questioned she said that the money she "earned" was hers' and that the unemployment benefit was hers by right as it was this countries duty to support her. She was not made to pay back ANY of the benefit she claimed.
This should give you some idea of the level of false claims made against us and the attitude that these people take when they get caught.
Well, I read _The Economist_ myself. Why the noise about British publications in America?
Last year would be pre-D'Ancona.
These days it much more reflects the line of the Conservative Party.
D'Ancona is an acolyte of Cameron. He used his column in the Sunday Telegraph to imply that David Davis was the "europhiliac" choice and panicked the rather ill-informed ordinary Tory Party members - who are, God bless 'em rightly sceptical of the EU - into voting for "Dave" Cameron. Cameron cruised in on the lie - now, his position safe, he says that any member of the shadow cabinet who expresses eurosceptic sentiments will get the boot.
D'Ancona also emailed angry readers who were complaining that Mark Steyn had got the boot to tell them that he was returning soon. Yeah, and the rest.
Trust a snake first.
Europhiliac? Now that has to be somebody pretty disgusting.
Did Mark Steyn get the boot then? I thought he left of his own accord.
David Cameron is more likely to get the Tories elected than David Davis, so he is a Good Thing. But no, The Spectator should not follow a party line.
Read the Daily Mail the Daily Express as well as mentioned above, the Telegraph. Also Sky News the British sister channel of Fox News is also very popular, somewhere to get proper news and not Islamafied filth the BBC and the other traitors pump out.
Pardon my pointing this out, but if the British media empires are having any success in the US, it must be because they have something to sell - e.g. brilliant comedy such as THE OFFICE and excellent drama such as DR.WHO. Tell me, since they took BUFFY and ANGEL off the air, what is there being produced in America that can hold a candle to the resurrected Doctor? If on the back of that they can achieve some penetration for their ideology (which, frankly, is not even as bad as the putrid stuff that dominates US campuses), then the answer is simple. Face the competition - produce better stuff - win over customers. End of story.
And, Interested, I cannot believe that even you would fall for Rod Liddle. The man is a stinking turncoat, PC to the core and simply bitter with the BBC and the rest because they would not back him up when he got them into trouble. He has the charm of a slug and the manners of a chimp, and if anyone can look at his face and big hair without saying "bad 70s rethread", they must be blind.
Did Mark Steyn get the boot then?
Perhaps I phrased that badly. He and the Telegraph Group parted company. IIRC, he did say at his website - using an editorial "we" - "They declined to print an article, and we declined to send them any more." But I think the disenchantment was mutual.
Later on the Telegraph and the Spectator were telling readers who asked after him that he would shortly be appearing, which simply wasn't true.
I can't agree about Cameron. But I certainly agree that a periodical worth its salt can't follow a party line. Frankly, I think the Speccy was safer in Boris Johnson's hands. He may be a maniac, but he seems more independent-minded than D'Ancona and he would also give competing views a fair run - he would frequently print stuff that he obviously didn't agree with.
Gavin Essler strikes me as a journalist who's in love with all things American, while I sometimes think the radio 5 (news and sport) nighttime presenter, Rhod Sharp,is living in the wrong country. News 125 and radio 5 are constantly interviewing American journalists so you can hardly accuse them of blocking out an American perspective.
I agree about Ragi Omar though: he presented a documentary on the Muslims in Europe, and while talking about the reconquest of Spain, didn't even bother to disguise his pained anguish at the very thought of it.
Actually, BBC news broadcasts are available here already at 12:00 midnight on the PBS station. That's the timeslot to which it belongs.
Actually, the department in which the BBC has a leg up over US media stations, like CNN, FoxNews, ABC, MSNBC, et al is that it gives a wider coverage of foreign news. Not necessarily better, but wider. I mean that if one wants to bypass the Duke lacrosse team, Natalie Holloway, and the latest horror story of the day, that's the place to go. FoxNews does carry live suicide bombings whenever they occur in Israel, but that's about the amount of their Jihad coverage.
I wouldn't worry too much about the Guardian surfacing here either. As it is, every major US newspaper (except USA Today) is losing circulation, and reducing its administrative staff. The trend has increasingly been people tuning out the MSM and turning to the Internet and Talk Radio for their news. Besides, disposing of paper newspapers is a major hassle - at least here, fish gets packed in plastic after it's cut fresh (assuming that one shops in the seafood section).
While on the Internet anything can be chosen, in Talk Radio, Right Wing hosts pre-dominate: Left Wing wannabes like Air America are gasping for air. The advantage of the Right Wing shows is that there are some hosts who clearly get it (Michael Reagan, Bob Dornan, Michael Medved (to an extent), Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan, and dare I say, even Tony Snow), even if there may be others who don't (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity).
The reason for the above seems to be content. If it were merely the number of channels, as some have suggested, each one of them would have evenly distributed viewers. Instead, FoxNews has gained heavily the entire market of right leaning viewers (although these days, I've tuned out due to their coverage of sensational stories), while the others are floundering.
So if the Guardian wants to come, they are likely to gain markets in some niche places, like Berkeley, San Francisco, Boston, Burlington and a few other wacked out places. Other than that, I wouldn't worry too much about their making a dent, particularly with their virulent anti-Americanism. Same for BBC - even for those with satellite radio, I can't see too many people go for them.
How is it that Hindus and Sikhs, from roughly the same starting point and facing the same - if any - racial prejudice, are doing very well?
One word: cultural difference.
Read the Daily Mail the Daily Express as well as mentioned above, the Telegraph.
I may read Currant Bun ;) but Daily Mail is absolute BS. It represents the typical snobish attitude of the English upper classes. All it manages to do is spew up anti-immigrant, anti-Working class vitriol. MSM have their own agenda.
Other big reason - the Hindus and Sikhs who are in Britain are there because they like Britain; those who don't typically stay in India, or move elsewhere.
Are 2nd and subsequent generations of Indians (lets face it - the only country Indian Muslims move to is the Gulf - not many move to other Infidel lands) assimilating? I recall the controversy that was once caused by former Tory chair Norman Tebbit suggesting that Asians don't pass the cricket test (when they cheered Pakistan/India against England in cricket matches), and I recently read that that's a thing of the past. Do other ethnically non-British citizens avoid assimilating the way Muslims do?
On a different note, heard Melanie Phillips on radio this morning while coming to work. She had it by and large right, but one thing - I didn't get the impression that she was distinguishing between Muslims and other non-British originating nationals (Jews, Sikhs, Afro-Brits, et al).
Infidel Pride,
Melanie Philips is a BNP cheerleader. No matter what people say here, Daily Mail and people like Melanie Philips and Julie Burchill are closet racists
My late, lamented father Avrum, ben Shoyil, warned me many years ago not to believe the BBC. I didn't listen to him at the time, but now I'm older and wiser.
Avruhm ben Shoyil, aluv haShulem