To be fair all of the media were being racist over Lawrence death. None of them, with one honourable exception bothered to tell us the truth. The suspects were known to the police and the police were known to the suspects. That is how it is with career criminals. And when they know each other and trust each other - in the way that jackals trust each other, bribery becomes an option. Private Eye was the one told us about that.
The BBC's attitude changes briskly when it is one of their own. Jill Dando was murdered and that did matter - according to the BBC. It was a waste. But the police felt the pressure and eventually they arrested a half wit who couldn't prove that he had an alibi months later [ Could you? ] and banged him up for life.
There is a simple test of BBC bias. When they tell you that Smith is right wing, wonder if they are being honest. If they tell you that Jones is left wing wonder if they are being honest. Then count the number of lefties who exist in the BBC's world view. The answer is not very many. They might accuse Green of being a right wing extremist but they will never say that anyone is a left wing extremist, not ever. Lenin, Trotsky, Joe, Mao, Pot and other thugs still have their little private altars in BBC homes.
Then there is their enthusiasm for inciting Homosexuality. They used Kenneth Williams as one of their front men and, to be fair, did it very well. I am not accusing the BBC of incompetence; far from it. They are too clever, too political, too effective.
Why is the BBC so deeply corrupt? It was infiltrated over many years by men who had been the same universities and been influenced by the same left wing propagandists, by disciples of Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida and various other cunning rogues. Now they control it.
What can
we do about it? One answer is to complain about it. If we do nothing we
are letting them get away with it. We can write letters to the
complaints department and they will have to respond. How? Have a look
at How to Complain
and
Who to Complain To.
The other answer to bad television is to stop paying the television
licence. That really brings the pains on. It is my answer but it is not
for everyone. They threaten you. Their tone is the tone of arrogant
bullies but can I laugh. I threw my television set away years ago. Vive la resistance.
News
explained in pictures:-
Newspaper
circulations in 2009 are around:-
The Times 700,000
PE 200,000
Telegraph 840,000
Graun 335,000
Mail 2,400,000
Sun 2,896,000
Mirror 2,000,000 +
Express 728,000
List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation ex Wiki tells us that papers are going down. Falls of some 50% are typical.
Blogs
Are personal on-line news sources. They have a great virtue; they
are independent of the half dozen or so media owners that control the main
stream media in England. Some are biased but they do not pretend to be
anything else. The Times offered us its choice of the 40 most important; a
rather strange offering from the Dead Tress Press. Most of them were unknown
to me. Most of them will get ignored by me. The virtue of the Internet is that
there are thousands of voices out there. You pays your money and takes your
choice. Have fun. You might well learn things worth knowing; things they do
not want you to know.
The Way Forward
The answer is simple enough for the reader, for the user. Going on line is
the way forward; it means having access to thousands of sources worldwide. One
personal favourite is the Irish Savant, a
perceptive writer. Perhaps the best of them all is
The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection run by
Ron Unz in California. He publishes pieces by
people with something worthwhile to say. They are free men, not
Wage Slaves. They write what they want, not
answering to editors or
Press Barons.
Let Us Pay
QUOTE
During 2009, it was difficult to find
anybody inside the newspaper business who was not profoundly depressed about
the future of the industry. All the trend lines were downwards. The
migration of readers and advertisers towards digital media was already a
long-standing headache for the industry. Then came the credit crunch, whose
aftermath brought recession, further decline in sales, and a sharp downturn
in advertising. The result was industry-wide gloom........
Would it matter if it died?....... Without it our democracy would head the way that papers themselves risk heading, and become hollowed out, with the external apparatus of democratic machinery but without the informed electorate which the press helps create. And one beauty of the current arrangement is that it functions without the press having to be well-meaning or high-minded......
Why is that [ going totally on line ] a good thing? Because the internet can make all those costs go away. If newspapers switched over to being all online, the cost base would be instantly and permanently transformed. The OECD report puts the cost of printing a typical paper at 28 per cent and the cost of sales and distribution at 24 per cent: so the physical being of the paper absorbs 52 per cent of all costs. (Administration costs another 8 per cent and advertising another 16.) That figure may well be conservative........
At some point, the economic logic of this is going to become irresistible......... So this, I think, is the future of newspapers. Their cost base will force them to junk their print editions......... I feel equally certain in saying that what the print media need, more than anything else, is a new payment mechanism for online reading, which lets you read anything you like, wherever it is published, and then charges you on an aggregated basis, either monthly or yearly or whatever........
I say again, let us pay. Make the process as easy as
possible. Make it invisible and transparent. Make us register once and
once only. Walls are not the way forward, but walls are not the same thing
as payment, and without some form of payment, the press will not be here
in five years' time. I hope one of the big organisations is working on
this idea or something like it, because for print newspapers, the clock
isn't just ticking, it's ticking louder and faster.
UNQUOTE
Mr. Lanchester has a bias. Being in the business means he wants the
cash flow. A sensible analysis.
