Wednesday, February 26, 2014
BBC's censorship of paedophilia scandal 'reveals its left-wing bias': Corporation accused of refusing to report story to protect the Labour party
The BBC was accused yesterday of keeping the growing paedophilia scandal from the airwaves in order to protect the Labour Party.
Until yesterday afternoon, the corporation had refused to report that three Labour figures had leading positions in a human rights group that backed the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.
The story has been on the Mail’s front page three times but the BBC cut all reference to it from its press reviews yesterday.
Philip Davies, a Tory MP on the Commons culture, media and sport committee, said the reason for the BBC’s continued silence was institutional left-wing bias.
‘It is a scandal that the Daily Mail is one of the most read papers in the country but is ignored by the national broadcaster,’ he said.
‘The BBC is interested only in stories that favour the Labour party or that appear in the Guardian. If this were about Conservative MPs the Labour party would be up in arms and the story would have been leading Newsnight five days running.’
A BBC spokesman said: ‘BBC News is an impartial, independent news organisation and decides its editorial priorities based on merit alone and without external help.’
Adding to the mounting confusion, its own journalists have provided contradictory excuses for why the story has been ignored.
While some claimed they were given ‘legal advice’ to drop it, an official spokesman insisted news bosses simply decided the story was ‘not new’.
Since it published the results of its PIE investigation last Wednesday, the Daily Mail has run a series of articles – including two further front page splashes - calling for the Labour trio to answer key questions about their time at the National Council For Civil Liberties (NCCL) in the 1970s.
But yesterday’s front page story was still ignored by the BBC in its daily newspaper round ups on TV and radio.
Late on Sunday night, the BBC News Channel was the first to preview the next day’s front pages.
It found time to discuss the front pages of the The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, The Daily Express and The Sun, but made no mention of the Mail’s main story.
On Radio 4, the Today programme yesterday summarised a string of articles – from the situation in Ukraine to the news Piers Morgan has quit his CNN talk show – in its two newspaper reviews at 6.38am and 7.35am. Once again, there was no mention of the PIE.
Radio Five Live also omitted the Daily Mail story from its 5.15am newspaper summary, and an online article about the day’s front pages made no mention of the PIE story.
The striking gap in the BBC’s coverage was not missed by its viewers and listeners, many of whom took to Twitter to voice their frustration that the story had not been given airtime.
But the corporation gave conflicting justifications for the continued omission.
Last Wednesday, Five Live broadcaster Nicky Campbell blamed ‘legal advice’ for his failure to mention the Mail’s original splash in his newspaper review, saying there was a ‘lack of sources’ and adding it ‘would have been one to go big on if we could stand up.’
But when MailOnline published copies of all the key documents in the investigation later the same day, the BBC quickly changed its stance.
An official spokesman claimed the affair was in fact being ignored for editorial reasons, adding: ‘The story in question is not new, and instead, we have followed several big, breaking news story.’
The BBC’s first mention of the story was in an online article yesterday afternoon that repeated Miss Harman’s allegation she was the victim of a ‘politically motivated smear campaign.’
Its reticence was in marked contrast to its commercial rival Sky News.
The channel aired a lengthy discussion about yesterday’s Daily Mail front page on its Sunday night press preview programme.
Presenter Eamonn Holmes again mentioned the story in his round-up of the day’s papers in his early morning show Sunrise.
And yesterday afternoon Sky journalist Jon Craig confronted Labour leader Ed Miliband about the affair and reported on the affair during the evening news bulletin.
Hillary’s Sugar Daddy Socialism Is Fair Game
It’s now officially sexist to hold someone accountable for her legacy of failure – as long as she is a liberal. Nonsense. Rand Paul was absolutely right to declare open season on Hillary’s track record of actively enabling Bubba’s grotesque satyrism.
Naturally, her mainstream media cover-up crew swung into action, decreeing that examining her record is verboten. It’s adorable how, in the age of the internet, these has-beens still think they get to decide what we can and can’t discuss. Give it another year or so until these dinosaur hacks are at the bottom of off-ramps with signs reading, “Will gatekeep for food.”
Hillary proves the old adage that a liberal feminist needs a man like a fish needs water. We just aren’t supposed to say that either.
Ah, the wonders of liberal feminism. What can’t it do – besides actually improve the lives of women who don’t manage to hook up with a powerful man who will hand them a career? Here’s the cold, hard truth: If Hillary hadn’t kept her part of the bargain with Bill Clinton by putting up with his serial abuse, she’d be just another grim liberal matron scowling at the thought that somewhere, out there, a man isn’t apologizing.
Liberal feminism was always about the liberalism, never about the female. Like every liberal pose, it is based upon a lie. Women, to liberal feminists like Hillary, are simply a means to an end. Hillary’s end was personal power, and all she had to do was destroy the occasional Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey if they protested being her hubby’s glorified sex toys.
We aren’t supposed to talk about how liberal feminism messed up our culture for women who aren’t married to a rich former president, and we aren’t supposed to mention that Hillary embodies liberal feminism better than almost anything except Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.
Real feminism should be concerned with women having the same opportunities as men. But liberal feminism is only concerned with turning women into a perpetual left wing voting block. The left doesn’t woo them by promising to build a society without arbitrary discrimination where, with hard work, they can realize their ambitions. Instead, liberals promise to hook them up with Uncle Sam – he’s older and not so hot, but he’s got a lot of dough and will take care of all you helpless Julias!
That’s Hillary in a nutshell, the poster gal for Sugar Daddy Socialism.
Lisa De Pasquale of Townhall illustrates the collateral damage in her new book Finding Mr. Righteous. Lisa (a friend who shares my agent and publisher) writes about her life as a single women in modern America with agonizing honesty. As she goes from guy to guy, we see that women today have career opportunities but not the traditional structures that create opportunities for personal happiness.
But hey, ask liberal feminists, who needs traditional structures? Well, we do – something else we’re not supposed to say. Where is the social structure that protected and enabled women – and that gave purpose to men? In its place, as Lisa shows us, is a world of young people who spend an extraordinary amount of time alienated and alone. Much of her human interaction is actually electronic, even her intimate interaction. If Helen Reddy wrote her big hit today, it would be called “I Am Women, Hear Me Sext.”
Helen Smith’s Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters showed us the cultural forces – many of them spurred on by liberal feminists like Hillary – that incentivize males to remain man-children. The men in Lisa’s world (at least until the end of the book) seem largely beaten and weak, drained of confidence and ambition – in other words, they turned out exactly as feminists hoped. Lisa shows us how this impacts women. The gallant Knight in Shining Armor is now a patriarchal relic; here comes the broke Dude in Torn Cargo Shorts asking if his date can spot him $25 for dinner because his mom finally started making him pay rent.
And when they try to act like men, it’s often only a parody of masculinity that confuses the kind of seedy priapism exemplified by Bill Clinton with true manhood. After all, Hillary and her fellow feminist enablers gave such cheesy sexual aggression a big thumbs up, and Lisa demonstrates that young men were watching. There are no cigar antics, thankfully, but Lisa’s no-holds-barred peek into reality is quite terrifying. And I know terrifying – I watch Girls.
Maybe Lisa should have done what Hillary and her pal Wendy Davis did – latch onto a successful guy and had him create a career for her. It’s totally empowering.
No, we’re not supposed to comment on how Hillary has accomplished absolutely nothing by herself, except Benghazi.
Wanna see a liberal squirm? Ask him to name Hillary’s greatest success as Secretary of State. You’ll get: “Uh, she raised awareness of women’s issues around the world.” Apparently, until she dumped a zillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere jetting around from “Reset” fiasco to Arab Spring disaster, the world was unaware of women.
As Secretary of State, foreign potentates understood her as a mere flunky. But if the American people elect this empty pantsuit president, how will they treat her? They know Bill used her like a doormat. They will too. Why would anyone have any respect for her – or fear of her?
You won’t hear that from the slobbering sycophants of solidarity in the mainstream media. After all, when it comes to protecting Hillary’s façade of accomplishment, it takes a Potemkin Village.
Wait, can we say that?
Sex-Obsessed Lefty Horrified by ‘Toxic Purity Culture’
Hey, gals, want to avoid being raped? Put away that Lady Smith 38. No need for pepper spray. Self-defense classes? Not necessary. The solution is simple. The best defense against rape is to just cast away your “deeply troubling” Christianity and become a secularist slut.
So goes the advice of one Katie McDonough, Salon.com assistant editor, fertile fount of millennial wisdom and – well – and whatever else.
In an article published at Salon Feb. 20 titled, “The right’s warped ‘purity’ culture: 4 ways evangelical views of sex took over America,” Ms. McDonough provides an unvarnished glimpse into the profligate mind of the postmodern “progressive.” (Yes, you read that right. Purity is warped and biblical sexual morality has taken over America.)
In what amounts to little more than an anti-Christian hit piece on Patrick Henry College – or “God’s Harvard” as the evidently prone-position-prone journo pejoratively pokes – Ms. McDonough says that it’s time for American women to reject all those biblically imposed “gender complementarian” norms and do away with our “toxic purity culture” once and for all. (Because, just look around. That dang ol’ toxic purity is everywhere. What America really needs is more debauchery.)
It gets better.
Christianity causes rape, McDonough asserts, warning us that we suffer a “convergence of rape culture (whatever that is) and evangelical culture.”
Get that? In this woman’s “progressive” mind, when the lady says, “I’m saving myself for marriage,” the bad guy hears, “Come and get it!” Still, Ms. McDonough does have this much right: It can’t be rape if you’re giving it away like peanuts on the plane.
She goes on: “While it may be tempting to draw a red line around Christian fundamentalist views on gender and sexuality to distinguish them from supposedly evolved ‘secular’ culture, there is considerable, uncomfortable overlap between the two.” (The cognitive dissonance: It hurts!)
So, if I’m understanding her right – and, admittedly, Ms. McDonough’s screed is borderline coherent – what she’s essentially claiming is that, when it comes to sex, both secular America and Christian America are really just one big ball of puritanical prudery.
In fairness, I suppose she could actually believe this. It’s all relative with the relativist. For the “anything goes”-type, Miley Cyrus may well be indistinguishable from the Virgin Mary. When you’re colorblind, everything looks kinda gray.
She continues: “Evangelical Christianity makes visible – through purity pledges and doctrine assigning women the role of man’s ‘helpmate’ – the norms and expectations about female virginity and subservience that so often remain hidden in the secular world.” (Ooh. Loves me some man-hate.)
So, get it? Purity and virginity bad. Impurity and promiscuity good. I’ll give Ms. McDonough this: She calls it like she sees it.
She goes on to make the same tired “war on women” claim we’ve heard so much of lately, warning the would-be chaste that biblical sexual morality is really “only about reproduction and male entitlement.”
She then mocks columnist Susan Patton as “a joke” for “arguing in mainstream publications that women who have sex outside of marriage are setting themselves up for disaster and heartbreak.” (Yeah, and?) This is in response to Patton’s observation in a recent Wall Street Journal column that, “The grandmotherly message of yesterday is still true today: Men won’t buy the cow if the milk is free.” To which, with indignation, McDonough sneers: “This is purity culture passed off as ‘common-sense’ wisdom, which was published in a ‘serious’ and secular paper. In 2014.” (So now “secular” is synonymous with slutty?)
McDonough’s advice? Girls, give away that milk now, ya hear! (To which the frisky-frat-boy “bro-choice” choir sings: “Amen!” Hey, “pro-choice” gals, you do know that most “pro-choice” guys only support your so-called “abortion rights” so that you’ll put out, right?)
Secular-”progressives” like McDonough have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. And today – more than at any point in history – they’re having success in spades. Despite her wincey whines to the contrary, Ms. McDonough knows this to be true.
And so do you.
The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – the left’s own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. Hence, we see a flood of unelected liberal judges, for instance, arbitrarily ramming counterfeit “gay marriage” down the throats of millions of Americans, complete with the threat that Christians either join the delusion – and pretend that sin-centered “same-sex marriage” is real and right – or suffer the consequences.
Another example is Obamacare’s despotic HHS abortion mandate that unconstitutionally requires Christian organizations to cast aside millennia-old church doctrine and get with the postmodern, pro-abort program.
The list goes on.
All of which makes McDonough’s central declaration her most ludicrous: “[O]ne point remains clear,” she proclaims. “Conservatives want to enshrine religiously defined norms about sexuality into law.”
No, Ms. McDonough. The only people “enshrining sexuality” into law are “progressive” social engineers like Barack Obama, Justice Anthony Kennedy and the rest of you godless lefties – hell-bent on taking the screws to America.
Now that is “rape culture.”
On White Liberal Hypocrisy: Smug Diversity Pushers And The Safe White Neighborhoods They Live In
By Frank Borzellieri (I have Frank's 2004 book on my desk as I write this. You can get Don't take it personally here. That's one way to help him. He comments on ethnic matters with rare frankness --JR
The hypocrisy of white liberals over integration and the wonderful enrichment that mass immigration is supposed to bring is the gift that never stops giving. If there is one thing you can be absolutely sure of whenever you hear a white liberal espousing the vital importance of diversity, it is that the same person lives in a safe, lily-white community.
What was termed “white flight” in the 1950s and 1960s is a demographic fact of life and everyone knows it. No less an unwilling witness than the U.S. government has reported what everyone knows: when the non-white population of a community reaches between 10 and 20 percent, whites simply leave. Whites will not live in non-white neighborhoods in any meaningful percentage.[The Residential Preferences of Blacks and Whites: A Four-Metropolis Analysis, Housing Policy Debate, January 1997(PDF)]
I personally, as a libertarian, think all people—black, white, Hispanic, or Asian—should be allowed to live anywhere they want without being browbeaten or forced to live where they don’t want to. My problem is with white liberals who claim that “diversity is strength” but whose actions are very different when it comes to their own lives, their own homes, their own children and their own neighborhoods.
All of this brings me to the particular white liberal hypocrites who have caused me to be fired as a Catholic school principal, not once but twice, for political writings that were never secret and which Monsignor Michael Hull, the “Censor Librorum” of the New York Archdiocese, had already approved as not in violation of Catholic teaching. (See Jared Taylor’s article on the incident [PDF] and this video interview.)
Corinne Lestch, (email her )the New York Daily News reporter who wrote the defamatory 2011 article that threw the New York Archdiocese into panic, is a left-wing activist and who prides herself on destroying people who don’t toe the Politically Correct line on race.
Surely, if there is one white person who must absolutely certainly practice what she so devotedly preaches, it must be Corinne Lestch. But where does Corinne Lestch live? Well, in Bronxville, New York, a town that is 92 percent white and just one percent black! No integration or diversity for Corinne Lestch and her family—just for everyone else!
Fran Davies, [Email her] the public relations director for the Archdiocese of New York, who was instrumental in getting me fired from Our Lady of Mount Carmel School in 2011. Davies is another blowhard when it comes to the great wonders and benefits of racial integration and diversity.
Any diversity for her? Yeah, right. Davies lives in the exclusive town of Bedford, New York, a place that is 88 percent white and 1 percent Hispanic. I guess diversity is only a strength for other people, not for your family, right, Fran?
New York Archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling [Email him] said in an official statement my views were incompatible with Catholic teaching, contrary to what I had been told four years earlier.
Zwilling is nevertheless living more in accordance with my “incompatible” views than with those he claims for the Church—in Franklin Square, New York, which is 92 percent white and less than one percent black! Oh my, Joe, how can you deprive your family of the joyous benefits of multi-racialism that you claim to believe in so much?
Timothy McNiff, [Email him] the school superintendent who answers only to the Cardinal himself. McNiff in a meeting impressed upon me the need to embrace multiculturalism, and actually said “diversity is our strength.” But he lives in the lily-white town of Fairfax Station, Virginia, which is 84 percent white and three percent black!
In a hilarious irony, McNiff and his family live in the same neighborhood as Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance—whom McNiff thinks is a “white supremacist.” But when it comes to his own home and his own family, McNiff prefers the choices and lifestyle of Jared Taylor than the lifestyle he claims to believe in.
Even in the home he has taken in New York, McNiff has chosen a spot on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, which is described by a city website as follows: "For many class-conscious residents, there's simply no other place to live. Since the late 1800s, it has been the place for Manhattanites who value the cachet of their address, as well as for those who truly appreciate the serenity, charm and rich architecture inherent in the neighborhood's personality.
Maybe they have a diverse doorman..."
Well, well. “Class-conscious”; “cachet”; “serenity, charm and rich architecture.” Isn’t that nice? By the way, the Upper East Side is also 89 percent white and only 2 percent black.
Why not live in the black section of Harlem, Tim, which is only a few miles away? What about the south Bronx or Bedford Stuyvesant in Brooklyn, Tim, if diversity is such a strength? Why are you assiduously avoiding this great strength for yourself and your family?
Eric Rapaglia, the priest who fired me, after weeks of assuring me that he would stand by me (and who used my heterodox writings in a Sunday homily). Fr. Rapaglia does live in a largely non-white immigrant neighborhood in the Bronx, but because he is assigned there as a priest. His family on Long Island, Staten Island and Florida all live in white neighborhoods.
Is he going to fire them, too?
This hypocrisy on the part of white liberals who push racial integration on everyone else, yet avoid it in their own lives has become cliché. It’s right up there with death and taxes.
White liberal hypocrisy may be a cliché—but it’s not a joke. It destroys lives. I would end this article with a picture of my own residence, but having lost two jobs and exhausted my savings, I am now homeless.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.