|
26/1/02 Intellectual
Phonies at the BBC The
Late Review is supposedly a highly-reputed BBC Arts programme chaired mostly
by
Mark Lawson.
Every week, a panel of three art
'experts' are brought together to discuss with Mr Lawson some of the topical
events taking place in the art world; books, films, fine art, modern art,
theatre, TV, and so on.
In this evening's programme, the panel
reviewed the film In The Bedroom.
According to Bonnie Greer, the film was
'misogynistic' and she hotly lambasted it for portraying women in a negative
light.
You see, the panelists on the The Late
Review seem always unable to consider any piece worthy of note unless it
portrays women in a positive light. And this reference to something or other
being 'misogynistic' has gone on, and on, and on, and on, for at least the seven
or eight years that I have been forced to watch the programme because the missus
likes it so much.
And what irritates me is this.
I have YET to see ANYONE on the programme
describe the piece under discussion as being 'misandric' - or in any way
'men-hating', or 'male-bashing'.
SEVEN YEARS!???
And ALL that they can EVER see is
misogyny!
Never. Ever. Ever - a single case of misandry.
NOT ONE!
How can this possibly be so?
1. Is it the case that the panelists can
NEVER see any misandry or evidence of man-hating in the pieces under
discussion?
Well, if this is the case then they must
be well and truly BLIND.
They are not nearly as clever nor as
perceptive as they clearly think themselves to be.
Men are portrayed across the board in the
media as child
abusers, wife beaters, sexual harassers, thugs, fraudsters, paedophiles,
rapists, gangsters - together with many other things - and NOT ONE of the
panelists IN SEVEN YEARS has EVER made ANY
mention of it! - despite forever noticing misogyny in the most trivial of
circumstances!
So, why is the BBC wasting the taxpayer's
money, year after year, paying BLIND panelists with little perceptive ability to
masquerade as intellectuals who are supposedly able to penetrate, and to elucidate to us
all, the mysteries of the pieces under discussion?
They clearly are not capable of it.
Indeed, given the many years that the
programme has run, this would actually suggest that the panelists may even be selected by
the BBC for their glaring intellectual deficiencies.
2. On the other hand, perhaps the panelists can, indeed, see
the misandry in many of the pieces that they discuss.
But, if this is the case, then why do
they NEVER mention it?
And I do mean NEVER.
And, if this is the case, then it must
mean that Mark Lawson and his panelists are, quite simply, intellectual FRAUDS.
They are not really there to elucidate any
truths or to discuss the arts openly and seriously. They are simply there to
play politics and disseminate feminist and politically-correct propaganda.
Now, the BBC's Charter requires the BBC
to be impartial when it comes to politics and gender issues.
And the LAW requires it to follow its
charter.
And so if the panelists are refusing to,
or are prevented from, talking about aspects that are decidedly misandric in
nature, then this would be clear evidence not only of them being deceitful, but
also that the BBC is KNOWINGLY breaking its Charter - and hence the law.
3. Another possibility is that no 'misandric' material
is ever discussed in the Late Review. The BBC
(presumably through Mark Lawson) simply never discusses pieces that are
'misandric'.
When it comes to gender bashing items, the
BBC only allows 'misogynistic'
material to be discussed in its programmes.
But, if this is true, then, again, the
BBC must be in breach of its Charter - which requires it to be impartial and fair
toward the genders.
And, of course, the panelists themselves are
implicated in all of this; either, unknowingly, because they are BLIND, and they have been selected
for their blinkered views, or, knowingly, in which case they are FRAUDS.
And, most likely, BOTH!
In summary, the people involved with this
programme either ...
... NEVER notice any misandry,
or
... notice it but NEVER mention it,
or
... are NEVER allowed to review material that
is misandric in nature!
In other words, whichever way you look at it, The Late
Review is clearly little more than a feminist-controlled piece of BBC
television, masquerading as a serious arts review programme, and presenting its
panelists as being of high-intellect and integrity, when, in fact, they are,
knowingly or otherwise, little more than mouthpieces for political-correctness
and the feminist movement.
The whole thing is a FRAUD.
And the BBC is breaking the law by
continuing to put it on the air.
What makes this programme
particularly insidious is the fact that it is very strongly associated
with Newsnight, which is a BBC 'flagship' NEWS
programme. (The Late Review comes right after Newsnight, in the same studio and,
often, with the same presenter.)
As such, one must assume that the
information presented in the Newsnight programme itself - the flagship
BBC News programme - is just as biased and deceitful as The Late Review.
Well. The BBC once had a very strong reputation
for providing people with the news in the most objective way possible. And many millions of people throughout the
world still believe this to be the case. Indeed, many people rely very heavily upon the
information and ideas that emanate from the BBC - especially when their own news sources are absent or suspect.
And so important is the BBC considered to be,
that it is even funded by a licence fee which just about everyone in the UK
(even the blind!) is forced to pay if they happen to own a television set. (This
means that it doesn't have to compete financially with all the other channels.)
Indeed, the BBC is, allegedly, an important
public 'service'!
But here is The Late Review (and, indeed,
Newsnight itself) letting down the whole organisation, ruining its hard-earned
reputation for objective journalism, and jeopardising the futures and
credibility of BBC journalists, simply in order to appease the feminists and the
politically correct - and without even, it would seem, much in the way of giving
any proper regard to the social consequences of what it is doing.
Indeed, being forced to fund the BBC these
days seems increasingly like being forced to fund the hate-mongering of the
feminist movement.
As such, the BBC is now less of a public service and
more of a public liability.
Also see AH's Women actually shown behaving badly by the BBC!
|
