In the words of Andrew Marr: "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."The first major hint to ordinary members of the public should be that when looking for new workers it only advertises in the Guardian 'newspaper'. That should start the alarm bells. This minority newspaper, whilst losing circulation month by month, is the preserve of the millionaire socialists that wish to control us. Within its pages are articles of the most obscure opinions. Left-wing and 'liberal' radicalism abounds without any need for fact checking, logic or sense. These articles are lapped up by those who cannot think for themselves, and then are the only ones available to apply for jobs within the BBC. The result is a culture of left wing stupidity and bias infesting the BBC.
This left wing bias allowed such people as once disgraced cocaine user Richard Bacon six hours of unchecked radio airtime in order to crow excitedly as Obama was elected for a second term, rather than provide a balanced unbiased commentary on the American election.
The Guardian agenda includes replacing the conventional religions with the new age religions favoured by the millionaire socialists who always manage to benefit financially from the furtherance of their belief. A classic example of this is the man-made climate change religion.
In 2006 the BBC held a meeting of a lot of activists and a few scientists, all receiving funding for their various stances on promoting the man-made climate change scare. During it they reaffirmed their position with regard to the new religion. It was to be promoted as a 'fact' in future BBC output without any need to provide balance from the scientists providing data that disputed the end of the world scenarios.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, various attempts have been made to discover who exactly was asked to attend this 'secret' meeting, and who attended. The BBC has been fighting this request through the courts in a battle which has continued for some years now. It appears to be highly important to keep secret the identities of those who decided this aspect of the BBC's editorial stance. Would a neutral, unbiased, non-agenda led BBC do this? Of course not.
More recently one has to wonder about the eagerness to smear "a leading Conservative politician from Margaret Thatcher's government" with child abuse accusations. Well, one doesn't have to wonder for too long. There are a number of words that are hated by the Guardian and the BBC. "Margaret Thatcher" as a phrase still makes them spit bile, and of course as they are all aspiring millionaire socialists, they hate the Tories. A nice story set to defame the Tories is far too good to let pass by. As usual, no need for any fact checking. And, of course, it deflected the gaze away from the BBC itself. The story passes the 'agenda test' with first class honours, which is why it took the lead on the BBC's Newsnight programme. Unfortunately for them it was a lie.
In America most media is in the control of the 'liberals', with the possible exception of Fox, which appears to be controlled by Genghis Khan, and there is no real requirement for them to be neutral. In this country broadcast media should be impartial. Newsprint isn't required to be impartial. Hence why it's ok for the Guardian to spout its left wing radicalism, but not ok for the BBC to copy it.
The lack of interest in exposing BBC employee Jimmy Savile's underage sex within its various dressing rooms, green rooms, and studios is also telling of how the BBC is also of the mindset to 'cover its ass' when anybody dares to challenge or question it.
As I said at the top, the BBC should be brilliant, but it's broken. It needs to be fixed.