What Is "The Establishment"?

You mean, like . . . the BBC?Yeah, right, they don't serve the wealth or political elites.

Ahh, just like old times.Yeah, you're right, it's a LITTLE pet peeve of mine to care that so many innocent lives are oppressed/crushed for the benefit of so few. I am certainly worthy of your disdain, good job Straggler.As a father, I hope you don't teach your child to be an apathetic ass. But that IS the unique quality that the establishment wants you to have. Yeaaah BBC! Mission accomplished! Ahhh, the desperate conflation. Gee I miss Crashfrog's honest debate tactics too. Let me try one too: "Just bear in mind you and Mussolini both drank water." Yes, a publicly funded service provider that serves the establishment. That you seem to think it can't be both is a bewilderment.Why don't 100% of Brits demand that Tony Blair hangs? Show me repeated BBC articles calling for Tony Blair's hanging as a war criminal. That WOULD be a public service. He is guilty of the supreme international crime, war of aggression. There is no higher crime. Yet he walks freely amongst you Brits. What is the BBC waiting for?If the BBC was doing their job "providing for the public," for the masses over the few elites interests, why do the Brits support the USA's foreign policies like a cowardly little poodle? I'd be mortified.I leave it to you Straggler to show me why, if BBC is doing such a great job in educating the common Brit, "providing for the public," why isn't Britian a utopia?Why?I'll wait.

Hi Xongs, Hah! It won't happen in america because we don't have the incredible humanitarian BBC to provide those wonderful public service announcements for the benefit of society. How great can the BBC be if british society is every bit sociopathic as american society? My god, how many times was arch-villain Thatcher elected? Face it, for all the "good" BBC does, the brits might as well have Faux News.

Um, ask Tony Blair. You can be sure if I (not a member of the establishment) murdered a million people, I wouldn't be free to walk around your society.

quote:

---

Years of Rape and ‘Utter Contempt’ in Britain

​

. . . at least 1,400 children, some as young as 11, were groomed for sexual exploitation while the authorities looked the other way.

​

But the report also outlined how those victims and parents who did ask for help were mostly let down by the police and social services,

​

for years there was an undeniable culture of institutional sexism. Her investigation heard that police referred to victims as tarts and to the girls’ abuse as a lifestyle choice.

​

Life in an English Town Where Abuse of Young Girls Flourished - The New York Times

---

Yep, I can easily see how you think you are living in a utopia all right.God bless the BBC, . . . boy you certainly don't see things like this happening in other places without such great BBC public servicing.And if history is any indication, . . . if anybody can investigate sexual abuse of children, the BBC surely can.Yeaaah BBC!!!

Oh my goodness, I feel like an ass.Here I am going on and on about trifling minutia (1,400 children systematically gang-raped and then disregarded by the british authorities and british support of war criminals who murder nearly a million civilians) and then find you had a terrible accident in your automobile . . . the topcoat of the finish was marred. Gasp.Tangle, I hope aren't suffering from lingering trauma or latent physical injuries. Gosh, this is a million times worse than what those darn-awful, terrorist-children in Gaza are experiencing.Ahem, . . .You and Straggler have clearly demonstrated that the media (part of the establishment), INCLUDING the "publicly funded service provider" BBC, contributes to british ignorance and public apathy. Here's more evidence . . .

quote:

---

The BBC’s Rightwing Bias

​

The truth is the BBC is stacked full of rightwingers. The chairman of the BBC Trust is Chris Patten, a former Conservative cabinet minister. The BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, was once chairman of the Young Conservatives. His former senior political producer, Thea Rogers, became George Osborne’s special advisor in 2012. Andrew Neil, the presenter of the BBC’s flagship political programmes Daily Politics and This Week, is chairman of the conservative Spectator magazine. His editor is Robbie Gibb, former chief of staff to the Tory Francis Maude. After the BBC’s economics editor Stephanie Flanders left for a 400,000-a-year job at that notorious leftwing hotbed, JP Morgan, she was replaced by its business editor Robert Peston. His position was taken by Kamal Ahmed from the rightwing Sunday Telegraph, a journalist damned by the Guardian’s Nick Davies for spinning government propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq war.

​

A study by Cardiff University academics found that while there is always a bias towards political incumbents, the ratio in favour of Conservative politicians appearing on BBC news is fargreater than it was in favour of Labour figures when Gordon Brown wasprime minister. Business representatives appear much more than they do on commercial news, and appear 19 times more frequently than trade union voiceson the BBC Six O’Clock News.

​

. . . the BBC’s agenda will be shaped by supporters of government, big business, the free market and western foreign policy.

---

". . . supporters of government, big business, the free market and western foreign policy." In other words, "the establishment!"

quote:

---

Zcomm » The BBC’s Rightwing Bias

---

quote:

---

Debating a BBC journalist about ComRes poll on Iraq War deaths

​

Readers are more than ten times as likely to find an article on the BBC citing a few Bush era officials, never mind Bush or Blair themselves, than any person or group who has done work on the human cost of the Iraq war. Coverage of the human cost represented a very small percentage of the BBC’s Iraq war output.

​

There is simply nohonest way to absolve the establishment media for imposing ignoranceon the public.

​

Zcomm » Debating a BBC journalist about ComRes poll on Iraq War deaths

---

Lastly, from the Cardiff University, a major content analysis of BBC coverage . . .

quote:

---

Hard Evidence: how biased is theBBC?

​

So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.
Hard Evidence: how biased is the BBC?

---

Perhaps, but IMO, reporting the information surely isn't as bad as actually supporting the mass murder of children. Although I'd guess someone like you would disagree.

You just had to include that last part "albeit a tad heavily", didn't you? When I give compliments, there are no lagging back-handedness . . . Oh I recognized your irony all right - albeit it was a tad flimsy and undirectional. Sorry, I am not the Amazing Kreskin, what is this specifically referencing/counter-arguing? Can you expand on your, umm, "fully fleshed out argument"? It might be helpful for you if you read the entire links I provided. The articles are not that long.

And Tangle said I couldn't recognise irony. Good job CS!

*Chuckle*And you said I couldn't recognize irony! Well that was a rather poor attempt at marginalizing my argument. You really didn't try to understand, or didn't read any of my links. "Cherry-picked quotes," huh? Really, most of your posts were replies of irony. If this is the shallow depth of your attempt at understanding my argument, why did you even bother? Really, did I communicate that? Wow, talk about epic failure to comprehend. Brain engaged much? I was clearly referring to the authorities apathetic reactions to the abuse. Try actually reading the quotes I provided: Media CAN and DOES influence. There have been studies that show Fox News viewers are less correctly informed than non-viewers. The Rotherham case was presented as ONE piece of evidence to show the type of apathetic society the media, including the BBC, has purposefully created . . .One measure of a society is how it takes care of their most vulnerable: woman, children, and minorities. The recent case in Rotherham shows the british authorities disregarding the children's (the victims!) screams for help. The police couldn't empathize less. If the brits were civilized they would tar and feather the entire Rotherham police department. Like they should tar and feather Tony Blair . . .The Brits elected Tony Blair, they supported him. They continue to support him.

quote:

---

Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.
― Martin Luther King Jr.

---

Tony Blair (and other immoral simpletons) illegally and immorally launched the Iraqi war based on "fixed the data." It was a war of aggression. A supreme international crime. There is no crime that is more evil. The criminal invasion caused nearly a million innocent deaths in Iraq. It also precipitated ALL the problems in Iraq today. Yes, ALL. Furthermore, it is causing MORE terrorism in the world today.For all this, the brits allow Blair to freely walk the streets of england. Mind-blowingly amazing! Someone, point me to the humanitarian BBC article that urges Blair be indicted for war crimes. Where is it?!

quote:

---

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. ~ Martin Luther King

---

Another measure of a society is how it embraces justice. For all. A free Tony Blair IS evidence that brits care very little about justice.Why?1. Possibly, the brits are sociopathic twits whose centuries of oppressive british empire cause them to reflexively and euro-centrically look upon others as sub-human. Thus, they feel no guilt for the atrocities they cause today. (Ask an average american how he feels about the historical slaughter of the american indian). So whatever crimes the BBC's omissions of guilt and right-bias cause, they are not recognized, they are not perceived. Instead, at best they are marginalized, and are easily absorbed by a british society that has no moral compass.2. Or possibly the brits are apathetic simpletons easily led by a purposefully misleading media. (It would explain Straggler's apathetic words "your little pet peeve.")In conclusion . . .No Tangle, I didn't 'cherry pick' mere quotes, you very well know that. There IS evidence that the BBC has a right-wing bias. In addition to showing the Tony Blair and Rotherham evidence, I presented evidence of the Right's hierarchy of the leadership at the BBC. Read the full article. I also presented evidence of a study from the Cardiff University. Read the full article. And I can easily go on showing more specific instances of BBC's right-wing bias.All these pieces of evidence lead up to this question: does Brit society favor the establishment, the 1%ers, the rich elite? or does the Brit society favor the community, the 99%ers? With evidence I showed above, I think it is the former. Even usually apathetic Straggler seems to agree: So, if you agree with Strag and I that the 1%ers are winning, how in the world do you harmonize the conflicting BBC's supposed humanitarian left-wing or even centrist-bias influence on society?And if you just want to dismiss my arguments without engaging YOUR brain, save both our time and energy, do the usual carnival-barking that CS does: call me a liar and call it a day.

Gosh, in hindsight, your confusion is understandable. If I had only summarized my ranting argument and placed it underneath a separated title named "In Conclusion . . ."