This week, I watched a BBC political programme. It is very popular. This episode shocked me. Nothing obviously shocking. But as a tireless media commentator, it was shocking to me.
The programme series is entitled ˜Daily Politics™ and was recorded and broadcast in the UK on Thursday, 12th September. It only lasts around ten minutes and can be found on Youtube as well. Simply type something like œGeorge Galloway kills Daily Politics’ Jo Coburn on Syria.”
Reminding you of the BBC™s authority
Not too long ago, the BBC used to have an arm known as the BBC Empire Service. Today, the BBC itself is run very much like an empire, using pawns to win a media war, appointing three main categories of troops as follows:
1) Employing thousands of industrious Trolls to produce and broadcast its programmes;
2) Utilising hundreds of elite Advocates of its core policies;
3) Engaging with hundreds of notable Flag-Bearers to dazzle vulnerable civilians.
Of course, the BBC wants us, the pathetic gullible members of the British public to give it money for its survival; feeding it with our Broken Britain money like a demanding media beast. Well, I say the BBC wants us to give it money. Actually, it orders us to give it money; it commands us to give it money; it threatens us to give it money. In fact, if we do not give it money, it will prosecute us, and send us to prison.
Of course, the BBC, with its dazzling Flag-Bearers, convinces us that it is worth it. Ok, fine. It has some good shows. But so does my local circus. Some of the elephants there are amazing. But I don™t have to go to the circus just because it™s worth it. I can choose to go there.
In the alternative, the dazzling Flag-Bearers say that the BBC is a service that is provided, so we should pay for it. And the dazzling Flag-Bearers assign a beautiful name for the money the BBC orders us to pay. It™s called a œlicence-fee.” It™s a service – you know – like for a telephone line or a gas bill.
It™s nothing like a telephone line or a gas bill. Because if I don™t pay for my telephone line or my gas bill, I don™t get a criminal record. Whereas if I don™t pay the BBC, not only can I get a criminal record, but I can go to prison!
But surely the BBC, the lover of peace, knowledge and social harmony wouldn™t actually prosecute me, would they?
Yes, they would. In fact, if you™re eating, please stop. If you™re drinking, please stop. Because this statistic may make you choke. I don™t know how to say it, so I™ll just say it. Out of all the criminal prosecutions in the UK, do you know how many of those prosecutions are started by the BBC against people not paying the licence-fee? The answer is hidden in this article. In fact, when you do find it, choke. Because you should not forget the time when you read it.
The BBC™s recruitment of its stampeding Trolls
The recruitment of Jo Coburn herself was not a mistake. She is a Troll, but not just in appearance. Her mind, also, resembles that of a Troll.
Slow, clunky, irrational… dead.
Putting it simply, as Jo Coburn would like it, the BBC loves propaganda. It needs the half-witted Trolls it employs to deliver the well-oiled attacks against people and countries; attacks that were advised by its strategists. It needs the half-witted Trolls to stampede through towns and villages head-butting civilians without caring for damage incurred to their foreheads.
But what the BBC does not love is when a rogue Troll, every now and again, dents the BBC™s image, which the BBC has tried so hard to protect by utilising its dazzling Flag-Bearers.
Where the BBC most needs its propaganda to work is in politics. And one programme that delivers the propaganda for Britain™s daily core politics is the suitably named ˜Daily Politics.™
So important is this programme that the BBC needs to ensure that, as with all the programmes that I have analysed over the past twelve years, the propaganda must be delivered by the Trolls, but disguised behind its dazzling Flag-Bearers; one such Flag-Bearer being Andrew Neil, the accomplished journalist who says his greatest achievement as the editor of the Sunday Times was revealing Israel™s nuclear weapons programme. Did he do this to promote Israel™s military might or to reveal Israel™s aggressive nature? You decide.
Nevertheless, in order to balance this apparent critic of Israel in Andrew Neil, the BBC needed to balance him by employing Israel-loving Trolls for the Daily Politics show.
One of these Israel-loving Trolls to balance Andrew Neil was a woman called Daisy McAndrew.
Who is Daisy McAndrew? Surely she would have to be a Zionist to balance Andrew Neil. Well, yes actually. Daisy McAndrew is a Zionist, even though she has, in the past, criticised Israel™s treatment of children protesting in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, she has described herself on Israeli television as a œliberal” Zionist who œchampioned” Israel™s defeat of Hezbollah in 2006. Hezbollah was defeated? Oh dear, she must have been watching something else.
In 2010, she repeated her support for Israel as the guest speaker at a Jewish charity event organised by rich businessmen working in the industry of mergers and acquisitions, something that Zionists do best. The charity is called ˜Norwood™ and its team is slightly disturbing.
Who™s on the team of this charity?
Well, a patron of this charity that the BBC™s Daisy McAndrew supported is Cherie Blair, the wife of the yet-to-be-arrested war criminal, Tony Blair, who fairly recently, and quite typically, employed his own Troll for his office. Who did he employ? He employed a former Israeli army intelligence officer. This is while Tony Blair is the so-called Middle East œenvoy.” I wonder whose side he™s on.
Another patron of the charity that the BBC™s Daisy McAndrew supported is Zionist Norma Brier. This woman was very supportive of the dead child abuser, Jimmy Saville; himself being a staunch supporter of Israel™s aggression against surrounding Arab nations. Indeed, Jimmy Saville, in 1975, criticised the Israeli Cabinet for being too œsoft” after the Six Day War.
An Honorary Life President of the charity that the BBC™s Daisy McAndrew supported is Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. I won™t waste your time telling you about him. The family name speaks for itself.
But then, Daisy McAndrew left the BBC™s Daily Politics, so she had to be replaced. And she was replaced strategically by Jenny Scott. Although Jenny Scott has never, to my knowledge, actually stated that she is a Zionist, we do know that one of her stated goals in life was to help develop Israel™s economy in the 21st Century. Indeed, when she had heard that a mutual friend, Mark Carney, would soon become the Governor of the Bank of England, she applied immediately to become the adviser to the Governor of the Bank of England. And she succeeded. In 2008, she left the BBC and became the Bank of England Governor™s adviser. A few years later, her friend, Mark Carney, became the new Governor. Of course, he had already spent thirteen years at Zionist-run bank Goldman Sachs learning the art of heavy-weight commercial banking.
So, now two Troll presenters had come and gone from the BBC Daily Politics show. But the BBC could not have its propaganda delivered by non-Zionists. So it had to recruit a third Troll. And it did. Jo Coburn – the English Jewish journalist who describes herself as a œliberal” Jew and œsympathiser” of the Zionist movement.
In 2011, Zionist Jo Coburn attended and supported ˜Liberal Judaism Day™ at the Liberal Jewish Synagogue in St John™s Wood, London. Also in attendance was executive editor of the right-wing The Times newspaper Daniel Finkelstein and Liberal Judaism chief executive Rabbi Danny Rich. The event held more than sixty seminars, including discussions about Jewish practices, Zionism and how to make the case for Israel; important subjects to learn to succeed in dazzling ordinary people into believing that there is a valid case for Israel without actually making it look like an argument in favour of Israel.
Jo Coburn™s Troll behaviour
This week, the BBC wanted to make its 4369th case for war on Syria in order to advance its mother™s interests in the Middle East and to protect its ally, Israel.
The BBC™s Troll was Jo Coburn. Its dazzling Flag-Bearer was Baroness Neville Jones, a truly exceptional member of the British elite. After all, she was a career member of the Queen™s Diplomatic Service for over thirty years, from 1963 to 1996. During these years of service to the Queen, she served in British Missions in Washington D.C., Rhodesia and Singapore. She was also recently the Minister of State for Security and Counter Terrorism. For this lady, diplomacy, composure and deception are as easy as dunking a cookie into a cup of coffee.
Of course, no case can be made for war unless it is made against the arch-antagonist of war, George Galloway. Yes, he was on the show as the œother guest” – a big mistake if you want to win a war of words.
But the show began well. The BBC used its Troll, Jo Coburn, to do what it does best – lead you into believing that it is forgiving to Galloway, the anti-British Empire guest. How so? Because the opportunity to speak first was given to Galloway. The BBC doesn™t want to shut down its opponents – the BBC is impartial. Well, that™s nice.
Now, you™re feeling comfortable. With the BBC being this nice, they must be on the right side of morality. Whatever concept they leave me with, it will taste right.
Indeed, whatever concept the BBC leaves you with, it will taste right, the emphasis being on the word leave. Because, by presenting you with Galloway™s views first, it will trigger an order of conversations back and forth between the two guests until the only fair ending is that the other guest be given the final word, in this case, the BBC™s dazzling Flag-Bearer, Baroness Neville Jones. And of course, this is what happened at the end on this show.
So by presenting you with Galloway™s voice first, the BBC succeeds in two areas: firstly, it gives you a false sense of impartiality; and secondly, it ends on its own terms, its own editorial line, in line with its mother, the British Foreign Office.
But this would not be easy with Galloway ready to pounce at every opportunity he could get. At around 3 minutes and 23 seconds into the debate, and in response to the Baroness™s dismissal of President Bashar al-Assad as unsavoury, Galloway confronts her hypocrisy,
œWhy did you billet him with the Queen, then? Why did you billet him with the Queen? You were one of the people that advised the Queen to have him in her spare bedroom. Why did you do that?”
Clearly, despite Galloway™s torrent of questions, the dazzling Flag-Bearer Baroness does not quiver at her knees and fall prey to Galloway™s questions by defending her position. In fact, she does not even respond, let alone ridicule him. As we will see later, not everyone shares her skill in composure.
The debate would have probably continued successfully in favour of the BBC had it not been for the Troll that is Jo Coburn being unable to control herself. Because the turning point is at around 5 minutes and 41 seconds into the debate when, in criticising the BBC for its war-mongering output with regards to Syria, which in my opinion has been unprecedented, Galloway says,
œ… the BBC, which is funded by public opinion, or public who have that opinion, really ought to wise up, because your role as the war-time propaganda mouthpiece is really infuriating people the length and breadth of this country.”
As this attack by Galloway is intolerable to the Troll that is Jo Coburn, because of the protocols taught to her by the BBC in shutting down people who make any suggestion that the BBC is a mouthpiece of the British Foreign Office, Jo Coburn immediately responds by sticking her hand out at Galloway and rebuking him, saying,
œGeorge Galloway, that™s, that™s just you being deliberately provocative.”
Galloway then remarks that the BBC, by so evidently backing a British war on Syria in its programming, would eventually lose the licence-fee. He says,
œYou™re going to lose the licence-fee over this.”
It was patently clear that by using the word œYou,” Galloway is referring to the BBC, not to Jo Coburn herself. Yet, so difficult is this type of rationale for Jo Coburn to register, that she takes Galloway™s warning personally and responds by idiotically saying,
œYou don™t have to threaten me”
as though she™s in a T-shirt and jeans smoking outside a restaurant having a row with a builder. Her response is immature, irrational and unjournalistic. The BBC™s image in this episode of the show is beginning to crack open.
Jo Coburn then begins claiming that Galloway™s theory that the chemical weapon attack was not committed by either the Syrian government or its military œgoes against all of the intelligence”. She first uses the word œall” in relation to the intelligence; not because this is actually true but because she is not really an accuracy-seeking journalist. Rather, she follows her passions, her impulses, her anger. Yes, she is still angry with Galloway™s earlier attack on the credibility of the BBC, and therefore by extension, her own credibility.
[By the way, I™ll give you the answer to the question posed earlier in this rant of mine, which was œOut of all the criminal prosecutions in the UK, do you know how many are started by the BBC against people not paying the licence-fee?” The answer is one in ten. That™s right. One in ten of all prosecutions in the UK is commenced by the BBC for us poor tramps not paying their mandatory licence-fee. One in ten.]
Back to Jo Coburn™s erratic Zionist-led behaviour on the show. Of course, due to her training, she immediately remembers that she must comply with the BBC™s dazzling image of news accuracy. She therefore quickly qualifies her claim of œall” intelligence by now saying that Galloway™s theory goes against œmost” of the intelligence, not œall” the intelligence.
Most vulnerable guests would have retreated by now and maybe have changed the subject in order to preserve their image. But not Galloway. He begins questioning her about this œintelligence” that she claims he opposes. Clearly unable to respond to his question, Jo Coburn does what many journalists could not even dream of doing. She begins to act defensive, and, slightly furious. Realising she doesn™t have an answer, she responds by asking the same question back to Galloway. With the maturity of an unintelligent eleven-year old, she asks him,
œWhere™s your evidence to say it wasn™t.”
And then again, like a child, unable to realise that repetition does not mean victory, she tries to win the debate, not by actually arguing her position in a coherent and intellectual manner, but rather by simply repeating her question, only this time more forcefully, trying to shut him up,
œWhere™s your evidence to say that it wasn™t Assad™s regime…”
Jo Coburn™s blind animosity towards the Assad regime is apparent from her lack of composure. Why does she not just answer Galloway™s question?
Next, is the killer blow. The punch in the BBC™s throat – a simple mannerism – but one that is so telling of this Troll™s mind-set that you almost forget you™re watching a serious programme.
At around 6 minutes and 23 seconds into the debate, Galloway says that his theory about the chemical attack is backed by logic. What does Jo Coburn do? Like a moron, who is unfamiliar with knowing how to challenge someone with argument, she instead rolls her eyes and turns away from him in a dismissive manner, trying to ridicule him.
Who is this woman?
Then, at around 7 minutes and 22 seconds into the debate, the Troll introduces a video clip from a phone-in show that Galloway presents on Press TV, which is an Iranian-based news channel that has had its own fair share of controversy over its relentless coverage of Israeli aggression. In the video clip, Galloway states his theory at the time, which was that the chemical weapons used in the attack by rebels in Syria were supplied by Israel.
Given the poor quality of the video clip, it is evidently clear that Press TV has not provided the clip to the producers of the show. So I immediately think, œThe BBC has just ripped this clip from Youtube!”
By the way, following the show, I immediately telephoned the BBC to check whether it had indeed bought the clip from Press TV. After speaking with several admittedly polite researchers, I was passed onto the show™s producer who, in short, told me that he did not have to give me his name as he was a freelancer and secondly that the BBC had not bought the clip from Press TV because it was only a short clip and therefore they did not need to pay for it. He must have thought he was talking to an idiot. I told him that even if this were the case, would it not have been at least responsible to obtain permission from Press TV, or at least inform them. He dismissed my point as irrelevant. I then told him that if he is indeed correct that a broadcaster does not have to pay for short clips, then he should inform all the news providers in the UK to tell them channels don™t need to pay anything for short clips. I corrected him and told him that the length of a clip is irrelevant and it is not a legitimate defence stipulated by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. I then added that the BBC would not even be able to argue that they had used the footage for critique. Why? Because the actual critique was intended for Galloway, not his show, and Galloway was already sat there in the studio right in front of Jo Coburn available for receiving critique.
No, the real reason for showing the footage was to ridicule Galloway, not to critique the Press TV programme.
At this point, the nameless BBC œproducer” on the phone shrivelled up and mumbled the thirty-second remainder of the conversation, which ended with him saying that the BBC™s acquisition of footage is œconfidential” at which point I said, œBut I™m paying for it” and then he hung up. I am tempted to complain about the BBC™s treatment of me on the phone. But do you know who deals with these complaints? The BBC Trust. That™s right. Complaints about the BBC, which we have to pay for, is dealt with by the BBC Trust. That™s like complaints about the Israel Defense Force being dealt with by the Israel Defense Force Trust.
You see, the BBC treats the British public as idiots. The BBC is comfortable with its guaranteed salaries, paid for by the British public, who themselves are either jobless, redundant or part of the statistic that places Britain the fourth worst in Europe for wage rates. Shocking, I know.
Back to Jo Coburn: following the pirated footage from Press TV, Troll Jo Coburn then poses a question to Galloway but in the manner of a truly unintelligent child. She grudgingly asks, œWhere™s your evidence?” Note that she quite embarrassingly uses the same phraseology as that already used by Galloway earlier in the debate. She must, quite unjournalistically, feel scarred by Galloway™s earlier slam-dunk and so she believes that by using the same phraseology, it will now guarantee her own success this time round.
As Galloway begins rationalising his theory about who he really believes launched the chemical attack and by which government the chemical weapons were supplied, Jo Coburn blindly accuses Galloway of just throwing out conspiracy theories.
Galloway then tries to explain to the now deaf Troll sitting in the studio the logic behind his theory, which he had already told her was a theory. And, rather than intelligently finding holes in the logic, she responds by saying, œYour logic.”
Galloway then responds with something that would rattle the pebble of a mind that knocks about in Jo™s head; something to which Baroness Neville Jones sitting quietly opposite would not react. Galloway says,
œYou see, you don™t know this because you™re not a specialist in the area and I don™t blame you for that.”
I then see a reaction from Jo Coburn; one that I have never seen in a British journalist. American journalists? Sure. Many times. Particularly on Fox News.
But from a British journalist? Never. At least not recently.
The sin of a chef is to use microwavable food in a restaurant; the sin of a PhD student is to plagiarise; the sin of a U.S. President is to not start a war; the sin of a journalist is to become emotional, impassioned, partial or heated. And that is exactly what Jo Coburn, the BBC™s Troll, having replaced two previous Zionists, does on national television. She becomes impassioned, insulted, offended. She cannot tolerate what Galloway had just said. To say Jo Coburn is not a specialist because of her distressing lack of understanding of matters relating to the Middle East is like telling Anjem Choudary that he™s not a Qur™an-compliant Muslim because, well, his rhetoric belongs to the Umayyad Dynasty, not the Prophet Muhammad™s.
No, that™s not a good example. Because Anjem Choudary, whilst clearly confused, has the level of composure unimaginable by Jo Coburn. Jo Coburn is more like… a spoilt, unintelligent brat. Yep, that™s good enough for me. She™s a brat, excessively unintelligent.
What Jo Coburn does reflects her disturbing lack of professionalism. How she could ever be hired for another serious television programme in the future is beyond me. No one could really take her seriously; certainly not for issues relating to the Middle East. There may be some opportunities for her on Fox News.
Rather than ignoring Galloway™s remark of her not being a specialist, as would the more serious and accomplished journalists of the BBC, the now increasingly redundant Troll, in response to Galloway™s remark that she is not a specialist, looks at the camera and sarcastically scoffs,
œAnd you are!”
Seriously, what journalist does that?
Not only is she being unprofessionally sarcastic, but rather than looking at him, which would imply he is someone worthy of her stare; or, rather than looking at her notes or the ground, which would imply humility; or even rather than looking at the other guest, which would imply only a silent disregard for Galloway, she looks directly at the camera. This is something that is done only when intending to speak to the viewers. By looking at the camera, Jo Coburn is sharing with the viewers her dismissal of Galloway in order to ridicule him further. This is the psychology employed by snotty teenage girls in school playgrounds around the world in order to sneer their opponents. They have not matured to articulate their position. So instead, they use their bodies to dismiss their opponent™s argument. Like baboons, unable to communicate by way of an advanced system of language.
The childish scoff, œAnd you are!” is still ringing in my head.
She then rolls her eyes again, immaturely, and looks at her other guest for approval, whilst ridiculing Galloway with her facial expressions.
But Galloway, as the guest, quite rightly responds to her sarcastic scoff by saying that he is actually a specialist, and that this is precisely why Jo Coburn asked him to appear on the programme in the first place. Jo, very stupidly, says, œIs that right?” To which, Galloway very cleverly, and amusingly, says,
œWhy did you bring me here then? Because I™m the MP for Bradford.”
At this point, my skull almost cracked as the word, œexactly!” shot across my mind.
What a great juxtaposition! Of course! If Galloway were not a specialist in the area, why would he have been invited for his opinion. Because he™s the MP of a town in England? Jo Coburn has again embarrassed the BBC. She has long lost any hope of recouping any credibility. She has also long lost the point of the programme. She doesn™t actually care about the arguments, or the debate. She heard from someone, somewhere, that the rhetoric from Galloway, Iran, Press TV, anti-imperialism movements, anti-Zionism movements and anti-Marks & Spancers movements must be stopped. They must be stopped. It doesn™t matter how.
If it were not for the presence of viewers of this show, she would have probably viciously swung her Troll arms at Galloway to slap his intelligence out of him.
Luckily the cameras were rolling.
Towards the end of the British Foreign Office propaganda show, as I stated earlier, the first voice was given to Galloway to provide you with a false sense of impartiality. This ensures that the final word will now be presented by the dazzling Flag-Bearer to present the final word. And of course, this is what happens.
To conclude the show, Jo Coburn could easily just thank both guests. This way, the BBC may actually end up neutralising Galloway™s victory in this show of bias. But instead, Jo Coburn does something else, which to be honest, no one does. I certainly have never, ever seen it anywhere, nor would I even imagine it to be seen anywhere. For a BBC Troll presenter to invite a guest to come all the way down to the studio, to give his time and opinions, and then instead of thanking him in a mature and respectable manner, she foolishly says,
œGeorge Galloway, a specialist on the Middle East, in his own words, thank you so much.”
In his own words? What!
You invited him!
Jo Coburn, you air-headed Troll. You invited him. How stupid and ignorantly malicious could a journalist be?
How can Jo Coburn disrespect someone like that? And not just disrespect someone, but disrespect a guest. And not just disrespect a guest, but do so by repeating the œspecialist” slur. This slur was already dealt with earlier in the show. Why bring it up again? And not just repeating the slur it, but doing so right at the end of the show, doing it cowardly, just like a coward, without giving Galloway any possible opportunity of defending himself. Appalling. Simply appalling.
Jo Coburn™s behaviour is a clear demonstration of her unintelligent and baseless approach to Syria, and therefore a demonstration of her ignorantly impassioned bias against Syria, and therefore, by extension, the bias of the BBC, the propaganda mouthpiece of the British Foreign Office.
This has been a lesson in BBC propaganda. But not for you lovely readers. You already know it. This lesson was for Jo Coburn, the unreliable Troll of the BBC.
Article by Louis Dowes: Media analyst
DISCLAIMER: The authors’ views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Press TV News Network.
Copyright: Press TV