Hear Me Out: A message to James O’Brien
To James O’Brien,
Hear me out.
This message is to preface my critique of the BBC because I understand your trepidation considering the nonsense that often dominates the BBC debate in those kinds of circles.
I have attempted to distill 4 years of daily monitoring of BBC coverage into a blog post:
Inescapable Conclusions
Here are two very recent examples of failures I have observed:
This post, however, is an introduction of sorts. It’s aim is to convince you of my care in this kind of critique and implore you to read my conclusions and seriously consider them .
I felt it nessesary to draw your attention to this post first to describe how I have approached this.
I do so in the hope you will see that I’m a reasonable, critical thinker and my analysis of the BBC is not part of any groupthink/ echo chamber theory on the BBC.
I’ve called your show a few times now and I am confident that if you did, you would remember me as a very reasonable person.
I constantly interrogate my ideas and conclusions and play devils advocate against them.
I’m neither naive nor gullible.
Of course the are unknown, or rather, unrecognised truths.
Hell, I’ve been shouting from the rooftops about The Withdrawal Act Power Grab. While not the subject of this communication, the power grab colours the context of our world under this government.
From observing the absence of reference to the power grab when it is crucial context it does appear that literally no one in the media seems to have understood or become aware of the parts of the act that every human rights organisation, the Public law project, Law societies, Brexit Civil Society and the House of Lords Constitution committee has decried as a material loss of rights and a fundamental shift of the balance of power and democratic scrutiny .
I am sure you will know that human rights defenders were worried from the start because we knew at the beginning that they intended to repeal the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (the media utterly failed to inform people of even that) but, after those last minute changes by Johnson, the tone of their countless and ignored briefings became increasingly alarmed, and then, despairing.
I have tried to put together my research here but can provide more, eg the analysis published by the various human rights organisations etc.
The Withdrawal Act Power Grab, Theft of Rights & Who Gets Extra Screwed
(I recommend watching the video rather than reading what’s written but I certainly stand by both)
What I’m trying to demonstrate is that I am a critical thinker that requires evidence and respects expertise. (Trust me, my inclination to play devils advocate and challenge assumptions drives conspiracy theorists mad.)
So, please know this comes from someone who is that careful about making claims about being in the know on an little known truth. It happens that I do, the power grab, but it’s backed up.
The issues I have with the BBC in the “Inescapable Conclusions” blog post is different from the power grab in this way. Regarding my conclusions about the BBC I understand that all I have are my own observations. But,despite my over-analysing nature, I can no longer make a credible argument that the constant failures, all most always in the form of omission, are down to incompetence.
Because, if it is, then I must be some kind of news genius to know all the crucial contextual facts that are omitted.
So which is it?
Is there something going on or is someone going to give me a job?
That “something,” as I explain in the prior post, could be subconscious or subconscious; likely to differing degrees at different levels of the organisation.
I do not claim to know why the BBC is omitting crucial facts that are in the public domain and considered sound by respected journalists.
My claim is that I don’t think this is accidental or down to incompetence. It simply can’t be, if so, how do I know all the things they keep missing?