UK media spins in the grave of committed & truthful journalism...

The BBC news here in the UK this evening has managed to come up with a great strategy to deflect from the clear criminality of Hillary Clinton.

Basically: Blame Comey! Thus Comey, has somehow broken the law by errors in due process - presumably by not fully investigating the crimes of Hillary (and nobody mentions this part!). Of course now everyone is pointing & sneering at Comey, possibly the highest ranking sacrificial lamb yet seen in US affairs, with Hillary the innocent bystander in all of this, poor dear, just trying to be 'stronger together' (with the Rothschilds et al, not you).

I wish things were different, but it's just so sad to see the same tactics, the same system of infinite corruptibility as the initiate ascends the ladder.

It is so abysmally clear that the woman is untouchable. If you can force the sacrifice of the head of the FBI as a means of maintaining your grip on power, then the true 'Powers That Be' are well & truly standing behind their chosen vassal.

Remarkably, the BBC news reader engaged in discussion with a Washington correspondent, was the same chap who announced the collapse of WTC7, perhaps thirty minutes before it actually happened, way back in 2001.

There is nothing new under the Sun...

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

They are a couple days behind. The US MSM has been doing exactly that.

There is no such thing as objective journalism in the MSM any longer. Only political hacks with a clear agenda.

Hillary must win at any cost.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I don't agree with that reading. The Comey story started out as a one-off incident (the letter about the new investigation). It's a truism to say that nothing is news twice. The Hillary campaign (and their stooges in US media) have now 'outspinned' the Comey story by framing it as an interference in the electoral campaign period, and making allegations of political partiality.

It would be much more remarkable and suspicious if the BBC had not mentioned it, or had played it down. They are following the course of the story, and at the moment the latest development is the charges made against Comey. There's simply no way to report on that without explaining what the charges are and why they were made.

From what I've seen of BBC news on this subject, it's not taking sides at all. The spin is all Hillary's (or her team's) and that's what's shaping the debate. BBC News is nearly 100 per cent reactive.

I would expect nothing less from the BBC. The reporting biased and lies by omission has been cringe worthy even by their low standards.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz or whatever noise the fly IN the ointment makes...

Same Globalist TURDS own the press on that side of the pond the same as here... There was at least one "columnist" who prior to submitting a story idea He wanted to 'run it by you guys' at the DNC™...

I think the true 'nail in the coffin' will be something tying The Clinton Cabal™ to actually backing the 'foe de jour' ISIS™ I hopefully imagine that anything close will be enough and We won't have to actually see Hillary driving one of those new Toyota™s but She is GREEDY enough to purchase those Toyotas on some Fleet Pricing to save a buck...

I think the BIGGEST question HRC™ supporters are asking themselves is "Will the paycheck still cash if She gets sent to PRISON?"

I check in on BBC and Guardian, wow are they a mess when it comes to US politics. They are still all butthurt over BREXIT.

a reply to: audubon

From what I've seen of BBC news on this subject, it's not taking sides at all.

I will have to assume, based on your statement above, that you haven't seen much of anything on the BBC recently. There is blatant, irreconcilably biased, repeated ad nauseum reporting in favour of 'making sure Trump doesn't get into the oval office', and there's a very clear skewing in favour of any nugget which can be used to boost the cause de celebre of Hillary 'stronger together' Clinton. This bias is all very subtle (as one would expect from the masters at the BBC - a lot of it comes down to being highly selective in the use of foreign 'sources' or correspondents, plus the careful use of pre-scripted dialogue which pretends at being off-the-cuff inquiry into the thoughts of the shill in question..)

Nobody can argue that we Brits tend to have a more subtle way about our persuasions than might be observed in the States (where everything is brash, loud, and 'in your face', compared to the typical fare of British media/TV/news..) My comments are not intended as slander against the US cultural markers - I love much about the way US folk get things done; however, I intend to make clear that there tends to be a more 'subtle knife' about the UK presentation of skewed reporting.


FITO.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

(with the Rothschilds et al, not you).

hey now.....
i'm sure they aren't all sharks
you never know you might like one of them..