As it says in the heading – the theme in this post is political bias but the story and its authors revolve around Savile. I am in no way arguing to exonerate Savile, nor to further damn him. I’m interested, not in him but in the authors of articles.
I’ll approach this in the order in which it was looked at by me in the wee hours this morning.
My own bias is well known – non-party political, I am radical centre-right and as such, can collaborate with the likes of Robin Ramsay or the John Birch Society if necessary, it’s a big tent as far as I’m concerned. Never have collaborated with either but I have Ramsay’s JFK book and it puts a good case that LBJ dun it.
My investigative bias can be found in my approach to this post now.
In the googling of RR, this came up:
An investigator will note that and file the screenshot in its appropriate folder for later retrieval.
Open Democracy is one of those fuzzy names which often disguises bias and once you get past the upfront guff, you get to this:
Prominent contributors have included Yanis Varoufakis, Caroline Lucas MP, Peter Oborne, Paul Mason, Owen Jones, John Berger, Chantal Mouffe, Étienne Balibar, Chuka Umunna, Kofi Annan, George Soros (through his Open Society Foundation he is one of their largest funders), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Shirin Ebadi, Sidney Blumenthal, Peter Hain, Pierre Bourdieu, Manuel Castells, Fred Halliday, and David Blunkett.
It has been funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation among other organisations including the Open Society Foundation the National Endowment for Democracy, the Ford Foundation and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
There was also an ad for one of the various globalist organizations.
Now clearly I’m not saying that Robin Ramsay is part of all that, nor this Andrew Rosthorn. Yet the main subject of that article from Sackerson concerned Anna Raccoon who, if you look at the Martin Scriblerus blogroll, is seen to be a member. Chief stirrers of that group were James Higham and Sackerson.
Do your research more thoroughly than usual.
Investigate all journalistic bias before deciding something is true, partially true, largely wrong or false.
Do not assume that just because a view is highly politically biased, it does not contain any truth at all in it.
You see, if you want to know the dark side of Thatcher, you won’t find it at Conservative Home. Similarly, if you wish to find the dirt on Labour, you wouldn’t go this route via Lobster, Open Democracy and so on. You have to actually go to both and then piece it all together.
Also, if you want anything pro-Leave, you won’t find it at ConHome, you’ll find it at LeaveEU and Better Off Out, plus the Bruges Group.
Conspiracy “theory” is the charge made against anyone investigating anything when there is something to cover up. For example, the Whitehall mandarins, inc. Robbins, plus their May, are very much in the news for their betrayal of Brexit at this time.
It is not “theory”, it’s actual conspiracy, different other animal. Tacking “theory” on the end actually reveals the bias of the utterer of that phrase.
And utterers of that phrase include those who would seek to cover up. And in Savile’s case, look at the years involved – look at who the government was. Look at the names at Open Democracy.
Join obvious dots but not non-obvious ones..
The Savile article
The premise was that there was a wonkiness to the girls’ evidence [and I do not pooh-pooh that] and while it did not say that Savile did not do those things in other places, he did not do them at this home.
He was being careful but the bias was still towards Savile innocence. Now, cui bono?
Very much so – the Franklin and McMartin cases and the eventually debunked False Memory Syndrome – but that’s in other posts long ago at this site. Once again, it’s essential to know who is actually saying it and then actually explore each person involved.
If you’re not prepared to do that, then I’d posit that your testimony is hardly going to be credible, unless you openly state your biases upfront.