Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

P.C. Sky Television.

First Sky Television  ruin “Treasure Island” – turning Squire T. into a villain (what the …….).

Then they produce a demented version of “Dracula” (turning the fiend into some sort of noble crusader against big business – they are the real “blood suckers”…….).

Now they produce a version of “Moonfleet” where the diamond is thrown away at the end.

Now listen Comrades – if you do not like traditional stories (because you think treasure is evil – or some such tosh) then just stay away from them O.K.?

I would like to think that Mr Murdoch (if was actually allowed to control the company he created) would do something about this – but to judge by Fox entertainment (all those leftist cartoons and so on), I doubt it.


  1. Julie near Chicago says:

    According to Tammy Bruce, years and years ago (2003 or so?), Murdoch has nothing to do with it. She said that when Roger Ailes goes, Fox will lose whatever claim to not-automatically-listing-Leftward it ever had.

  2. Lynne says:

    Perhaps we could speed up Roger Ailes’ departure by not watching the tripe?

  3. Yes Julie I have heard the same.

    Only Roger Ailes stands between Fox News becoming like Fox (endless leftist shows and so on) entertainment (or Sky television). “But they would lose their audience” – the left do not really care about that (or CNN would not be like it is – and nor would all the rest).

    Just another leftist television station – controlled by “creative” people with off-the-peg opinions they were indoctrinated in whist at school and university.

    And the most absurd thing is that these unreflective conformist leftists think they are “rebels”.

  4. Lynne – Roger Ailes is the relatively conservative person in charge of Fox News.

    I do not know who is in charge of Sky Television (it used to be one of the Murdoch sons – a man with establishment left opinions), but I does not really matter.

    The “creative” people do not seem to care about ratings – or they do not associate the left spin of their productions with poor ratings (and if all the entertainment stations have the same in-built bias then they will NOT have low ratings – because there is no choice).

    In the United States the key defeat was back in the early 1960s when the FCC (under the Kennedy Administration) created Orwellian named creative independence rules for television.

    No longer (as in the 1950s) could any company fund a television show and have editorial control of it.

    Now the “creative” side of entertainment shows was under a small group of people at ABC, CBS and NBC.

    The introduction of Fox entertainment (entertainment – not news) did not change the de facto “creative” monopoly the left gained by these FCC regulations.

  5. I find this disparagement of folks who are variously categorised as, ‘listing Leftward’ and/or ‘unreflective conformist leftists (who) think they are “rebels”’ and contempt for ‘leftist shows and television’ quite amusing. From whence I come, everyone and everything in the West is a fecking Leftard Librul! I mean y’all have democracy, how fecking Librul is that? What yins call ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are almost indistinguishable from where I wallow in/on the global political spectrum. I’s from Myanmar. AND I detest Aung San Suu Kyi! I don’t like Mother Teresa much either.

  6. Andrew says:

    I know it’s not on Sky, but the description in he Radio Times for yesterday’s Rab C Nesbitt was horrifying.

    Negatives were universal credit and the bedroom “tax”. Positives were robbing a building society and taking from the rich to give to the poor.

    And it finished off by asking “can our hero overthrow the state?”

    I don’t think I’d have been able to watch the actual program without having some sort of heart attack or wanting to cut myself.

    The BBC needs to be abolished and the people responsible for its output need to be held to account.

  7. Andrew says:

    I think this post deserves a wider audience:

    As it does a good job explaining how they think.

  8. Paul Marks says:

    Yes Andrew – they say they want to over throw the state, but they mean they want to overthrow civil society. They actually want a total state – accept they do not use the word “state”.

    Some call themselves “liberals” – but they hate civil society (non aggression principle liberty) and worship collectivism.

    They hate justice (not violating the bodies and goods of others) and worship “Social Justice” (the “distribution” of goods that are not theirs).

  9. Paul Marks says:

    “Democracy” is a point I missed. And the left do believe in a form of democracy – indeed it is critical to their thinking. Sadly it is the conception of “democracy” of Rousseau which confuses freedom with being part of the state (rather than limiting the state) this form of “Totalitarian Democracy” (as Talmon called it) was recently attacked here (in several posts) by SAOT.

    The left will fail – but not tactically (they are indeed far too smart to fail tactically) they will fail strategically (as they always do) because the society they create just does not work. But this is a failure of the collapse type- a Detroit like failure (on an ever bigger scale). If only there was a way of defeating the forces of “social justice” of “caring government” – BEFORE they destroy everything (including themselves).

  10. Paul Marks says:

    The article you link to is correct Andrew – but it is not the full truth. Often the leftists who present themselves as so intelligent are actually quite stupid and ignorant – such as the New York TImes crowd or the people who agree with each other on BBC shows (blaming the current crises on “lack of regulation” and nodding at each other). However, sometimes a leftist will be both intelligent and knowledgeable – but will be making the mistake of thinking that knowledge and ability in one field automatically carries into another.

    For example all those high tech zillionaries who think “if only someone intelligent was in charge government could do so much good….” – no it could not, and it would not matter if government was controlled by super intelligent internet business people, government intervention (and spending – once the “unseen” costs are factored in) would still cause harm not good. And the bigger the government the more the harm. And the more complex the society the more harm government does (contrary to everything the Harvard types have been taught).

    Intelligence and a “can do attitude” is no substitute for wisdom (understanding the basic nature of government).

  11. Julie near Chicago says:

    I have just discovered Roger Ailes’ weblog. This is a Stop-the-Presses comment — I haven’t read beyond the first posting on the site. Meh. But maybe it’s better farther down.

    [Found this comment in the SPAM bucket -JG]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: