Everything you need to know about the BBC on one page.
…within hours of director general Greg Dyke’s resignation on Thursday, there were unprecedented scenes of spontaneous support and raw emotion from BBC employees outside Television Centre.”
Passing drivers… honked their horns in a cacophony of support.
“It’s an unprecedented show of determination and support, for the BBC and its values,” said Jeremy Dear of the National Union of Journalists…”
Values? What values?
Regards, John Perry
I’m glad, I really am, that Mr Dyke’s last gloomy hours in post were cheered by the knowledge that his colleagues held him in affection. He was one of them.
That was the problem.
Does anybody know how spontaneous these protests were. I understood that the National Union of Journalists had undertaken to protect all of his employees from the chop.
Incidentally, the fact that the British public puts more store by the BBC than by the considered findings of the legal profession is a terribly sad reflection of the state of the country and of the power of the media.
“the fact that the British public puts more store by the BBC than by the considered findings of the legal profession”
Of course that also applies to the standing of the BBC vis a vis the government.
This must be partly explained by the fact that 60% of voters would not vote for the governnment & put their political allegience ahead of the validity of Hutton’s findings on the weaknesses of the BBC (a point singularily not brought into account by the BBC reporter on the Today programme). People are helped to this view by the media’s insistence on clouding Hutton with the wider question of the quality of intelligence.
I really do think that our politicians are extemely short sighted in continuing to help the media kick their political opponents, rather than realising that polticians must show similar solidarity to that of the media.
I’m surprised that the Guardian is supporting the BBC, why, you’d almost think they had some sort of vested interest or something, like advertising revenue or the same journalists.
The late, much missed Lord Bonham Carter said some years ago that the BBC must consist of people from across the political spectrum.
(Paxman should know, he discussed this with Lord Bonham Carter).
Guardian readers are NOT from across the political spectrum.
(BTW I’m sure Kilroy will be very interested in the Davies lecturing on free speech).
Were all these BBC employees who decided to ‘spontaneously ‘ walk out’ still on the clock????
I have not yet heard if they are to have their generous taxpayer funded salaries docked for the time they went AWOL.
BTW -did anyone actually notice any deterioration of BBC service when all this lot were on the pavement ? I didn’t – what on earth do all these people do all day???????????
I was interested to observe that while BBC News24 was talking about ‘hundreds’ of staff outside BBC Television Centre protesting, Sky News was telling us there were ‘a few dozen, maybe 50.’
Who would you believe?
According to the Guardian report I’ve read, these ‘spontaneous’ demonstrations were organised through the BBC’s internal e-mail. Good to see a basic respect for the idea that words have meaning have gone the way of every other standard at the Al-Guraniad and the Baghdad Broadcasting Con.
“the considered findings of the legal profession”
Are you for real?
The man was *appointed* by the government.
This must have been the first legal procedings in history where the witnesses to a crime were found guilty, and not the accused.
Wasn’t Hutton also involved in the Bloody Sunday whitewash?
Get off your high-horse and smell what you’re shovelling.
Dear Insider,
“This must have been the first legal procedings in history where the witnesses to a crime were found guilty, and not the accused.”
With sentences like this you should be working for the BBC or the Sun or another gutter news source.
The funny thing is, you guys are serious with this nonsense.
You’re so blind, you can’t even see that the Hutton report represents a serious attempt to gag free speech in the UK.
That means forums like this too, you know.
Wake up.
BBC bias my hole.
You should set up a “Hutton Bias” weblog – I’ve never seen anything so ludicrously one-sided in all my life.
A report that was supposed to investigate the death of a government scientist (who, incidentally, breached the terms of the Official Secrets Act by talking to a journalist about his work) – but, instead, produced a reprimand of the BBC with almost no basis.
Non of the fundmanental questions were answered.
As Mr Galloway said, the Bloody Sunday inquiry took years before the public saw through it’s lies – the Hutton report barely made it to the end of the week.
Would that be George “receives backhanders from a genocidal murderer” Galloway?
Oh, and would Mr. Insider tell us whether he really does have any insider knowledge of the BBC. I do, and I can tell you that Greg Dyke’s “scoop culture” destroyed what little dignity remained in BBC news gathering and presenting.
Gilligan’s fellow journalists always knew what he was. Now the public has found out – those willing to listen.
Incidentally, the evidence was all presented on the Hutton website, for those who can read.
And where is you “backhander” evidence to convict Mr Galloway?
No-where – because, like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it doesn’t exist – a bit like the search for intelligence on this weblog.
It sounds to me like you’re listening to government lies again, my friend.
Get a mind of your own.
CNN has an interesting quote from Gilligan (though who knows how accurate CNN is….).
According to CNN, Gilligan reputedly said, “Most of my story was right.”
Except for the parts where he lied, one presumes.
This would appear to raise BBC journalism to dizzying new heights of credibility.
Time perhaps to fund a new chair in honour of the poor defamed reporter(though by no means disgraced, as one does get the impression that his prestige has been enhanced) at a prestigious journalism school–Columbia University?:
The “Most-of-My-Story-Was-Right Chair for Investigative Journalism”
Something else for Saudi Arabia to think about funding there, no doubt.
Or George Galloway….
You lot should hear yourselves.
On Five Live this morning, John Pienaar told Tessa Jowell that rumours were circulating that an (unnamed) member of the cabinet had told Alistair Campbell to shut his mouth.
Jowell replied by saying that Pienaar could be making the whole thing up.
Piennar suggested that she conduct an inquiry, since he had just reported something that he didn’t know to be fact.
You see how ludicrous your point is now?
Gilligan got one part of his story wrong and reported what he didn’t know to be fact. However, the rest of his story was entirely correct, and been proven to be so.
How on earth would the media exist, if it couldn’t report on anonymous or unverifyable facts?
In a police state, where the government control the media – which is what you morons appear to want.
Campbell didn’t complain about the Today programme in his first three letters to the BBC.
He just needed something to hang his hat on – and Gilligan fitted the bill.
Hey, Mr Insider- there was a reason for the Hutton enquiry that had nothing to do with Campbell’s dissatisfaction with Gilligan. No death of Dr Kelly = No enquiry.
Despite the obviousness of that, the real issue with Gilligan was not that he had an anonymous source, or that he couldn’t verify whether the source was correct, but that he actually misreported and misrepresented the views of his source. Furthermore, the Gilligan involvement didn’t end with the first and worst report- he carried on milking the gist of it in other, better worded reports, and capped it all with a lurid article for the Mail.
There’s a time line involved here, and an evolving situation to consider, that might justify several letters mentioning different specifics, IMO. I hate to become Campbell’s defender, but there it is.
You’ve answered your own point – Gilligan’s final article appeared in the Mail.
What on earth has that got to do with the BBC?
The outcome of the Hutton Report stated that the BBC’s editorial procedures were “defective”, which wasn’t the remit of the report.
Kelly breached the terms of his MoD contract by speaking to Gilligan, irrespective of what was reported incorrectly.
If anything, the procedures of the MoD were defective, for not handling David Kelly appropriately when he as about to be outed by Blair, Campbell et al.
MoD = government = Campbell, Hoon and Blair.
Connect the dots – it’s not complicated.
Government control of the media? What, you mean like if the government put a tax on the receipt of all independent television in order to fund its own network, and then appointed the governors of that network?
I suspect that most of we “morons” would be delighted to see a completely independent media, with no connection to government at all, where people are free to look at, or not, and pay for what they want, or not (a bit like, you know, a ‘free press’).
It is only the state enforced, ‘official’ nature of the BBC that makes anything it says important at all (far worse things are said about the government by newspapers). Removing the BBC’s links to, and dependence on, government will relieve it, and us, of all these issues.
But I’m sure you’ll wail now and insist that the only way to keep the BBC independent of the government is to retain its government enforced funding.
Poor old ‘Insider’ seems to be getting into something of a lather .Well then ‘Insider’, did all the brothers + sisters who took the afternoon off for their ‘spontaneous’ protest get their generous taxpayer funded salaries docked or not ?
Did anyone notice any change in BBC output quality/quantity when this shower were clowning about outside for the cameras???? What do they all do all day??????????
The people producing live material didn’t walk out – that would be a dereliction of duty – so naturally, the high standard of BBC output didn’t suffer.
The people who walked out (where I work) did so for about 20 minutes (totalling around 500 people) – which could easily be argued was nothing more than simply making pertient use of their permitted afternoon tea-break.
They didn’t walk out “never to return”. Idiot.
Most people protested silently, simply as a show of strength and loyalty – something you people don’t seem to understand.
What are you on about PJF? The BBC *are* independent of the government.
They are only dependent on funding from the licence fee via the Royal Charter, which is *administrated* by the government.
They are editorialised independently of government influence (well, until last week, they were), with a responsiblility for impartial public-service broadcasting across a range of services.
What you seem to want is a completely right-wing BBC that reflects your tightly-focused and dimly-lit view of the world.
No, what I want is for the BBC to be broken up and the bits (stations/frequencies) sold off. I want a completely free media with no connection to government at all, apart from the usual anti-monopoly market regulation.
In this I speak entirely for myself as a visitor to this site, and not on behalf of Biased-bbc.
And if you think the BBC is independent from government, you are a very deluded little wet fish. Both Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke were political appointees by Tony Blair. They were both significant donors to New Labour.
Of course, since Tony has been in government he has had to wake up and realise that he has a country to take care of and so can’t indulge all his previous leftist fantasies. Poor Greg is somewhat aghast that Tony has abandoned their shared socialist vision.
So, what you want is a world of commercial broadcasters, entirely funded and influenced by corporate/benevolent sponsorship but free from government influence?
What you want is a Rupert Murdoch State broadcasting company which funds itself via commercial/philanthropic subsidy and produces output based on the whims of its shareholder(s).
“A completely free media” cannot possibly exist – unless all of the services (production, editorial, journalistic talent etc.) are entirely provided on a charitable basis.
Even The Big Issue needs to employ fully-paid journalist staff.
Get real.
Deluded? Me?
Take a look in the mirror and then go have a word with your social worker – you clearly haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
That’s a rather poor effort, The Insider. You know perfectly well that by “completely free media”, I mean media free of government control and influence – and not free to access. Actually, I suppose it is possible that you really are so utterly stupid, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are trying to evade the issues by misrepresenting them.
Your laughable view of how a deregulated television market would work demonstrates a typical cosseted BBC leftie blub about the ‘evils’ of capitalism. The observable parallel of the newspaper market shows clearly that the need to turn a profit, and compete with the likes of Rupert Murdoch, does not prevent a wide diversity of viewpoints being expressed and accessed.
cont.
cont.
Indeed, the free market in newspapers, magazines, and print media in general, actively encourages and facilitates such diversity. Somehow we get by without having to pay a licence to the state to be able to read the papers in order to fund a state ‘public service’ print outlet.
Free markets do not restrict choice, they provide it. The fact that most people drink junk lager doesn’t stop me having access to literally hundreds of specialist Belgian beers and a vast avenue of wine exploration. The commercial success of Britney Spears doesn’t restrict my choice of obscure baroque chamber music. I’d happily pay a subscription for a service like Radio 3, and no single mothers would have to go to prison for failing to pay for something they’re not interest in.
cont.
cont.
With the hundreds of digital channels available in the cable, satellite and wireless systems coming online, there is simply no justification for a state enforced leviathan of a ‘public service’ broadcast network shovelling what it thinks we need at us. Let the market sort it out, with the anti-monopoly proviso. After all, it’s only the telly – it’s not as if anyone is going to die from lack of Newsnight Review. Things as important as our food, our fuel, our transport and our housing are supplied by markets that are either entirely free or increasing so. Even health care and education are being opened up.
The UK goggle box should be deregulated by ending the Charter, and all you BBC lackeys liberated into the real world where you’ll have to earn a living by providing what people are willing to pay for. At the moment you’re little more than a bunch of parasites living off of extortion, and it is clearly affecting your characters in a very negative way.
It took you three posts (totalling around 200 words) to convey what I could sum up in two:
Vote Tory.
“Free Market”? – have you ever been to the USA?
Have you seen what happens to deregulated public-service broadcasting?
Have you seen what happens to small, commercial broadcasters in a competitifve market?
Clearly not.
Grow up son – get rid of the William Hague posters on your bedroom wall and go out and meet a nice girl.
Well yes, it is apparent that you are unable to sustain an argument in depth, preferring to indulge in arrogant, glib posturing. You are, indeed, a typical leftie. I doubt you work for the BBC though; even they don’t scrape the barrel for such dregs.
If voting for the Conservatives is what it takes to get rid of the BBC parasites, I’ll do it.
I think ‘Insider’ may be having some kind of breakdown as he gets so agitated and abusive when anyone dares to challenge his holier-than-thou assertions. Keep taking the tablets & take a few days off ‘work’- after all sick pay will be paid in full and for evermore at the Beeb won’t it, ‘I’ ?????????
We still haven’t found out what all these 1000’s who absorb £2 1/2 billion each year do with themselves all day have we??? Must be all the tea breaks I suppose!!!!!!!!!
Answer the questions PFJ (would that be People’s Front of Judea?).
Vote Tory and you’ll not only be rid of the “BBC parasites” – you’ll also be rid of what you have left of a soul too.
British Rail?
British Telecom?
Has the state of these organisations under deregulation and privitisation totally slipped past your tiny little mind?
Have you seen the state of PBS in America or Australia?
Again: clearly not.
As a foreigner looking in on the whole issue one thing which I feel I must say is that if “The Insider” represents your average bbc employee, I can’t for the life of me imagine how it can be unbiased judging from the fact that all he can do is insult people with different opinions!
That would have to be ‘People’s Judean Front’ for your ‘joke’ to even make sense, so we can safely conclude that being funny by design is completely beyond your reach.
Apparently I’m supposed to be concerned about the fate of public service broadcasting, having already expressed a lack of interest in the same. Hey, if people want to organise themselves into a not-for-profit group to make TV programmes for what they consider to be the public good, fine, let them play at ‘public service’. Just don’t ask me to believe they aren’t gratifying their own agendas, and more importantly, don’t ask me to pay for it against my will.
Apparently I’m supposed be surprised that commercial TV is mostly crap for morons. But then, mere observation shows that commercial TV can also produce stuff for a more sophisticated palette. Sometimes you have to pay more to see the better stuff. A bit like, well, everything.
Oh, and apparently I’m supposed to look exclusively at the worst examples of corrupted and blundered privatisations and forget the rest. Apparently, I make a pact with the devil if I vote Conservative. Odd, voting that way locally resulted in an officially bent bunch of socialists being kicked out; my taxes no longer being spent on public service golf; and my bin being emptied more than once a fortnight. Maybe I’ll suffer an eternity of lower council tax.
These lefties are often a delight to behold, but this example is starting to get boring.
.
If INsider works for the BBC as he or she infers, then the defence rests, m’lud.
What job does Insider have: hygiene technician?
The media appoints itself judge, jury, and executioner.
Witness Mathew Kelly and other public figures, whom the media has slandered purely through speculation.
BTW John “Blanks” Kampfner was on “The Moral Maze” last night, and the panel suggested to him that journalists should declare their political leanings.
Kampfner agreed, yet I have never heard him declare that he is an Anti-American Leftist who writes for the Guardian and New Statesman.
Indeed, he pretends to be impartial.
There’s alot of journalists pretending to be impartial at the Beeb, I call them “Pundalists”; pundits masquerading as journalists.
There seems to be an alarming tendency of the media to serve certain agendas, especially politically correct ones.