Yes, it’s time to own up. I have just been watching the BBC’s Reporting Scotland programme. Tonight they were covering the “fringe” parties contesting the elections for the European Parliament.
I almost fell off my chair when I heard this about the British National Party: “The BNP is no stranger to controversy or protest. It maintains that it isn’t racist, though it’s opposed to immigration, the Euro and the European Union.”
So there we have it. According to the taxpayer-funded BBC, opposition to the Euro and the EU is racist. I wonder how “neutral” the rest of their election reporting will be.
You can watch the segment here (about 16 minutes into the programme), although I think that tonight’s broadcast is only available until this time tomorrow. I have of course made a tape recording.
a) The BBC isn’t taxpayer funded, it’s funded by the licence fee.
b) The report says, very clearly, that the BNP maintains it isn’t racist. It separately says that the BNP is anti-immigration, the EU, and the Euro.
The BNP is racist. The BNP maintains it isn’t.
The BNP is anti-EU, anti-Euro, and anti-immigration. It admits it is.
That’s what the report says – I don ‘t understand your point.
Of course you have made a recording, good luck with your paranoia.
You think the BBC’s approach to the BNP is what is wrong with the BBC.
Thankfully the British public doesn’t agree with you.
To Anonymous: cobblers!
The BBC is taxpayer funded – it is funded by the BBC Tax, aka Telly Tax, aka TV Licence – however you dress it up, the licence fee is a tax on television in the UK – doesn’t matter if you never watch the BBC – so long as you watch any television in the UK you are obliged to pay the BBC tax.
I have no sympathy with the BNP, however, it would serve the BBC well to stick to the facts in their reporting rather than having any kind of ‘approach’ to them.
Perhaps you’d care to defend the BBC Ten O’Clock News’ coverage of the Green Party’s Euro-election campaign (see my BBBC piece from last week).
P.S. If you or someone close to you work for the BBC please do declare your interest.
ooh, dialogue! It isn’t taxpayer funded, just like petrol isn’t taxpayer funded – there is a duty on petrol, but no duty to pay if you don’t use petrol. Please do your research, I realise it is an academic difference, but it’s still an important one – 4 or 5 taxpayers may share a house, and a telly (or tellies) and only pay once. vice versa, 1 non taxpayer may use one telly, and still have to pay theTV licence.
” it would serve the BBC well to stick to the facts in their reporting rather than having any kind of ‘approach’ to them.”
Oh dear. What you request is naive, and at best, a pipe dream. All reporting of non ‘truths’ is subject to ‘approach’
‘ Conspiracy, cock-up or just lazy incompetence?’
neither – it’s called pluralism – the ‘telegraph’ often contradicts itself in the same issue, on the same events. Sometimes intelligent people can choose to disagree, without there being a ‘conspiracy’ (see my previous comment about paranoia)
Aren’t you going to come out from behind your comfort blanket and be honest and upstanding enough to identify yourself? Or do you work for the BBC?
The licence fee is a tax – it’s a tax on television. Even though it’s not paid to central government it is still a tax – in the same way that the poll tax was a tax.
You’re right that if you don’t use petrol you don’t pay the duty, but if you don’t use the BBC you still have to pay the BBC duty. Imagine having an electric car or an LPG car yet still having to pay petrol duty too!
However good or unbiased or impartial you think the BBC is, the days of the BBC Tax are numbered. Then we’ll see if the BBC is as loved by the people as Ceausescu was by his people!
On the Greens, it wasn’t a contradiction in the Ten’s report – it was an egregious omission of a significant Green policy – whilst mentioning, in fluffy terms, all of the BBC/Guardian/leftist approved issues that concern the Greens.
“…petrol isn’t taxpayer funded – there is a duty on petrol, but no duty to pay if you don’t use petrol.”
Am I missing something here? A duty is a tax charged by a government. Those who pay the duty are taxpayers.
But the argument is specious, anyway. The fact that one may opt out of a tax by not consuming the taxed product does not make it less of a tax. If I decide not to work, I can opt out of the income tax, too.
The words are ” It maintains it isn’t racist though it’s opposed to …….. the EU.”
Hard to be more self-evidently biassed towards the EU I’d say.
Mark is correct. Use of “though” conveys the intent to counter the previous clause.
Surely this site will have a record of the IP address that Anonymous used? It would be trivial to then check ownership of the relevant block of addresses – and see if they are used by the BBC for example?
This should be really simple to do, and I doubt Anonymous had the intellect to have used a proxy 🙂
‘You think the BBC’s approach to the BNP is what is wrong with the BBC.
Thankfully the British public doesn’t agree with you.’
Regardless of anyone’s opinion of the BNP which is a vile racist party a public sector broadcaster should not be biased towards or against any political party. They should present the facts and leave opinions to us.
“…there is a duty on petrol, but no duty to pay if you don’t use petrol. Please do your research…”
…because presumably anyone who disagrees with you must simply be so because they’re uneducated and ignorant of the subject, or they would necessarily recognize the brilliance of an “argument” that rests entirely on semantic word games?
, I realise it is an academic difference, but it’s still an important one -”
Actually, it’s a thoroughly unimportant difference because it’s completely meaningless obfuscation: it’s so academic that it’s practically a textbook example of the phrase “a distinction without a difference.” A duty is a tax, just as the BBC license “fee” is a tax.
Part of the BBC is funded by a method that even Anonymous must agree is nothing but a tax; The World Service.
Gavin: It’s quite possible that Anonymous works for the BBC, quite possible they don’t. You give the impression that only someone who works for the Corporation would ever defend it. I don’t think that is supported by many people that I’ve talked to. Of course, I may just have friends who are all too “liberal” to criticise it
Andrew B: I’m not sure why it’s necessary for anyone who works for the BBC to state an interest, to be honest – that just seems to imply the same point as above, that only BBC stooges could support it. Obviously not everyone in the BBC is involved in news output – if you are a set decorator or broadcast engineer you have so little impact on news output it could hardly be consider a worthwhile interest to declare.
In the interests of transparency, however, I will point out that I am employed by the BBC and have nothing to do with news!
It’s funny how BBC apologists like to pretend that it isn’t a great bloated parasite feeding off the UK tax-payer.
Let’s set aside their insecurities and return to the issue, namely the outrageous manner in which the BBC tries to equate being anti-Euro with being racist. It’s this kind of weasel language that shames the BBC.
They imply, they equate, they suggest, and then sometimes they just lie.
As proof of this, and to give me a laugh, I’m off to watch that great programme of balance..”Question Time”..y’know the one..four liberals and on wet conservative. (I’m including the Chairman of course)
Every few years, someone at the BBC de3cides that staff levels are too high, and there are a few cutbacks.
But over the past 20 years or so, staff numbers have actually increased – while the amount of work contracted out has increased. True staff levels run at about 30,000 at present. Bloated or what !!!
But of course, it is all voluntarily supported by the British public LOL
The solution to the licence fee problem is to have elections to the BBC Board by licence fee payers.
As for the original post – this is a remarkable story! I would have italicised immigration as well. You can oppose immigration without being racist. A Black Christian might not want to allow Black Muslim immigration fro instance. Of course one can oppose immigration from a racist point of view. But you could also oppose anything from a racist point of view if you are racist enough.
For the record I oppose mass (not all) immigration on cultural, economic, ecological and ethical grounds i.e. it is wrong for us to import millions of people committed to anti-democratic ideologies; mass immigraiton perpetuates poverty; mass immigration is inappropriate for a small island with limited space and resources; mass immigration robs other socieites of their brightest and best.
David Field
The BBC maintains that it isn’t biased, though its news and current affairs presentation persistently benefits a left/liberal outlook.
The BNP maintains it is not racist – and that is as believable as the leftist BBC claiming it is not biased!
The license fee must be axed and the BBC made to sink or swim. Let’s see how its leftism prospers without Nanny State to bale it out and for it to simper up to.
“The BNP maintains it is not racist – and that is as believable as the leftist BBC claiming it is not biased!”
The BNP are a political party with their own views .
The BBC are supposed to at least try to be impartial.
On the immigration topic , at least 85% of the people of this country oppose immigration , and since it is THEIR country , THEY , not the politicians should decide!!!!!!!!!
What blows my mind about the BBC (I hear the World Service) is the low threshold of the definition of racism to incluse any ideas, thoughts, shades of thoughts, or policies which might have a coorelation – to race.
Racism is when the state, merchant, company, public accomodation TREATS someone differently because of their race.
That this would include words, thoughts and so forth as a matter of law is astonishing – how does one ban speech and ideas? Free speech, as difficult as it is, must permit vulgar ideas. Otherwise there is no free speech.
Farrer’s original post is rubbish, and the first post here hit the nail on the head.
The BBC stated the facts, Farrer took the two facts and drew a conclusion that best suited his own anti-BBC view.
If this site to going to complain about real bias, maybe it would help if they knew what they were talking about first.