* – Dyke to denounce ‘traitor’ governors. Apparently:
The former director-general, who will present a Channel 4 documentary next month to accompany his memoirs, claims his offer of resignation was a token move that he thought would not be accepted.
And:
Dyke believes that, had Davies been present at a second governors’ meeting the next day, he would have argued that there was no need for Dyke to resign.
At this meeting, Dyke was shocked when several governors — including Neville-Jones, Hogg and Ryder, a former Tory chief whip — argued that his resignation should be accepted.
Some believe Dyke may have been a victim of snobbery. He was the Labour supporter with traces of a Cockney accent who met with the disapproval of “establishment” governors.
At the meeting, Dyke’s resignation was accepted by eight votes to three. A week later, the governors met again.
And, get this:
Dyke wrote a letter asking for his job back, arguing there had in effect been a miscarriage of justice as he believed he had a deal that he would not be a second fall-guy after Davies. In the end, Dyke left the BBC with a severance package of £456,000.
Oh, the inhumanity of it all, the snobbery, the poor lamb. Let’s get this straight, Dyke offers his resignation, the Governors accept, Dyke then claims he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice!
Nothing to do with a monumental cock-up, nothing to do with not checking the facts first, nothing to do with backing a dubious story to the hilt, and nothing to do with getting in such a deep hole that there was no alternative other than to keep digging.
What a pillock. If the governors weren’t sure of their decision to ditch Dyke before then they certainly should have been after such a petulant performance. That and the oh-so-rapturous reception of the BBC staff when the People’s Greg walked among them! Bosses should command respect – not hysterical mass-adulation – particularly bosses of large public institutions spending billions of telly-taxpayers money.
Poor old Greg, he just doesn’t get it, does he?
* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.
In today’s Independent, an interview with John Humphreys
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=554910
Question:
Under what circumstances would you resign from your job?
Answer:
If they told me to go easy on a politician.
Charles Kennedy, Ming Campbell, Robin Cooke, Jeremy Corbyn etc…..
This BBC article (from 2002, link via Oliver Kamm) provides good reason for deposing Saddam. I wonder why the BBC joined the ranks of those who would rather he still be in power?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/2056376.stm
Alistair Campbell would be so proud of you.. I have no particular affection for Dyke, but nor do I remember this “monumental cock-up” you speak off. I do remember Andrew Gilligan making an unsubstantiated claim that was certainly true in any case, and Dyke backing his man, possibly naively. Dyke behaved though like any other exec of a large media corporation would, he backed his man and tried to whether it out, the same would have happened had it been ITV or even Fox. And don’t even mention the word “Hutton”, as anyone with an ounce of sense could see what a sham that was.
Actually, what in the hell is the point of this blog? Why should we cathode junkies be surprised by your ‘insightful’ observation that BBC has a political leaning to the left? If you want right-wing news, watch something else. If you disagree with your hard-earned top-bracket tax pounds being spent on it, move to America. What do you suppose is the solution to this ‘BBC bias’ that you insist on illustrating with triviality and half-truths? Privatise it? Sell it to General Electric? Disney perhaps? Can you argue with straight face the American broadcasting set-up is an improvement on our Public-owned broadcast model? Have you even seen the mind-numbing trivial pap on US TV that passes for news
I have to say I’ve only just started reading this blog recently but I find it a little confusing. Is the point of it to show bias towards the Labour party (As your quote from Andrew Marr suggests) or is it to show that the BBC is just full of left wingers pushing their own ideology?
Half the time good points are made here, but the other half of it reads like a bunch of people who share the same political views but are finding that the BBC’s reporting are not reinforcing those.
In your criticism of the American election coverage links to american commentary sites are given. Are we to believe these are without bias?
The BBC is a massive organisation and don’t forget straight news isn’t all it does. Personally I have never thought for one second watching Paxman interview TB that he gave him an easy ride. Or that the Labour MP got fairer treatment on Question Time than any other.
Anyway, just thought I’d share my views.
Hello Theghostfredken
Actually, Alistair Cambell is a nice chap, who upset a few lovees.
If you think that BBC news is in any way superior to American news, that is your opinion of course. Personally,I much prefer CNN to the BBC. Much more intelligent.
In my personal view, there should indeed be a left wing media channel like Aunty, (like CNN in the US). Though, there is no need for it to be publically funded. Personally, I do not watch the BBC, I think it is appalingly bad and not good value for money. Therefore I should not pay for it. Simple really.
“If you want right-wing news, watch something else”
Yes, and you’ll still be charged for the privilege of NOT watching the BBC.
“If you disagree with your hard-earned top-bracket tax pounds being spent on it, move to America”
Why should people have to move to other countries because they object to being forced by law to contribute to the BBC? No, it’s state funded TV that should get the hell out of Britain. Like state funded newspapers, such bodies belong in places like China and Iran.
“Have you even seen the mind-numbing trivial pap on US TV that passes for news”
Have you seen the one-sided, distorted, biased pap on UK TV that passes for BBC news?.
“I do remember Andrew Gilligan making an unsubstantiated claim… and Dyke backing his man”
That WAS the monumental cock-up, he backed his man without checking the facts.
If they’d just appologised and backed down it wouldn’t have been an issue.
“If you want right-wing news, watch something else.”
Fine, except I still have to pay for the BBC service by law, and they’re supposed to be non-partisan.
“If you disagree with your hard-earned top-bracket tax pounds being spent on it, move to America.”
Top-bracket? If only! I’m currently unemployed 🙂
“What do you suppose is the solution to this ‘BBC bias’…”
Solving the bias isn’t the issue, it’s forcing everyone to pay for statist propaganda that’s the problem. So making them pay for themselves through advertising or subscription is fine as far as I’m concerned.
“Have you even seen the mind-numbing trivial pap on US TV that passes for news”
No worse than the BBC then.
“and Dyke backing his man, possibly naively.”
Possibly naively ! Nice understatement!
It sums up in a nutshell the arrogance of Dyke , reflected by his BBC underlings , that he should hand in his resignation and in spite of of his blatant & serious failures , expect to be retained.
Good ridance!
Dyke is really yesterday’s news. The new BBC management are clearly distancing themselves from him. His raking over the dying/dead embers of Gilligan/Hutton is embarrassing to the BBC, which wants a clear run at renewing the licence fee in the Charter Review, and avoiding any encroachment on its independence.
So let’s hope Dyke succeeds in reminding the government that the BBC had a monumental failure in news management, and can’t be trusted to keep a balance !
Classic anti-Bush crap on the 10 o clock news tonight.
According to the BBC, the vast majority of New Yorkers hate GWB, and will be protesting his visit in a day or two. I wonder what the basis is for this assumption (for that is what it is)? Have they done a scientific poll? No, of course not. They just talk to a few anti-Bush groupies and conclude that the majority of New Yorkers hate Bush. Easy, isn’t it?
The BBC also imply that anti-Bush protests will be “suppressed” or “banned”. Conspiracy theories abound – shady republicans planting anti Kerry lies etc etc etc.
Thank goodness for the BBC, charting the rise of fascism under GWB! What would we do without them?
Eamonn,
“Thank goodness for the BBC, charting the rise of fascism under GWB! What would we do without them?”
Remind them of the old American adage about fascism? The one that goes, “Europe is always warning about fascism arising in America, but when fascism comes, it always seems to miss America and hit Europe.”
Public Broadcasting in the U.S. also seems to have a leftward bias. They don’t claim otherwise. I get the choice of watching it or not. I also get the choice of paying for it or not. Hardly fascism.
In the U.K., on the other hand, you have the BBC…
“Actually, what in the hell is the point of this blog? …. If you want right-wing news, watch something else.”
What is the point of your comment? If you don’t like what you read here, read something else.
How can you criticise this blog? It’s always the best place for a good argument with sensible people who know their facts, and with just enough raving ultra right nutcases to keep it interesting, particularly amongst our transatlantic cousins.
In fact I reckon I get a license fees worth of entertainment out of it before I even turn on the TV/radio. Yet another victory for the BBC.
Touché Anonymous!
And best yet, we don’t charge you for the privilege – because:
1) A telly-tax style charge is an offensive and unjust anachronism; and,
2) We don’t have a BBC style private army of snoopers going around tallyman style, picking on and prosecuting the poorest in society to collect their ‘due’ (in contrast to the deluded commenter the other day who seems to think that the BBC is only paid for by upper rate taxpayers!), whether or not they bought the corporation’s ‘product’ in the first place.
And we even have just enough lefties and BBC employees* to keep us amused and on our toes!
* I realise the intersection of these two sets is rather large!
According to the BBC, the vast majority of New Yorkers hate GWB, and will be protesting his visit in a day or two. I wonder what the basis is for this assumption (for that is what it is)? Have they done a scientific poll?
Given that Kerry leads Bush 53 to 35 in New York State, in which NYC is the most liberal place, it doesn’t seem like a particularly disgraceful assertion.
But john b, because a majority express a preference for Kerry, do the VAST majority HATE Bush? Do you know? How does the BBC know?
Have they done a scientific poll?
Here you go.
A recent survey by a Manhattan public relations firm found 83 percent of those polled do not want the Republican convention in town. When asked why, more than half, 53 percent, were worried about traffic, street closures, and security hassles.
Of course, that still leaves 47% of 83% (or 39%) who (presumably) don’t want the RNC there because they “hate Bush”. However, you should be aware that scientific studies have shown[*] that 67% of New Yorkers hate everything.
[*]Lyes and Damlize, Statistics, 4/1/00, who go on to note that “98% of statistics are made up.”
It’s interesting that NYC invariably polls heavilly Democrat yet they seem to have had a good share of Republican mayors. The upper east side for example (a liberal bastion) hated Rudy Giulliani yet he carried the district every time he was up for election. Sometimes what people tell each other and pollsters is not what they do when they vote. Just an observation. 🙂
Note that Giulliani was succeeded by another Republican, Mike Bloomberg. I’ll bet none of those Dems voted for him either. 😉
The hate word is very much in evidence on the Dem side. I’m surprised the BBC has not focussed a bit on the vitriol on the left, and the deep vein of pacifism that has its apotheosis in Kerry himself. We’ll see some of the extremism on the streets of New York this week.
But then again…I’m not surprised. because anti-American sentiments appear normal to the Guardianistas in the news rooms at the Beeb.
When it comes to local politics people put their political ideologies out of the window and vote for the person likely actually to do something positive rather than talk about it. I don’t share Ken Livingstone’s views on rights for blind lesbian dwarves and 99% tax rates but I voted for him on the basis that the congestion charge would enable me to get to meetings. It has.
I’d struggle to vote for the current Conservative party but I’d happily vote for Steve Norris if he came up with a cunning plan for London and I thought he could implement it.
A Republican major doesn’t make New Yorkers akin to the inbred, overweight, abysmally dressed, religious nutters inhabiting the borderline third world hick towns of Republican America, so they can still hate Bush.
Would you care to identify any of those towns, Londoner? I’d really like to know.
“A Republican major doesn’t make New Yorkers akin to the inbred, overweight, abysmally dressed, religious nutters inhabiting the borderline third world hick towns of Republican America, so they can still hate Bush.”
Oh, look! Another BBC employee come to lay down the law to us ignorant ones. Is that straight from the secret BBC editorial directive instructing how the editorial clones are supposed to describe Republican Americans? Do tell. We’d love to hear.
Thank you for calling me deluded, the fact you completely misunderstood my point makes me feel a whole lot better. I was just making the point that those who moan loudest about the “telly-tax” are usually the ones who can well afford to pay it. It was sort of a joke actually, but never mind.
theghostofredken, you did say “Why should we… be surprised by your… observation that BBC has a … leaning to the left?” and “If you disagree with your hard-earned top-bracket tax pounds being spent on it, move to America.”
One of the offensive aspects of compulsory BBC telly-taxation is that it hits everyone – even those on social security. Most prosecutions are of the poor, single-parent families, those on council estates, etc. Upper-rate refuseniks in the suburbs are much less likely to be hounded by the BBC tallymen.
I doubt most on this blog are upper-rate taxpayers (I’m not, though Gordon Brown is bringing it ever closer).
I don’t mind paying tellytax for most BBC output – but the chronic Guardian world view (and plain sloppiness and ignorance) of so much BBC news & current affairs is offensive.
Please comment clearly and unambiguously – especially if you get touchy when others correct or clarify you!
Having had no reply from Londoner I must assume that nutters are not restricted to the “borderline third world towns” there. They seem to be in your capital, if his handle is to be believed.
Sorry mate, I was off doing some work to justify my top tax bracket private sector salary yesterday.
I went miles over the top in my previous post for which I apologies, however I did have the misfortune to visit Jasper, Texas (of race hate murder fame) a couple of years ago to which the above most definitely applies.
Apologies accepted, Londoner. The first two paragraphs of your post seemed well reasoned and gave me an insight as to how Red Ken could be elected mayor. The third graf was another story though.
I have never been to Jasper, Texas and I was as shocked, sickened, outraged, shamed, all the awful emotions one can feel, by the dragging death of James Byrd as anyone else.
I will note in defense of the town that the people there sent two of the three perpetrators to the death house and the third one got life imprisonment.
I regret to say that there was a time when they might not have been convicted. One has only to look as far as the kilings of the Freedom Riders in Mississippi in the 60’s to see this. Things have changed for the better.
Another note, Londoner. Realize that the party of Jim Crow was the Democrats. Look at who blocked Civil Rights legislation for years and you will see again that it was the Democrats, notably Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd.
Note that Democrat Lyndon Johnson only got Civil Rights legislation passed due to the efforts and votes of Republicans.
Historically it was Republicans who fought against and finally ended slavery.
I refuse to be a member of either party. I consider myself to be independent and I always vote a split ticket. I believe that I can’t watch them all the time so I set them to watch each other. It works for me. 😉