In an article headlined Lib Dems accused of Tory alliance, concerning an email from a Labour candidate to his supporters (helpfully “released officially by the Labour Party” – no journalistic derring-do required) with the usual sort of leftie ferrets-in-a-sack by-election smears (although this time, for once, The Liberal Democrats are receiving rather than giving – and, to quote Corporal Jones of Dad’s Army, “they don’t like it up ’em”!), there was a funny bit near the end that read:
‘Running scared’And, regarding the forthcoming by-election, [Matthew Taylor, Lib Dem Chairman] added: “This is developing into a clear two-horse race between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, with the Conservatives giving up before it has begun – and this e-mail proves Labour are running scared.”
These sentiments were echoed by the Tories, who accused Labour of paranoia.
Ah yes – that would be right – of course ‘the Tories’* would echo the Lib Dems sentiments and their hoary old two-horse race chestnut. No doubt about that at all.
It’s nonsense of course – but the funny bit is that the original article was posted at 14:45 last Saturday. The latest version, without the obvious canard, is dated Monday at 11.27 – so it took the BBC nearly two whole days to spot and correct such an obvious error.
Don’t these people read what they’ve written before they publish it? Doesn’t anyone else at the BBC read it (within minutes or hours, rather than days)? Or does it take until Monday morning when some poor bloody telly-taxpayer writes in for them to finally notice it and fix it? Or did they think they could get away with such nonsense?
I suppose we should be thankful that this one wasn’t given the full stealth-editing treatment. I still look forward to the day when News Online are professional and honest enough to include a log of authors and amendments as part of each story – it’s the only way they’ll be properly and fully accountable to us, their adoring captive market.
* I presume the BBC (in common with everyone else on the left) almost always refer to the Conservative Party and its members as ‘Tories’ because a) it’s easier to sneer the word Tory; and b) it’s a historical insult from a few centuries back.
Perhaps now that the BBC politely refers to terrorists as ‘militants’, lest the sensibilities of terrorists and their supporters are offended, the time has finally come for the BBC, in the interests of their famed balance and impartiality, to drop the term Tory, pejorative connotations and all, too!
Off Topic – If anyone is interested please see a couple of items I’ve written about the BBC:
– John Pilger in Defence of BBC
– BBC, NBC Olympic vultures
at the above URL (http://spinbad.blogspot.com )
Thanks, sorry for the intrusion.
No surprise to see that the BBC’s resident expert during the Iraq War, Dan Plesch, is the joint author of the publication drawn up for the purpose of impeaching Blair.
Wouldn’t it be a case of political correctnes gone mad to stop referring to members of the conservative party as “tories”?
Well If the BBC called the Labour Party members coerced-collectivists then I can see why Tory would be OK.
Don’t get me wrong PD – I’m not suggesting that the term Tory shouldn’t be used – merely that the sensitive, balanced and unbiased BBC ought to deprecate in in their Style Guide.
To many Conservatives its a pejorative term used by their opponents to demean them – in much the same way that, for instance, the phrase ‘Sinn Fein/IRA’ is a political statement – often heard from the opponents of Sinn Fein/IRA (incuding me, here), but not a term they use themselves*, nor a term that a BBC reporter would get away with using either (because it’s deprecated in the Style Guide and, well, Sinn Fein/IRA have guns you know! 🙂
* at least not in public broadcasts – think of the way in which some gays use the term ‘old queen’ or some ethnic minority citizens use the ‘N’ word among themselves.
My comment was actually a little joke referring to Mr Howard’s recent speech.
But anyway, I’ve never thought of the word “Tory” as having negative connotations. I see no reason not to use it. I think a reason for its use might be as simple as this:
Labour = 2 syllables
Tories = 2 syllables (Conservatives = 4)
Lib Dems = 2 syllables (Liberal Democrats = 6!)
I thought that was the case PD – but I really do think that the constant way in which the term Tory is sneeringly used by those who seek to do down the Conservatives has turned the word Tory into a politically loaded term – and thus, as with terrorists and as with Sinn Fein/IRA, the BBC should avoid using it themselves, in order to maintain their unbiased and impartial coverage of the Conservatives…
Either that or we should start hearing reporters refering, from time to time, to the Labour Party as Socialists, Trots and lefties…
On a related note – have you noticed how the Lib Dems always refer to themselves as Liberal Democrats – hardly ever The Liberal Democrats (a bit like The Consumers Association – they always talk about CA this and CA that, never The CA). I wonder why.
Excuse my ignorance, why is the term Tory demeaning?
Off Topic:
Radio fantasist slates reality TV:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3602472.stm
Amusing and insightful.
.
Re PJF’s link to Humphrys on TV
Humphrys says he has not had a telly for 5 years.
I find that most surprising. I would have thought that the smug man would have made his TV appearances required viewing for the whole family. Most especially, that the 61 year old father would be keen to be watched by his, probably precocious, 4 year old son.
BBC Online report from Najaf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3607150.stm
“”What is the difference between [Iyad] Allawi’s government and Saddam Hussein? They both pound us,” the man added.”
Perhaps more similarity between Saddan & Sadr, but the BBC fails to mention the tortured, executed & burnt corpses found in Sadr’s bunker.
They’re quoting what appears to be a pretty common sentiment in the new Iraq.
Or doesn’t having your family blown up by a stray bomb count if it’s done in the name of ‘freedom’?
Ah, RB, your browser appears to have missed off the last paragraph of Rob’s post, to which you refer. Try reloading it, and then answer Rob’s point about the lack of attention paid to Sadr ‘the man’, otherwise your counter-comment runs the risk of appearing as a facile manipulation of Rob’s point. There’s a good chap.
1) The point about Sadr’s court is a good one – this should have been reported on.
2) That doesn’t alter the fact that Iraqi’s complaints about the occupation/new Iraqi government methods should also be reported on. If some Iraqis don’t appreciate their ‘liberation’/’freedom’ that is news.