On Friday morning BBC Views Online’s front page News Ticker’s headlines included:
Commons speaker’s press chief quits after secretly colluding with the Conservatives
This then linked to a story headlined Speaker’s aide quits in Tory row.
Both of these headlines suggest some Conservative, sorry Beeboids, Tory skulduggery or wrongdoing.
The real story – in fact, there are three real stories – is that, according to the BBC’s own report (once you read through the spin), John Stonborough, an employee of Michael Martin, the Commons’ Speaker, tried to send an email to the Conservatives’ Guy Black, following last week’s publication of MPs expenses, suggesting that the Conservatives attack the Labour Party over their MPs expenses because “Most of the abuse was Labour”.
Except that the clot sent the email to ‘T. Black’ – Teresa Black, who works for a Labour MP – thus prompting his resignation because the Speaker and his office are supposed to be impartial (link for the benefit of Beeboids!).
Now this is where it gets complicated Beeboids – collusion means:
A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.
Given that the message was unsolicited (there is no evidence to suggest otherwise) and given that it didn’t get to its intended recipient anyway, where then is the collusion? Why is it a ‘Tory row’ rather than a ‘Speaker’s row’ or somesuch? Is it too hard to resist the urge to spin the facts into ‘Tory collusion’ and ‘Tory row’?
And what of the second and third stories I alluded to? Well, the second story is precisely what Mr. Stonborough attempted to highlight – that Labour MPs appear to abuse, sorry, claim more expenses than other MPs – which isn’t something that the BBC have gone out of their way to investigate. The third aspect is that it is, to coin a phrase, widely believed that the political parties agreed not to attack each other over MPs expenses – presumably because they think they are as bad as each other when it comes to snouts in the trough. That, Beeboids, is where the real story of collusion, if any, exists.
News Online’s first version of the story, timestamped 10.14, was the same as the second version, timestamped 11.56, save for the addition of the final paragraph in the latter – “Mr Black later stressed he had neither requested, nor received, any information from Mr Stonborough.” – which, for alert and persistent readers at least, rather highlights the BBC News Online spin in the story and its headlines.
Of courese the BBC has never followed up on the scandal of th woman (I forget her name now) that was brought in to look at the massive corruption in our political elite. If I remember they made her life hell and she resigned.
The BBC (nor any other broadcast media) will upset politicians for a variety of reasons.
1. Most of the broadcast media are on the fiddle as well
2. The broadcast media rely on their political flunky mates for all the gossip and tip offs and don’t want to upset or out them.
3. Far too many failed politicians end up working within the broadcast media and don’t want to end the rich cash cow of a “MEEJJA job” when they finally get turfed out of the House of Commons.
Elizabeth Filkin, if I recall correctly – and yes – there don’t seem to have been (m)any in depth follow-ups or Panorama style investigations into why she was ditched.