Monthly Archives: December 2004

BBC News 24’s Straight Talk programme (presumably so-named to contrast with the BBC’s normal kind of talk) this weekend follows the usual format of a presenter, James Landale, and three journalists, Jackie Ashley of The Guardian, George Pascoe-Watson of The Sun and Michael Brown of The Independent, discussing current topics (although with Bonking Blunkett on the agenda this week, current affairs might be more apt).

Both of this week’s topics, Bonking Blunkett and Gordon Brown’s pre-Budget report, were introduced with packaged pieces by the BBC’s Political Editor, Andrew Marr. On-screen captions inform us who each of the journalists are, including “Jackie Ashley, The Guardian”. Strangely though, neither the presenter nor Ms. Ashley spare a second, either at the beginning or during the programme, to inform us that Jackie Ashley is actually Mrs. Andrew Marr.

Her responses aren’t so much an issue in themselves (predictable though they are), but surely the integrity of the BBC demands that we, its compulsory Tellytax-paying customers, are informed of the family connection between Mr. & Mrs. Marr in order that we may bear this in mind whilst considering Mrs. Marr’s opinion on the stories covered by her husband’s reports on the programme – after all, Michael Brown saw fit to mention his own brush with scandal some years ago (in the context of the Blunkett discussion) and even The Guardian is honest enough to be transparent about the connection between Ashley & Marr.

that “people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution” have provoked one of the BBC’s regular [Don’t] Have Your Say topics.

Curiously, this topic, about which there is such strong public sentiment in favour of removing burglars so-called ‘rights’, has prompted only ten comments printed online. Even more curiously, the first three of these comments that supposedly ‘reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far’ are all against Sir John, for instance – “could spiral out of control”, “potentially very dangerous”, “daft and irresponsible” and so on. The last seven comments support Sir John’s views, and are, I believe, much more representative of typical British opinion.

Even if 30% of the comments received were agin Sir John’s views, are we really to believe that they were the first 30% of commenters? If not, how come the BBC’s list of comments have been ordered that way?

Update: This article refers to the BBC page timestamped 13:29 GMT. A new version, timestamped 16:02 GMT, has just been published. It now leads with eight new comments (two against, six for), somewhat redressing the balance. Perhaps there’s been a staff changeover.

at least if you rely on BBC News you will. The biggest British media/entertainment story of the day (and probably of the week, if not the month) was very briefly mentioned on the Six O’Clock News this evening (no footage, just a very, very brief sentence), and not at all on the Ten O’Clock News.

Bhopal hoax hits BBC is the front page headline on The Times website – along with an accompanying article Yes Men duo score their biggest hit with Bhopal hoax. BBC Is Hoaxed Over ‘Bhopal Aid Fund’ is the front page headline on the normally quite sparse Sky News website.

And what of our old unbiased, impartial, ever professional friends at BBC News Online? Front page? No. Entertainment page? No. Ah, but let no one say it is not there! Well yes, if you know where to look that is.

Scroll aaaaalllllll the waaaaaaaay down to the bottom of News Online’s home page, and there, buried right at the bottom, are inconspicuous links labelled Newswatch and Notes and corrections.

If you happen to scroll all the way down and then click on the discreet Newswatch link you get to see, finally, a link to News Online’s own coverage of this story – BBC caught out in Bhopal hoax.

If you happen to click on the other link, Notes and corrections, though, you don’t even get that – you get an almost identical page, but this time with a story spinning excuses for the BBC’s lamentably timid coverage of Bonking Blunkett’s Express Immigration Service (a story that, incidentally, makes no reference to the BBC’s somewhat different approach to covering the story of Bonking Boris).

And if you do happen to find the link to the BBC’s impartial, unbiased, objective coverage of this story, what do you find? Ah yes, it was an “elaborate deception”, an “elaborate hoax”. “Timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary” – funny that – who’d a thought it – pull a stunt like that on the 20th anniversary! How elaborate!

The BBC then goes on to explain that:

Excerpts from the interview were also carried on news bulletins on Radio 2, Radio 4 and Radio Five Live.

The BBC has apologised to Dow and to viewers who may have been misled.

Have you seen or heard any BBC apologies for this Ra^thergate style cock-up (journalists falling for stories that they want to believe)? I haven’t, and I doubt many of the other compulsory BBC Tellytax customers have heard much of this supposed apology either. As with all the best scandals, the initial ‘crime’ is never quite as bad as the cover up afterwards. The BBC still has a lot to learn about impartiality and objectivity.

As for the BBC’s much vaunted Newswatch, it looks as if, rather than the Tellytax-payers champion it purports to be, that it’s more of, shall we say, a good place to bury bad news.

Update: Powerline’s post on this refers to the Washington Post:

The broadcaster said in a written statement that it had been contacted by a man who “during a series of phone calls, claimed that there would be a significant announcement to be made on behalf of the Dow Chemical company.”

“He gave no further detail until the live interview, broadcast from the BBC’s Paris bureau this morning,” the BBC said.

Oh, how elaborate a deception indeed!

This is classic Paul Reynolds, being all solicitous about the future of Koffi’s family business, the UN. I have read the article reasonably closely. It is dominated by Reynolds’ refrain about a ‘high level panel’ that’s trying to find ways of reforming the UN.

Good show, you may think, except that what Reynolds doesn’t say, which you will only know if you have a suspicious mind and follow the link to a further website, is that the ‘high level panel’ was initiated by, guess who? Annan himself.

What other political organisation would get this sort of free pass from the BBC except the UN (well, excluding perhaps all political parties of the Left in election years)? Reynolds truly is risible in his wordy but slanted journalism. But note also, once again, the close relationship between a Foreign Office supported initiative (you can tell this by the British figures who make up this ‘high level panel’, that Reynolds mentions without critical comment), and a BBC ‘party-line’ position. One aspect of this common approach is the idea that the only good thing about the UK’s support of the Iraq war “adventure” is the moderating influence they can exert on those nasty hawks in Washington. Reynolds describes the ‘great hostility’ of the ‘right wing’.

Huh. As I said before- classic Reynolds.