– B-BBC commenter PJF notes the BBC’s treatment of the New Year messages from each of the UK’s three main political parties. PJF points out that Charles Kennedy’s Liberal Democrat Party new year message is reported, complete with fluffy quotes, but omitting the full text of the message for those interested in reading beyond what the BBC sees fit to selectively quote. The full text of CK’s speech is on the Lib-Dem website – unsurprisingly it’s poorly typed, wishy-washy and vague, veering amusingly from first person to third and back again – no wonder the BBC lefties haven’t reproduced it in full!
Tony Blair’s Labour Party new year message is also reported, this time with a link to the full text. Note how Blair’s report is helpfully led by the BBC with some spin on immigration and crime – perceived key issues for Labour’s election plans.
Likewise Michael Howard’s Conservative Party new year message is reported, with a link to the full text – but, crucially, the author of this BBC report has sought, obtained and concluded his or her report with a piece of biased slapstick knockabout opponent comment, as follows:
‘Should apologise’
But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: “It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January.”
“Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax.
“With Labour Britain is working. Rather than alluding to false promises Michael Howard should be starting 2005 with an apology to the British people for the misery that the government, of which he was a member, inflicted upon the country.
It’s not even a comment on what Howard says in his message – it’s just straight political pantomime knocking copy from laugh-a-minute leftie bruiser Fraser Kemp, complete with the April 1st jibe repeated in a box-quote. Neither the Kennedy nor the Blair message conclude with opponent’s reactions – so why is Howard’s message singled out for this biased, partial treatment, oh unbiased, impartial BBC?
Another example of the BBC’s biased reporting on this issue is that for much of yesterday BBC News Online’s Front Page politics sub-head featured as its one and only headline Choose hope over fear – Kennedy – this in spite of the fact that on the Politics page itself the lead stories were:
- Blair speaks of tsunami ‘horror’ – this was one of the front page lead stories;
- Labour dismissed ID cards in 1974 – expensive and ineffective, apparently – this later replaced the Kennedy blather as lead story;
- Right to information becomes law
All of which are clearly bigger political stories than Kennedy’s ‘hope over fear’ piffle. Yet it’s Kennedy that gets his name and photo on the BBC Views Online Front Page. What a surprise.
Are the BBC Views Online lefties so stupid that they can’t discern the overt bias in their presentation of these stories? or do they think that telly-taxpayers are too stupid to notice or care? Look out BBC! It’s behind you! (licence fees that is) – roll on subscription based charging… and viewers voting with their wallets.
The main Sunday morning newsround, Broadcasting House on Radio 4, concluded with a LONG LONG piece by Hugh Sykes – simply repeating all his usual stuff about quagmire in Iraq, and worst of all ending on the nore that 9/11 and everything else is the fault of America. Absolutely blatant bias. Not a single word of hope for the future in Iraq, just criticiscm of the US and the UK.
It is bad enough to hear all year long the totally predictable line that Sykes takes. Surely we don’t have to hear this extended piece at the end as well – the programme space allocated to it was not linked to any specific news interest. Just a damn sermon, grinding out the BBC news agenda for Iraq and the Middle East.
have you noticed how the web links always seem to be Liberal then Labour then Conservative? Why not alphabetical or even reverse alphabetical? Either way the Libes would be the second link not always the first…
You’d have thought that if the BBC were going to put in comments of oppenents re leaders new yr messages , that the current prime minister would be singled out , if anyone – after all, they are in power .Just how many more empty headlines are we going hear from tony blair about deporting illegal immigrants? – yet there is no criticism , simply the bbc used as a conduit for propaganda .
Off topic – have you seen this story?
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=3662005
This is just a step too far. We pay this reporter her £250,000 salary and she flagrantly flaunts her left wing allegiance by holidaying with a f***ing dyed in the wool socialist indeed!!!!! See also further down the article about when she was questioned by a QC during the enquiry into the Scottish Parliament building for whom she previously was bridesmaid!!! Can you all please write a letter of protest at this? Right minded people will just have to start knocking these f***ers off one by one through campaigning, letter writing, (and eventually withdrawing support when the Stalinism of the licence fee ends) until the BBC realises that it is funded by public money and comes to heel. Outrageous.
Kevin
If the biggest running scandal in Scotland is the outrageous and still-spiralling cost of the new building for the Scottish Assembly, how can Kirsty Wark be regarded as an independent assessor – and her company continue with the contract to produce the documentary on the building. And what particular talent does wark have anyway? – she never looks very impressive, just a leftie hack with a scots accent.
Maybe they’ve given up?
Everytime there’s intentional bias on the DHYS page, I send them a nice letter about subscription, the end of the license fee and what that means for their (lack of) job security.
Send the (D)HYS a p45. The best gift for journalistic honesty in 2005.
So the BBC’s bias here is that they reported Bliar’s remarks full text & reported Howard’s with full text & gave Kennedy only “fluffy quotes”. Certainly this is bias but more bias towards the traditional authoritarian (ID card carrying) parties than simple left wing bias.
Neil Craig: So the BBC’s bias here is that they reported Bliar’s remarks full text & reported Howard’s with full text & gave Kennedy only “fluffy quotes”
Er, no Neil – that’s probably the least troubling aspect of their bias in this case – although it’s still bias by omission – partcularly when you compare how poorly written CK’s message is with the others.
No, the worst aspects of bias in this case are:
1) Concluding the report about Howard’s NY message with a straight slag off comment from an opponent, but not doing this for the Blair or Kennedy messages;
2) Hyping CK’s ‘hope not fear’ message on the news home page and at the top the politics page, when not treating the others the same, and when none of these stories are important in the grand scheme of things just now anyway.
I thought that was clear in my original post – I hope this clarifies matters!
Re Wark/O’Connell
Sunday Times had story back on 5 Dec.
It points out Wark’s obstruction of the inquiry into the Scot Parliament construction fiasco, a scheme started by another chum of Wark, D.Dewar.
“So why are Wark and McConnell risking their reputations for a few days in the Mediterranean sun when the first minister would normally be at home for Hogmanay? Perhaps they will take the time to reflect on the cut and thrust of this year’s Fraser inquiry into the Holyrood fiasco, when Wark’s production company, Wark Clements, and BBC Scotland refused to hand over crucial tapes to Fraser. At the time, the first minister took no action to compel Wark Clements to hand over the tapes, made for her yet-to-be- screened documentary on the building of the parliament, although the inquiry had spent seven months trying to secure them.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1389181,00.html
I think immigration is going to be the big issue in the end.
“Likewise Michael Howard’s Conservative Party new year message is reported, with a link to the full text – but, crucially, the author of this BBC report has sought, obtained and concluded his or her report with a piece of biased slapstick knockabout opponent comment . . .”
This is the problem with the Consevative Party. They fail to honestly and openly acknowledge that they have been utterly marginalised by the BBC.
On their website, they do not even have the courage to present a broadcasting policy aimed at privatising, or otherwiase reforming, the BBC, during this election cycle.
Accordingly, they deserve the self- inflicted political extinction that has now arrived at their door-step.
ken kautsky – quite right.
I used to get dismayed when politicians could not resist kicking their opponents, instead of realising that they had a common foe in the media.
But I decided that politicians were only worthy of my (mild) contempt.
ken kautsky, great post!
A revelation of obviousness!
“BBC’s bias here is that they reported Bliar’s remarks full text & reported Howard’s with full text & gave Kennedy only “fluffy quotes”
Er, no Neil – that’s probably the least troubling aspect of their bias in this case”
Well it troubles me more the treatment of Howard – but then we both have our biases – same applies to our respective opinions of Howard’s noble words & Kennedy’s fluffy non-grammaticisms.