, shown on BBC2 last Thursday, was one of a surfeit of humorous end-of-year review shows, this one being notable for its pimping of the official BBC world view. Described in the BBC’s own listings as “a light-hearted romp through the 50 Winners and Losers of 2004 from the world of entertainment”, the programme, presented by Dermot O’Leary, was mostly amusing, but, unsurprisingly, they managed to slip in a few special ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ too:
Loser 21: The Hutton Report – what a surprise! – the report that heavily criticised the BBC for its shoddy reporting methods and standards comes in for an undefended broadside from, er, the unbiased, impartial BBC (again). The commentary speciously juxtaposed the Hutton Report with “six months later, the admission that the intelligence on Iraqi weapons was wrong”, but of course, that wasn’t what the Hutton report was about – it was about “the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly”, a BBC source who committed suicide after being surreptitiously exposed by then BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan (surely a 2004 loser himself). Moreover, the “the intelligence was wrong” view conveniently ignores established facts about Iraqi WMD programmes and capabilities, as well as the distinct possibility that Iraqi WMD were smuggled abroad.
Unsurprisingly, one of the ‘talking head’ non-entities commenting on this item was, yes, Greg Dyke, that well known “hideously white“ multi-millionaire man-of-the-people – who, speaking about Lord Hutton, said “I mean, here’s a man who’s done some pretty significant things in his life, and he’ll be remembered for this ludicrous report”. Ah yes, it’s not as if the People’s Greg has an axe to grind about this, is it?
Then, defending Piers Morgan, sacked as editor of the Daily Mirror for publishing clearly fake photos depicting alleged British Army abuse of an Iraqi, we had Miranda Sawyer, a leftie journalist, getting her mug on the box again, describing a retired senior military officer (who had the temerity to call for Morgan’s resignation) as “that silly man”.
Loser 18: Robert Kilroy-Silk – mentioning his ‘sacking’ from the BBC over his widely publicised Daily Express article, omitting to point out the settlement with the BBC whereby RSK’s production company continues to work for the BBC (thus still paying RSK, without RSK having to appear on the box himself!), which then led into a comment from Arthur Smith, a leftie comedian: “I mean UKIP, what a bloody joke they are”.
Winner 14: Jesus Christ – showing a clip from Mel Gibson’s blockbuster film, The Passion of the Christ, leading into a not very subtle double-backhander “Yes, Jesus triumphed, and he also propelled George W. Bush back into the White House”.
For good measure we were also told that it was “a dreadful year for vermin – they were told they could no longer go fox-hunting”, followed up with a bogus comparison of fox-hunting with burglary. Well comrades, property is theft, after all!
A “lighthearted romp” through the winners and losers of “the world of entertainment” indeed – and quite typical of the BBC that they should use themselves as a platform for settling scores and furthering their own world view, without any meaningful rebuttal from those who beg to differ. How about commissioning two shows next year – one made by lefties (as this one, by BBC Manchester), and another by non-lefties, where the satirical targets are lefties, leftie shibboleths, the BBC, the EU, the Labour Party and so on – so that non-leftie telly-taxpayers, of whom there are tens of millions, have their views reflected in the BBC’s output too.
The Hutton Report did deal with Dr Kelly but glossed over the fact that it was the government that released his name to the public – thereby putting him under pressure. The only problem with the BBC report was the timing. At the time of the report there was no proof of the allegations. We all know that Blair lied now. In the commons he repeatedly said ‘Trust me’ he said there was more evidence for war. In fact the evidence they had suggested there was no need for war.
What lie, JP?
Have you any facts to overturn the evidence to Hutton that the dossier was the work of, & approved by, the JIC?
I didn’t watch this, no thank you, but I did watch Channel Four’s 50 Comedy Greats on Saturday night. It was, apparently, a similar format, the usual type of thing with these list shows, archive shot of performer while voice over provides background and with various talking heads popping up to put in their two-penneth.
So up comes Bob Hope – the man who practically invented standup comedy as we know it. There’s some discussion of his technique, his ground breaking acknowledgement of the fourth wall (clip of talking to camera in a Road To… movie) and then clips of him eulogising President Kennedy at some dinner function, clips of USO tours and a sort of double act with President Reagan. Fair enough.
What do the commentators say? Something like, “Well, of course entertaining the troops in Vietnam and hanging out with Reagan should count against him, he was very right wing.” ??? What about “hanging out” with Kennedy, you know, the Democrat. What really got my goat was that
What really got my goat was that one of these talking heads was old SWP tosser Jeremy Hardy and another was old leftie Arthur Smith. If Hardy, Mark Steel (who I actually rather enjoy), Alexie Sale or Ben Elton (read his interview in this month’s Word Magazine if you want a good giggle, the interviewer seems most distraught that he’s not standing up raving about “Mrs Thatch” and “Normo Tebs” these days and that he doesn’t mind that we have a Queen. Elton gets the right hump.) were being discussed would their politcal leanings (horizontals?) get dragged up?
Anyway, as this show was on Channel Four this proves nothing about BBC bias, however it’s all part of the cozy bien pensant smugness that exudes from all corners of the media.
Still the best source of info on who is really ding the heavy lifting to help the tsunami survivors, puncturing a lot of the lies coming from the UN :
diplomad.blogspot.com
The fact that he distorted the intelligence. The dossier was redrafted after Alistair Campbell sent it back with comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1294479,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1308963,00.html
The motion said the war was “unjustified and based on misleadingly presented and falsely interpreted intelligence” and called for a fundamental review of intelligence assessment methods.
JP
Like Greg Dyke, you seem to be in denial. The Gilligan claim was that the government had deliberately distorted the work of the intelligence agencies on WMD. This claim was demolished by two Parliamentary reports as well as by Hutton. Anyone who followed the evidence to Hutton could see that Gilligan lied, that Kelly did not say what Gilligan claimed he said, that BBC management refused to investigate the matter properly, refused to deal sensibly with Blair and Campbell’s complaints, and that the BBC fully deserved the lambasting they got.
If Hutton had not been correct, the BBC Governors would not have accepted Greg Dyke’s resignation. They would have stood they ground. Instead – they shifted totally from their original position, and dumped Dyke. Quite right too.
Carry on in denial if you wish, quote Guardian articles if you wish. But you can’t put the clock back. The BBC was found out telling huge and higly damaging porkies, deliberately defending
JP – we don’t want to go through all this again, but…
Motions by the loony left do not provide evidence for “lies”.
Politicians are accused of lies far too readily.
The programme was basically a “light-hearted romp” for Guardian readers. The comments about fox hunting were entirely predictable – along with the “vermin” remark already quoted there was the tendentious claim that the protests in Westminster represented a battle of “toffs against townies”, then a cutaway to Stuart Maconie to make further disapproving remarks.
Despite including George Bush as a winner the programme then went on to make all the usual jibes about how stupid he is and how disappointing it is to all sane people thoughout the world that he got back in. The whole thing just seemed to be yet another opportunity for BBC leftists to parade their prejudices.
Not that I accept your points but I think it futile to express views you disagree with. If I cannot quote The Guardian and politicians you only leave me with rightists (opp of leftists) newspapers etc. Hardly allowing any debate. But what I will say is that maybe the BBC has taken on the role of opposing the Labour government (as it has against Tories in the past) because there is no real opposition. It may not be their place to do it but it does add balance to an already extremely right wing media.
Oh dear – that’s an old BBC canard – they take the view that because both Labour and the Conservatives complain about them “that we must be doing something right” or “that it shows we’re balanced”.
The reality is that:
1) the BBC is overall of a left wing mindset – something that informs and moulds a great deal of their output (and thus improperly moulds and affects much national thought and debate);
2) it is not the role of the BBC to oppose the government – however apparently woeful the opposition – the BBC aren’t elected and can’t be thrown out by the voters. Their job is simply to report the news and the arguments fairly and objectively – unfortunately though, because they can’t be thrown out, they do as they please, which has led to their current leftward state.
While we’re at it, there are plenty of left wing papers and magazines – and if the market could bear it there would doubtless be more.
It’s a pity we’re not allowed (on the grounds
cont/.
of impartiality) to have a right-of-centre TV news operation to counter the BBC’s tellytax-funded leftie tosh!
Whilst overall the programme was indeed trash, there were two heartening moments. George Bush being declared a winner is neither one thing nor the other, but for the Beeb to allow a talking head to admit that many in the UK didn’t properly understand him or the US electorate is a positive move. It wasn’t done with sarcasm either – but as the genuine expression of a lack of information, with an admission that the views about Bush and the US that have been prevalent of late may have been in error.
The other was the mocking portrayal of Michael Moore. Not only did they declare him a loser, but they piled in on his honesty as a film maker. About time too.
Mark Kermode was spot on when he remarked that even though he despises Bush, he couldn’t stomach the thought of how smug Moore would be if Kerry had won.
Kermode rightly accused Moore of preaching to the converted and of being childish.
Note there was no criticism of the Democrats elitism, which was instrumental in their defeat.
They have abandoned the working class.
The bias was most apparent in the comments on hunting, with no alternative viewpoint allowed.
In defence of the C4 ‘Comedy Greats’ programme referenced by Mark Holland, the show was actually called ‘The Comedian’s Comedian’ (i.e. comedians get to pick who they thought should be in the top 50. Like it or not, the majority of comedians are left-leaning (in this countryat any rate) and it would have been improper for the programme to artificially balance the pervading view. Unlike the catty BBC’s ‘Winners and Losers’, there was no unnecessarily skewed editorial narrative in this show.
PS. Great blog.
Who came out on top in the C4 Comedian’s Comedian show anyway? Unfortunately I missed the last bit due to a pressing call of nature that couldn’t be postponed…
Peter Cook was No 1 Comedian.
I remember his gang when they opened the Establishment in the early 1960’s …..ah, those were the days. The good old days, when the BBC was honest and objective and balanced.
Thank you – an impressively fast response! I should have figured that one out – there also seems to have been a bit of a surfeit of Pete & Dud programmes over the last few days too.
I’m not old enough to remember the 1960s, but I remember from growing up in the ’70s how BBC news used to be proper, serious and balanced – before we got to the current state of play with right-on leftie journalists (in the main) using dumbed down PC language, an absolute minimum of facts and all those stupid ‘going live’ interviews to people standing in the cold outside empty buildings.
Does anyone know if the Beeb is required to be politically balanced in all of its output or only in its political output?
Because given that there are virtually no right wing comedians (Jim Davidson anyone?) the BBC presumably have to limit their output of comedy in order to provide a politically balanced output.
I don’t suppose so Bish. Surely the first job of a comic is to be funny. Although Jim Davidson does get on a lot so maybe he’s like an affermative action hire.
In Jim’s place BBC1 should show Penn and Teller’s Bullshit in a prime time slot. It’d blow their minds – especially the GM crops episode. I caught it on an obscure Sky channel (FX289?) some time ago and thought it was brilliant.
Bob Hope seemed pretty apolitical to me.
Just because he entertained troops does not make him right-wing; Al Franken has entertained troops, too.
So has Letterman.
Bob Hope was pretty conservative. That’s no reason to diss him though. In his “Road” days he was a comedic genious. Few Americans knew that Hope was British, BTW. He rarely mentioned that he was born in England as I recall.
One time he did mention it when he told of how in American grade school another boy asked him his name. He replied English-school style, “Hope, Leslie” (Leslie being his real first
name.) He was known as “Hopelessly” at that school from then on.
Sorry for the OT, but I’ve always liked that story 🙂
Surely the reason that Bob was a conservative flag-waver was because he came to this country as a poor immigrant child and then grew up to become fabulously wealthy and famous? It’s very common for successful immigrants to the US from other countries to be conservative
flag-wavers. The BBC makes it sound like a disease instead of an entirely reasonable phenomenon.
Re Hutton I think the BBC were right on this & the government wrong. This site loses objectivity by supporting Bliar on this just because the Tories do.
A more interesting example, to me, of the sort of cozying up the BBC does was the remark by Dyke in a later TV programme by him, that after Hutton they thought they had an agreement with the government that they would shut up about WMDs & Bliar’s office wouldn’t call for resignations. He was most indignant that Campbell, possibly acting as a loose cannon, then called for resignations but obviously couldn’t see that the very agreement was corrupt – agreeing to alter journalistic coverage to protect the posteriors of him & his board.