That is the question asked by The Scotsman’s Jenny Hjul. (Hat tip: Gary.) She says:
His presence in Washington begs two questions: why did BBC Scotland feel it needed to send its own man when (a) it is currently implementing drastic cost cuts and (b) the BBC’s Washington correspondent, Clive Myrie, was already there and more than up to the job?
Also, if BBC Scotland really, really had to send, why did it have to be Wylie, whose friendship with Galloway goes back years and who, as the Diary pointed out yesterday, received an acknowledgement in Galloway’s autobiography?
Wylie is not an expert on Iraq or on American politics. And in this case, he was clearly not impartial, and neither was BBC Scotland. Shame on them.
Oliver Kamm quotes from the Scotsman’s article and comments on it in a post called “British Back-scratching Corporation”. (Hat tip: David H.) Mr Kamm – who has read everything about everything – points out that Wylie and Galloway co-authored a book on the Romanian revolution, “presenting a highly tendentious thesis favourable to the government of the thuggish Communist apparatchik Ion Iliescu.”
The BBC didn’t just have Wylie and Clive Myrie covering the Gorgeous One’s testimony – Matt Frei was there as well for the Ten O’Clock News.
Quite a staff outing.
And now they’re celebrating George Clooney, sorry, Galloway on Question Time. They ought to try and get Saddam on as well…
BBC Radio Scotland is without doubt both the most profligate and left of centre part of the BBC – World Service included.
As an example of their profligacy, I can think of no better example than Celtic FC’s appearance in the UEFA cup final a few years back. I counted over 12, and those were just the ones I saw and the ones this side of the mic/camera. They even had a guy there reporting on the weather a week before (like you can’t get that from a wire service).
Then of course there was the Pope’s funeral. Why send 2 when you can send 22?
It’s your BBC LOL..
This blog sums up the quality of the comments the BBC allows on it’s (Don’t) Have Your Say website:
http://www.idiottoys.com/2005/05/idiots-discuss-playstation-3.html#comments
Lest we forget that the BBC devoted around 40 minutes of air time a few years back to advertising for Sony.
BTW Chris Hitchens was on Talksport last night talking about the Galloway circus, very enlightening.
Hurrah! Audience member on QT just mentioned the Charity Commission.
OT: BBC 3’s new political comedy The Thick Of It was pretty lame.
‘Any Questions’ has George Galloway on the panel and 3 other panelists that support his POV and stance. Having attended a live show as part of the audience, where the question asked on the application to attend is whether one supported or was anti the Iraq war, the BBC has had little diffculty ensuring a majority pro Galloway audience. No embarrassing questions like “What exactly prompted you to express your “greatest admiration” to Saddam when you shook his hand?”. Instead they gave him a free reign to promote himself as some sort of moral Messiah, with enough support from member panelists and audience to quash any dissent from this view.
Why was Galloway on Question Time anyway – it was from Edinburgh and the panel would usually be restricted to politicians for Scottish constituencies.
In effect, the BBC has been against Bush and Blair on every step of the Iraq saga. They see in Galloway a knockabout turn who will be their attack dog on Iraq. That is why they give him so much airtime, And that is why theu have never explored properly the Respect Party and its backing/control by the Socialist Workers Party.
Zevilyn
As usual Hitchens was good value for money. Whether you agree with him or not he’s always thought provoking and intellectually sound. It’s high time that Charlie Wolf was given that slot permanently instead of the weekend graveyard shift.
After all the adulation of Galloway these past few days on the BBC, it is good to see a put-down by Gerard Baker in the Times. Of course if the BBC had any sense of balance we would be hearing this sort of criticism in the Today programme.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1619416,00.html
Pete_London – Yes, I heard the Hitchens interview as well – very enlightening – I’d actually forgotten some of the details such as GG being kicked out of War on Want because of his expenses. I suppose there’s no chance of Charlie Wolf getting the slot permanently instead of that idiot James Whale.
Ken
In support of your argument I’m trying to compile a list of public bodies that have responded to a change of direction imposed from the top.
Post Office?
NHS?
Immigration Office?
BA -Privitised
BT -Privitised
Coal Industry-History
Railways – Nightmare
Fire Brigade?
Child Support Agency?
Police?
?………
Dogs Bits
A model for left wing Public Service Broadcasting (if it must exist, which I dispute) already exists in the US in the form of PBS, and heres whats good about it;
-nobody watches it
-it has no influence
-it is funded by going on air for a few days every year to Beg for donations (rather like “children in Need”).
If those clever Americans can do it, so can we!
We could call it “Moonbats in Need”
Why is it that when irrefutable evidence of BBC bias etc arises, those who visit the site with the general aim of defending the organisation never pipe up?
“Why is it that when irrefutable evidence of BBC bias etc arises, those who visit the site with the general aim of defending the organisation never pipe up?”
1) Many BBC defenders don’t see the points as irrefutable.
2) Many people can’t be bothered to argue against of likeminded people on issues of interpretation. Nobody changes their mind, why bother. Which is why a niche forum like this exists – the perfect raison d’etre for a blog.
I’ve disagreed here, and been written off as a commie [I last voted conservative]. Your comment boards resound with the same talking points as are found on numerous right wing American blogs, and accordingly gain no credibility as serious exposes of instutional bias.
The panel line-up on Question Time was hardly diverse, with at least three of the panelists being of the anti-war, chattering class worldview.
Surely the panelists should each hold different views. Why were two of the panelists (Galloway and Salmond) nearly identical in their political views.
The BBC loves to promote “diversity”…except in the case of politics.
“I’ve disagreed here…”
But do you disagree here, Anonymous?
.
John in London: (from article) “One observer noted that senators take themselves so seriously that “they’d wear togas if they thought they could get away with it.” ”
DAMN this guy is good! 😀 This had me wondering where he’d met my senators, but then they’re all pretty much alike! LOL! 😀
thedogsdanglybits:
“Ken
In support of your argument I’m trying to compile a list of public bodies that have responded to a change of direction imposed from the top.
BA -Privitised
BT -Privitised”
Thats right “Dogs”. I too recommend privatisation.
However, in the present real world situation where we still have a massive information bureaucracy in the public/State’s hands we should have regulation of it from the top down – with the Communications minister at the top.
In this way, when and if the organisation fails to deliver – as it might – we would then know who is ultimately responsible for that, who is to blame, and who needs to be sacked. That how responsible government works. What a magnificent English doctrine/convention. Get back to that which works.
Please read about “responsible government”.
Fellow Taxpayers,
Even British snobs have to agree that American English is perfectly understandable. So why send anybody to the US from here? There are many capable American reporters, and no lack of satellite feeds to convey the message!
Lydell, If the BBC was purely and solely interested in facts, then your suggestion would work fine. I’ve noticed they only use American correspondents when their view coincides to the one desired. Here they wanted the spin that would make GG some sort of hero instead of the despicable loathsome excuse for a human being that he is. We’ve reached a new low when someone like him is what is supposed to make one feel proud to be British.
Ken,
You keep referring to ‘responsible government’. Unfortunately responsible government relies on honourable men & women; a species that is in terminal decline in politics and almost extinct at the BBC as many of the posts on this site indicate.
Your proposal recommends a ‘Communication Minister’, presumably to oversee broadcasting although his remit would also have to cover the website if he was to tackle the totality of Corporation bias. Unless you propose to extend his powers to the whole of information dissemination (In which case we’re all going to have to be very careful with our posts!) you have only reinvented the Director General except he would now be a New Labour politician rather than just a substantial donor to party funds.
Nevertheless, let’s say you found your ‘honourable man’.
His task is to crack down on BBC bias.
But define bias.
We think we know what we mean by the word but even we argue at times.
A quick google gave me • “a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation” which was little help because almost every word in that phrase is open to interpretation.
The definition I’m sure the BBC would choose would be something along the lines of “reporting in a manner likely to offend a substantial proportion of the public”. That would leave them free to consider themselves as the public and the ‘substantial proportion’ as anyone to the left of them plus muslims, envirofascists, new age travellers or any other minority group that’s the flavour of the month.
You can be sure that any program that had the slightest conservative or right wing slant would be ruled out as likely to offend one of the above.
.
The BBC at least makes an effort at objectivity, and it’s views are centrist on most occasions.
You’re going to have a very hard time of trying to argue that the BBC has been acting as some sort of cheerleader for George Galloway. BBC reporters have been very tough on the guy. Seriously, what more do you expect? Articles entitled “Agent of the Kremlin Strikes West” or “Terrorist Verbally Attacks the USA”? That would be nice and unbiased, wouldn’t it?
And as we’re on the subject of bias, you might want to take a look at the Scotsman itself. The fact that this newspaper thinks itself fit to criticise the BBC (or anything at all) for a lack of objectivity is ridiculous. Or is the sort of propaganda that Barclays peddle not a problem in your book?
Jenny,
If sending Bob Wylie, his friend and co-author, to report on Galloway’s performance constitutes being tough on the guy I’d hate to see what being nice to him involves.
As for the Scotsman, as we are always saying, unlike the BBC the Scotsman is not bound by charter to be impartial and we are not bound by threat of imprisonment to pay for it.
There are many capable American reporters, and no lack of satellite feeds to convey the message!
Yes, but American correspondents couldn’t do the patented BBC sneer, an essential part of the BBC newscasting “experience.”
Another lefty shows up to defend the BBC. As I asked before, if the BBC is indeed “centrist” and “balanced” and “scrupulously impartial” how come no righties ever show up to defend the BBC?
Failure to do a dissection job on Respect is the real indication of BBC bias. They fail to dissect and expose this unholy alliance between the far left and Islamists. Why – because the nasty Respect movement chimes with a lot of the BBC mindset, especially the opposition on Iraq.
Susan,
That’s so true. It takes a special talent. Thanks to the strike, they haven’t sneered about John Bolton (the UN ambassadorial nominee who calls a spade a spade) for the last 24 hours.
Jenny, you write “You’re going to have a very hard time of trying to argue that the BBC has been acting as some sort of cheerleader for George Galloway. BBC reporters have been very tough on the guy. Seriously, what more do you expect? Articles entitled “Agent of the Kremlin Strikes West” or “Terrorist Verbally Attacks the USA”? That would be nice and unbiased, wouldn’t it?”
What I would expect is a report that goes something along the lines of, “The man who shook hands with Saddam, the despot who murdered millions of his countrymen, women and children, and told him that he thought he was a great man and that he was honoured to meet him, was accused by the Senate of receiving oil vouchers in exchange for political favours, as discovered in documents found by American troops after this despot was deposed.” If this lowlife GG hadn’t have been caught on video with this handshake he would also have denied this.
You’re right about difficulty trying to argue the point as it’s irrefutable.
In response to: “Another lefty shows up to defend the BBC. As I asked before, if the BBC is indeed “centrist” and “balanced” and “scrupulously impartial” how come no righties ever show up to defend the BBC?”
Because the lefties aren’t stupid and know that without the BBC’s output (which is on the whole centrist) the British press would become entirely corporate dominated and very much biased to the right. Clearly the righties see no problem with this. I’m not saying the BBC is perfect by any means, and I think it’s a good idea to be on the look out for bias and question it, but I don’t think the BBC should be taken apart as many people here do.
On the George Galloway issue, yes they have beeen tough on the guy, you only have to look at the election night coverage for that. Prior to the interview with Paxman the only voice heard on him was one man (either a Labour or a Tory guy) going on about how much of a terrible person Galloway was. This wasn’t even debated, mainly because out of the main parties nobody was exactly cheering him on. I don’t think that was due to the BBC being intrinsically biased, my complaint here would be that the smaller parties didn’t recieve enough coverage by any of the media and their voice went largely unheard. As I went to bed at about six or slightly later I may have missed the BBC’s “why George Galloway rocks” presentation on this occasion.
As far as the link between Respect and Islamists goes, surely the reason so many Muslims voted for Respect was because they opposed the war that killed so many of their people. Respect is a single issue party and that was their single issue. It’s a far better explanation to my mind than “Muslims all hate women” or “he shook hands with Saddam this one time”.
Jenny
Get real.
The main reason a lot of Muslims voted for Galloway is that the Labour candidate was Jewish – and a woman.
I was in the East End at the time. The mood was obvious.
Because the lefties aren’t stupid and know that without the BBC’s output (which is on the whole centrist) the British press would become entirely corporate dominated and very much biased to the right. Clearly the righties see no problem with this. I’m not saying the BBC is perfect by any means, and I think it’s a good idea to be on the look out for bias and question it, but I don’t think the BBC should be taken apart as many people here do.
Jenny, this is a non-answer. A very combative, non-answer, but a non-answer nevertheless.
If the BBC were as balanced as you say, surely someone other than hardcore leftwingers such as yourself would show up here to defend it. It has never happened.
The purpose of the BBC is to balance out the “right-wing” corporate press? Umm, I though the purpose of the BBC was to report the news objectively and impartially. Silly me.
Try again.
JohinLondon – I hate to be forced into the position of defending Muslim voters (or Muslim anything else), but as one male Muslim voter said, in effect, “We voted for Oona King last time, at which time she was still a woman, still black and still Jewish.” And he had a point. They voted her in for her first term. She was the sitting MP at this election. Why can’t the BBC accept that maybe she was useless as an MP (Blair’s Black Babe), and was too busy advancing herself to pay much attention to the constituency and the constituents noticed it?
Susan, I agree with you about the BBC’s patented sneer, but the reason it is so hard for others to copy is, it contains a measure of regret. It is a REGRETFUL sneer, done more in despair than contempt.