, has replied to Guido’s email (see post below):
On Newsnight we don’t necessarily stick to linear running orders which reflect the relative significance of stories in the same way that news bulletins tend to. The loans for peerages story was of course more significant, but there were other factors at play. We had committed Michael Crick to following David Cameron’s efforts to relaunch his campaign in the North. While covering that he came across the “cripple” email story, which was an exclusive and highly pertinent to the Conservatives’ attempts to portray themselves as a compassionate party of government. It followed and mirrored the biggest controversy and talking point of the week which concerned the use of un-PC language in Big Brother. The loans story had been reported in some detail on the 10 O’clock News and on Newsnight we considered that our version could not be substantially different given the information we had at that point. We therefore decided to lead off on our own original story and to run the loans story prominently in second place. You could actually argue that in terms of global significance it was our third story – about China and star wars – which was the most important of the three.
What a load of blather, especially this bit:
While covering that [Michael Crick] came across the “cripple” email story, which was an exclusive and highly pertinent to the Conservatives’ attempts to portray themselves as a compassionate party of government
Came across? He means he was given a ready spun a line by the Labour Party – and not even a good line – the whole ‘cripple’ email story was a crock of the proverbial and should never have got anywhere near being on any part of the BBC, let alone the lead item on Newsnight, even if there was no other news whatsoever to report.
As for being “an exclusive” Peter, did you ever stop to ask yourself just why it was ‘an exclusive’? If not, I’ve got a few exclusive stories that you can cover too!
Crick and the rest of the Newsnight team should have seen the ‘cripple’ story for what it was and omitted it from their piece altogether – it wasn’t news, and it would strain to be even half-way credible in even the most self-righteous and indignant of Labour Party propaganda leaflets!
Update:
Peter Barron, the editor of Newsnight, has subsequently blogged about the running order of Newsnight on Friday, saying “I don’t rule out the possibility that it was simply a misjudgement”. This rather implies that it wasn’t him personally that was running the show on Friday evening. I wonder who it was. Moreover, if we accept that the running order was ‘simply a misjudgement’, it still doesn’t explain why Michael Crick et al made so much out of the ‘cripple’ email non-story (a non-story even on the quietest of news days), or indeed how this email, between just two people, came to be ‘leaked’ in the first place – which is a story in its own right. Would you care to address these points please Peter?
While we’re at it, would the editors of the Six and the Ten care to comment please on their respective running orders on Friday, either on the BBC editors blog or on the comment thread here or by email to biasedbbc@gmail.com. Thank you.
Update 2:
I’ve posted the following comment on Peter Barron’s blog:
Hello Peter. You say: “I don’t rule out the possibility that it was simply a misjudgement”, which rather implies that it wasn’t you who made that judgement. Was someone else editing Newsnight on Friday? If we accept that the running order was ‘simply a misjudgement’, it still doesn’t explain why Michael Crick et al made so much out of the ‘cripple’ email non-story (a story based on a private email sent four months ago from a private individual (not even a councillor) referring to someone else as a cripple – a non-story even without the Ruth Turner headlines). Also, can you explain how this email came to be leaked? It was a private email between two people, so unless either of them leaked it themselves (unlikely), how did it come to be leaked to the BBC? Left-wing council employees perhaps? If it was leaked in this way, do you really think that ‘public interest’ would justify such criminality? Looking forward to hearing from you further, Andrew (Biased BBC).
Will let you know if and when he replies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/01/loans_emails_and_plots.html
He accepts “it may have been a misjudgement.”
Which I think we can all accept.
…particularly as the ‘cripple’ email had been sitting around since last September waiting for David Cameron to turn up.
Nice to know though that you’ve got the BBC in your back pocket.
>highly pertinent to the Conservatives’ attempts to portray themselves as a compassionate party of government.
How does he thinks this counts as an explanation? It’s virtually an admission of what B-BBC was saying, that this was a blatant attempt — using the flimsiest of pretexts — to embarrass the Tories and help entrench the New Class view of them as mean-spirited bigots.
Peter Barron’s pathetic excuse that “we don’t necessarily stick to linear running orders which reflect the relative significance of stories in the same way that news bulletins tend to” might hold water if it weren’t for the plain fact that not only was it the lead item but it was also devoted the most airtime – the guy’s talking tosh.
Day of the Turner arrest, BBC1 6pm news. Their lead story? The weather!
So was this another ‘exclusive’ or a misjudgment?
These days Labour don’t even need a ‘good day’ to bury bad news – the BBC will do it for them anytime.
Guido
“He accepts “it may have been a misjudgement.” Which I think we can all accept.”
I think you are letting them off lightly here. Crick and the rest are experienced journalists. They must have realised that the reason this mail appeared this day was to deflect attention, yet they still choose to run with it. They knowingly ran with a story, just because it helped Labour, and they knew full well what they were doing.
…highly pertinent to the Conservatives’ attempts to portray themselves as a compassionate party of government.
Why isn’t the arrest of one of Blair’s top aides on alleged breaches of the 1925 Honours Act “highly pertinent” to Labour’s attempt to portray themselves as the party of honesty and propriety?
We had committed Michael Crick to following David Cameron’s efforts to relaunch his campaign in the North. While covering that he came across the “cripple” email story….
Right, he was strolling down a country lane when he saw something fluttering in the breeze and, lo and behold, it was an e-mail insulting a labour councillor!
Was it a conspiracy or bias that we didn’t lead with the story of the arrest of Ruth Turner, one of Tony Blair’s aides, in the loans for peerages case? Neither, but I don’t rule out the possibility that it was simply a misjudgement.
Right, Mr. Barron’s misjudgement is a very close relative of John Reith’s sloppy journalism.
And I’m waiting for the day that the BBC’s bad judgement and sloppines works in favour of the Tories/the US/Israel/the pro-life lobby/Christianity/fox hunting….
I’m also wating for the day the crooked shop owner down the road gives people the wrong change in their favour.
I posted below that they would sit on it and three months later produce a mendacious response explaining it away. I was, of course, wrong. They produced a mendacious and utterly ludrcrous response within 24 hours.
For an employee of the BBC to admit that “it was simply a misjudgement” is tantamout to jeering at the taxpayer. He can make 365 “misjudgements” per year and as long as he doesn’t do “a Jade Goody” he’s employed for life.
The BBC – we lie to you for £3.2bn p.a., then laugh at you when you complain. It’s what we do.
Imagine the opposite scenario – if during the Tory cash-for-questions row (a lower level scandal then cash-for-peerages) Newsnight led with the story of a Labour supporter e-mailing a Labour councillor with a message that contained an offensive remark aimed at a Conservative.
Well, you can’t imagine it (the Beeb covering it I mean – you can imagine leftie supporters making vile remarks about Tories in private e-mails).
You cannot imagine the BBC not digging into reports about Tory-supporters delving into Labour councillors’ e-mails.
And that’s why everyone knows the BBC is biased.
Other comments not going to plan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/01/loans_emails_and_plots.html
Andrew,
Fascinating. I accessed Peter Barron’s blog at around ten last night and your comment was the only one. Now it has been relegated to no. seven.
So here’s a few related questions:
*Did the BBC, true to form, do what it generally (in)famously does in HYS and leave those six adverse comments out while waiting and hoping for a favourable one to arrive?
*But then, why put them back in? Could be they got a few complaints and there’s one honest BBC employee in the hold bloody place who happened to field the complaints, tapped Barron on the shoulder and said, “Look, old chap, I think we’d better publish these comments, I mean, fair’s fair, isn’t it?”
Be interesting to see how that comments thread develops.
Make that the whole bloody place.