Monthly Archives: January 2007

“For me it’s always been a programme in the best traditions of the late 1970s alternative movement” – Newsnight editor Peter Barron remembers. (Hat tip: Tuscan Tony in the comments at Guido’s).

, 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.

, I hadn’t realised, until reading the comments, that Newsnight had run the ‘cripple’ email non-story on Friday night, and worse, as their lead item, over and above the Ruth Turner Cash for Peerages arrest story.

I honestly expected that BBC Views Online’s placement of the ‘cripple’ email non-story as the fourth most important story in the world was the action of some leftie cub-journo left to their own devices on the night-shift in Shepherd’s Bush.

But Newsnight? Leading with it? A supposedly serious flagship BBC programme with its own editor, what on earth were they thinking?

Let’s get this straight, Ruth Turner, Tony Blair’s ‘gatekeeper’, is arrested, arrested, in connection with alleged breaches of the 1925 Honours Act and on suspicion of perverting the course of justice (a crime that carries a possible life sentence), so Newsnight spends eight full minutes leading with a different non-story about a private citizen (not even a mere councillor) who sent a private email to a councillor four months ago in which he insulted a leftie activist with a limp by referring to him as, shock, a cripple. Big deal – what an exclusive!

The real question about the ‘cripple’ email, completely ignored by the BBC of course, is just how the hell did a private email between just two people get leaked? My bet would be on leftie employees within the local authority illegally reading (and leaking) councillors email – now that would be a story worth investigating.

After covering this non-story, Newsnight then spent a mere three minutes, mostly on a pretty lame two-way between Emily Maitlis and Michael Crick, on this huge development in the Cash for Peerages story, before moving on to a story about the Chinese shooting down a satellite.

Newsnight were spun, and spun quite willingly it seems, by Tony’s NuLab spinners. Pathetic.

Even when the BBC have deigned to cover this story, much has been made of the police being heavy-handed and dramatic in arresting this ‘poor 36 year old woman, who lives alone, don’t you know, at her home at 6.30am’. Another big deal. I doubt the police kicked her door in, slapped on the cuffs and threw her in the back of a Black Maria, or does the BBC know different?

Even our own much-valued pet BBC defender, ‘John Reith’, writing from inside the Corporation, comments:

I think it’s wrong to publish private e-mails in the absence of any compelling public interest requirement. In this case the writer of the e-mail was simply a private citizen. It might be different if he were the shadow spokesman on disability. But he isn’t.

Frankly, I thought the addressee’s reaction was a bit PC-priggish too – but media-savvy as it turned out.

As for the complainant – the so-called ‘cripple’. I’d be more sympathetic if there was anything seriously wrong with him – e.g. if he were a wheelchair user or equivalent. It seems he just walks with a bit of a limp. As we all do from time to time.

I notice he doesn’t mind being called a reptile. Safest to stick to that then.

As you say – a non-story. And one stored up since last September by NuLab spinmeisters for a Cameron visit.

Journalists should be careful not to be so easily manipulated. A number seem to be off their guard since the era of spin was declared over. Time to wise up again – ‘cos it’s back.

Thank you for your honesty John (oh, and now that you’re back, would you mind giving us your views on my posts about Molly/Misbah and the stealth-editing of the manufactured golly row story please? Thank you).

Writing from the cellars beneath the Palace of Westminster, Guido Fawkes Esq. graces us with his presence to say:

Peter Barron – Newsnight editor – has yet to respond to my query re. the Newsnight story order and emphasis on Friday. I know the Beebie babies read this blog, just like Downing Street reads my blog, so I reproduce it below.

Peter,

Could you give me an on the record quote concerning the relative priority given to these stories on Friday.

The lead story focused on an embarrassing email sent between two non-entity local Tory councillors. In other news, after nine minutes on this story, the next story was that PM’s aide was arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice in the loans for lordships investigation. This story was given three minutes.

Why were the stories prioritised in that order?

Do you think the un-pc email story was more important?

Guido Fawkes Esq.

Well Peter, you can reply to Guido at guido.fawkes@order-order.com, and if you don’t mind cc’ing it to me at biasedbbc@gmail.com I’ll be happy to share your explanation about why the ‘cripple’ non-story was so important with our readers (both inside and outside the BBC) too! Thanks.

P.S. It’s not just Newsnight – apparently the BBC’s Ten O’Clock news led (again) on the story of the weather from the day before. Perhaps the editor of the Ten would care to get in touch with a comment too.

, according to today’s Daily Telegraph:

The BBC faced accusations of “ageism” from its own employees yesterday as a Daily Telegraph inquiry revealed mounting anger from local radio staff who claim they have been told to keep old people off the air.

At the heart of their resentment is an imaginary couple created by Corporation bosses called Dave and Sue, to whom all presenters are told to aim programming…

They emerged from a BBC study called Operation Bullseye, which concluded that older people are getting younger in their attitudes and interests. Literature distributed to local radio stations said: “Dave and Sue live in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural England”. Dave is a self-employed plumber, Sue a school secretary, and both have children from previous marriages. They shop at Asda, wear T-shirts and fleeces, and grew up in the Beatles generation. They have lived through a period of change. One of their children has entered a mixed-race marriage, although the BBC calls this “mixed heritage”.

The article, by Stewart Payne, follows up on his article from November, also highlighted by Biased BBC, BBC radio phone-in silences the elderly.

So much for public-service broadcasting when the BBC spends its time competing with commercial stations for already well-served audiences and with commercial stations for staff. The BBC, it’s what we do.

Hat tip to commenter SiN.

, writing about the Molly/Misbah case on the Grauniad’s commentisfree, links to my piece below about the BBC’s blinkered coverage of this story, saying:

For some, the whole affair has been just the latest excuse to damn Islam wholesale and with it all Pakistanis and even to vilify the child. (Whatever you think of the point made by the original post here, the lowlife on the comment thread will sicken you. And I thought Big Brother contestants weren’t allowed internet access).

Whilst it is our clear policy to permit freedom of speech as far as reasonably possible, this does serve as a reminder to some of our more wayward commenters that what you say here is on public view over the long term and could be used to discredit the work of the Biased BBC team and of other more considered commenters.

Meanwhile, having read through the comments responding to Mr. Hill’s article, it seems to me that we’re not the only ones with the thorny issue of free speech to contend with.

I’ve always thought one of the most effective ways to show the BBC is biased is the collective laugh of disbelief or roar of disapproval.

Three bloggers for you: Dale, Fawkes and some Prague fellow.

All aghast at the extent to which the BBC is keeping quiet on the flames of political scandal licking ever closer to the PM himself.

Iain Dale sums up:

“Britain’s premier current affairs interview programme managed to get through a whole hour with barely a mention of the Cash for Peerages Inquiry which dominates the news and the Sunday papers. No mention of it in the BBC news bulletins, no mention of it in the newspaper review with Trevor Phillips and Jane Moore, one patsy question for Lord Falconer who said he wasn’t playing and that was, er, it.”

And that should, er, be it for any diehard defenders of the BBC’s impartiality. Remember brown envelopes? You should, if you were watching the BBC.

. The story is that last September a Conservative activist sent an email to the Conservative leader of Bradford City Council referring to the leader of Bradford Labour Party as a ‘cripple’ and a ‘reptile’. A mischief-maker then posted a copy of the email to the leader of Bradford Labour Party who is, needless to say, less than pleased with it.

So, Person A sends an email to person B insulting person C who gets to hear about it and isn’t very pleased. Wow. Happens all the time, even at the BBC I’m sure.

But here’s the thing, this relative non-story is currently, according to BBC Views Online, the fourth most important story in the whole world on the UK version of BBC Views Online’s top page!

Is this really the fourth most important story in the world?

Who the hell are they kidding? It’s a pretty ridiculous story, and if the political parties were reversed, it probably wouldn’t even make it on to BBC Views Online, let alone be a top story on the front page.

Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

I’m a little pressed for time at the moment, but I prefer blogging to working can just spare a moment to post some links. Some are things I have seen around the internet, some are emails from readers.

Call for faith-based NHS services

The NHS should provide more faith-based care for Muslims, an expert says.

Muslims are about twice as likely to report poor health and disability than the general population, says Edinburgh University’s Professor Aziz Sheikh.

Ostensibly based on an article in the British Medical Journal, Should Muslims have faith based health services?, BBC Views Online quote Professor Aziz Sheikh at length. Near the end of BBC Views Online’s report they throw in a few quotes to the contrary from Professor Aneez Esmail.

What the Beeboids don’t make clear is that the BMJ article is actually a two part head-to-head article, with Professor Aziz Sheikh in the first part arguing for the proposition and Professor Aneez Esmail in the second part arguing against, both at some length.

Worse than that, what BBC Views Online fail to point out is that Professor Aziz Sheikh is a former chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s Research & Documentation Committee and led the launch of the MCBDirect project – so is clearly interested in the promulgation and promotion of political Islam.

Not surprisingly, the BMJ, a professional publication, quite properly notes:

Competing interests: Aziz Sheikh chaired the research and documentation committee of the Muslim Council of Britain from 2002-6. He is currently principal investigator on a Scottish Executive supported grant investigating the end-of-life care needs of South Asian Sikhs and Muslims in Scotland.

Funny that the BBC should omit that.

Hat tip to commenters Chuffer & Pounce