via commenter anonanon:
The BBC is advising MEPs on how to improve the “image” of the European elections, as part of a drive to make the next round of voting for the European Parliament more “viewer friendly”. Senior executives have held meetings with officials in Brussels who are seeking ways to draw more viewers into the “excitement” of the 2009 European Union-wide polls.
James Stephenson, the editor of the BBC’s election night programme, and Peter Knowles, the controller of BBC parliamentary coverage, took part in meetings in Brussels late last month to discuss which techniques from British election nights would help boost viewing of the EU elections, both in the build-up to voting and on the night of the Europe-wide results.
Their presence as consultants to the most federalist of the Brussels institutions will give ammunition to critics who claim the publicly-funded broadcaster has a pro-EU bias.
Scots blogger Mr Eugenides points out that the BBC also propose live coverage of the Treaty of Rome’s 50th anniversary celebrations – which is more than they managed for the late Queen Mother’s one hundredth anniversary. He’s quite sanguine about this, believing that “By the time Nana Mouskouri launches into her third encore, UKIP’s website will have crashed under the deluge of traffic, and sturdy yeomen will be erecting barricades along the beach at Dover.”
Also via Mr. E – is your website banned in China ? I’m pleased to say B-BBC is available to the citizens of the People’s Republic.
Robin Aitken, author of “Can We Trust the BBC ?” writes in last week’s Sunday Times.
Damien Thompson at the Telegraph blog notes the BBCs plugging of a report from the lefty think tank Demos.
Do you enjoy multiculturalist drivel? No? Tough luck. If you’ve paid your BBC licence fee, then you have subsidised free publicity for a report on “cultural diplomacy” by the Labour-friendly think tank Demos.
And finally – John Humphrys’ last Tony Blair interview on the Today programme (RealAudio) revealed his intriguing take on democracy, Iran-style. David Aaronovitch examines the entrails in the Times.
Black musician spends £2,000 to fly a fish across the atlantic and nary a tut from the BBC about emissions and the like:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6413023.stm
I wonder why he gets the fawning treatement – such discrimination is unacceptable.
‘The Brussels Journal’ website, which is critical of the E.U., is aware of the BBC’s predominantly pro-E.U. bias:
“BBC bias; the shock is that anyone might be suprised”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1913
White musician helicopters in for party and nary a tut from the BBC about emissions and the like:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026306,00.html
Is toeing the PRC party-line enough to get past the censors really something to be proud of?
When it comes to emissions, how much electricity has to be generated to power all those BBC 3,4,5,6,7 stations that 8 and a half people watch/listen to?
didn’t the bbc some years ago have a pro-eu bias complaint against it upheld? has it not learned? or is its snout so far up the EU’s posterior (the part of it that’s not in the slushy funds of the public trough, that is) that it just doesn’t care?
oh, if only i could have a guaranteed source of income, no matter what! and friends in high places!
someone please tell me, inasmuch as MEPs do have some power, how on earth the bbc intends to report on the activities of the europarliament objectively or impartially, not to mention critically? how will they speak, if warranted, (unpleasant) ‘truth to power’?
BBC? It stands for Political Correctness Gone Mad, if you ask me.
Perhaps the BBC see the Euro elections as a contest between the three main parties and favoured small ones next time ie;no UKIP
Comrades!
Wogan charity fee defended by BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6417329.stm
“The BBC has said it is “not ashamed” of paying Sir Terry Wogan a fee for hosting the annual Children In Need charity fund-raising gala”.
“Documents which were released to The Mail On Sunday newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act showed that Sir Terry received £9,065 in 2005 for anchoring the seven-hour extravaganza.”
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=439875&in_page_id=1773
But it seems Al Beeb have been taking lessons from there Nu Labour buddies about not being forth-coming with there infomation.
“The BBC refused to divulge the information but, after an appeal, the Information Commission watchdog ruled it should provide the answers”.
Surprise Surprise-Resistance to the FOI Act.
“They revealed that the costs of staging the event in 2005 were more than £1.2million – covering the use of studios, outside broadcast facilities, staff, production and making films used to promote the appeal”.
Has anybody got a copy of this FIO report?
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
INGSOC
“BBC? It stands for Political Correctness Gone Mad, if you ask me.”
That would be PCGM, surely.
Comrades of Airstrip One!
2+2=5
800,000 UKP earning Wogan seems to be going “off message” in the Socalist Republic of Al Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6076584.stm
In one essay, Wogan, 68, said stars were being signed by the BBC with no clear idea of what to do with them.
“You might say the lunatics have taken over the asylum.”
“The culture now in television is that the presenter calls the financial and, increasingly, the creative shots. It is comparable to what happened in Hollywood 15 or so years ago.”
He went on: “Agents have become far more powerful, and through them the stars are able to dictate their own terms.”
Without identifying any particular celebrities, Wogan described his employer as “often giving huge quantities of money to people who would prefer to work for the corporation anyway”.
And he added: “We can all name stars who have been persuaded to cross over from BBC to ITV, and it has ended in tears.”
Isn’t it ITV to BBC? It makes no sence because he was commenting on the Corperation?
Do I detect a little bit of stealth edit here.
Terry Wogan was talking about Al Beeb paying top dollar for such people as Graham Norton,Johnathan Ross,Chris Evens….didn’t they cross from C4 and ITV respectivly?
And isn”t this the same broadcaster who accused the FA of overpowerful agents and huge sums of money?
“But in July, the BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson, said that high salaries were required in order to secure the best deal for “absolutely key talent”.
He told MPs that he would not apologise because a BBC without big names would not please the public”.
Key talent?
Oh that would be the “hilarious” Graham Norton……
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
INGSOC
Previously on the BBC’s EU coverage…
Telegraph 19/06/2001:
Lord Pearson, a leading Eurosceptic, had been invited by BBC researchers to comment on a story that a group of peers planned to use the Magna Carta to stop royal assent being given to any treaty signed in Nice.
In fact Lord Pearson had merely booked the room in which the peers had talked. When he was invited to talk to the presenter James Naughtie on the issue, he took his chance to air his feelings about what he felt was the corporation’s stance on the European issue. “The BBC – they’re a bunch of raging Europhiles,” he told The Daily Telegraph later.
Breakfast listeners to BBC Radio Four had earlier been treated to an exchange of fire between the two which began, innocently enough, with Naughtie inviting Lord Pearson to comment. “I do have to say,” said the peer, “that this really is the Europhile Today programme at its worst.”
A snort from Naughtie interrupted the sentence. But Lord Pearson persisted. “I, and others like me, never get asked on to this programme to discuss what is really happening at Nice and in the EU generally.
“Instead, here you are picking up the fag end of this inaccurate story in – I gather – the diary column of the Evening Standard, which is after all, sort of, the Europhile local evening newspaper, and you ask me on, really, purely in order to ridicule this initiative – and Euro-sceptics generally.”
At this point Naughtie’s ‘r’s began to roll. “Lord Pearrson,” he said, “the allegation that this is a Europhile programme is frrankly absurd.”
Lord Pearson was undeterred. Where were all the Euro-sceptic voices appearing on Today, he wanted to know. “Where is the EU going, and does the UK want to be part of it? . . . It’s useless telling me you have people like Francis Maude on. I mean, you’ll never get a debate . . .”
Naughtie replied: “I’m sorry, Lord Pearson, Frrancis Maude is the shadow foreign secretary.” Lord Pearson: “I know, but listen, you won’t get a debate on this subject going by talking to the leaders of any of the main political parties . . . because they are all guilty of leading us into this quagmire of EU membership . . . but there are, out there, opinion polls which show millions of British people who do want to talk about it, and not one of them ever gets on to this wretchedly biased programme.”
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/12/06/ntoday06.xml )
Telegraph 27/12/2002:
The high-water mark of euro-enthusiasm was reached this January when the euro notes and coins were launched. “Euphoria in Euroland,” was the opening line on the Ten O’Clock News. “Euphoria at the BBC” might have been a better description.
This was how Paul Mason of Newsnight reported the scenes in Maastricht: “As the midnight hour approached, a giant inflatable euro tree blossomed into life. For once, the Ode to Joy seemed exactly the right tune.”
Jim Naughtie, in Paris for Today, struck an almost Biblical note: “The arrival of the currency that the fathers of modern Europe dreamed about are [sic] all symbols made flesh.”
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QPSI5IFWNWS0JQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2002/12/27/nmed27.xml&page=3 )
(No prizes for spotting the Today presenter common to both of the above reports)
Years of denial followed, and then this from The Times, 28/01/05 :
BBC guilty of pro-Europe bias, its own inquiry finds
The BBC has been accused of failing in its duty of impartiality and promoting an institutional pro-European Union bias in a damning report that it commissioned.
Written by an independent balanced panel of eurosceptics and europhiles, it clears the BBC of deliberately trying to bend its coverage in favour of the EU and against eurosceptics. However, it said that there was substance to the concern that the BBC “suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias” and that, despite the good intentions of producers, “nobody thinks the output is impartial“.
( http://www.democracyineurope.com/press.htm#beebbias )
Re BBC execs advising the EU Parliament.
How much money does the BBC get from the EU?
Found this on EU Referendum from 2004. Anyone have more recent info?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/06/that-wonderful-impartial-bbc.html
The reason why the BBC dotes on the European Union is because it can recognize another bloated white elephant when it sees one.
The BBC doesn’t need any money from the EU. Both of them are swilling in buckets of money from the taxpayer. The Corporation is just trumpeting across the swamp to a fellow pachyderm.
The real question is: why do we continue to fund either of them ?
does anyone know/remember if the bbc was sanctioned in any way after its own enquiry (one the public got to know the details of!) found it guilty of bias?
were protocols and standards put in place to prevent or highlight subsequent recurrences, or new instances in other areas?
or was it quickly business as usual, once again?
> The real question is: why do we continue to fund either of them ?
WRT the BBC I don’t!
Avoiding contributing to Transnational socialism is harder, but I plan to defund them soon too.
“And he added: “We can all name stars who have been persuaded to cross over from BBC to ITV, and it has ended in tears.””
Given his age, he was probably thinking of Tony Hancock, or perhaps Morecambe & Wise, as in both cases they bounced between ITV and BBC, but died off on ITV. I think the same was true of The Goodies. The tradition is that the BBC has class, but ITV has deep pockets.
It all raises the question as to why the BBC feels the need to pay huge amounts of money for name brands; it’s enough that the public broadcaster has a competent chat show, there’s no reason for it to have the top-rated and most expensive chat show of all. It’s not competing with ITV, after all – that would be ridiculous, because the BBC is subsidised with public money. Anyone would think the government was trying to smack non-government sources of news and entertainment into the ground.
Which is of course not the case.
Very foolish mistakes by BBC News….
http://bbc-errors.blogspot.com/
If Wogan has gone off message is that why the Mail suddenly decides to reveal that he gets paid for Children in Need?
I wonder if they were tipped off?
First we get the investigation into the publicity for appearances scandal of Children In Need.
Then we get the constant drip of leaks about the publicity seeking ‘celebrities’ getting paid and the cost to the BBC of the whole event.
Now we hear of the cover up of the cost, though the cover up has nothing to do with the original complaint as it appears we can do nothing about the costs and publicity seeking however shameful we may think it is it remains legal.
Sounds all too familiar – ‘cash for honours’? People in glasshouses BBC, what goes round comes round…
Written by an independent balanced panel of eurosceptics and europhiles, it clears the BBC of deliberately trying to bend its coverage in favour of the EU and against eurosceptics.
The panel was too good to the BBC. I don’t buy the “unintentional bias” story, simpy because it is based on the (unjustified) assumption that the BBC doesn’t know what it’s doing. The bias must, at least to some extent, be conscious.
Hi all,
Just to remind you, if you’ve forgotten, that during the referenda about entry to the EEC, the DG if the BBC used to sit in the daily briefing of the pro camp – with a view to give advice on how to win the vote.
Nothing’s changed.
Cheers.
Link to BBC News management response to report on European coverage in which we promised to improve it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/05_may/11/europe.shtml
One specific thing done was the appointment of a Europe editor:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/05_may/26/mardell.shtml
INGSOC no conspiracy with Wogan I’m afraid. The logic of what he was saying is pretty clear:
There are stars who would prefer to work for the BBC whatever the pay.
When these people go to ITV in pursuit of the big bucks it almost always ends in tears.
QED the BBC does not need to pay them the BIG big money.
(I think you can also draw the inference that there are stars who will never fit in at aunty, and who more naturally have a home at eg C4.)
Bryan – the EU issue was less bias, more ignorance, and a healthy dose of training was administered following the Mardell appointment. The main problem is making EU stories ‘interesting’ enough to get on the main programmes. That means there is not enough coverage, either ‘pro’ or ‘anti’.
Speaking out of turn, dont work there anymore etc
Nick “The post, which will be based in Brussels, is part of BBC News management’s recently published response to the Governors’ independent report on the BBC’s coverage of Europe and the European Union.”
While this maybe a positive appointment – there is a chance that Mark Mardell may get the Brussels bug, which seems to happen to politicians and civil servants who become blind to anything that may upset the apple cart, after all their livelihood depends on it. We don’t want a “Jeremy Bowen type” reporter in Brussels going native.
I do hope that Mr Mardell does not forget opposing voices to the “EU ideal”, and there are plenty, unfortunately they are usually not in Brussels (except perhaps UKIP).
I, too, would love to understand the EU more – but I want it warts and all, not just the cosy view of the Lib Dems.
“QED the BBC does not need to pay them the BIG big money.”
So what you are saying is that £18m for three years “work” is not BIG.
“Ross was reported last month to have signed a three-year deal with the BBC valued at £18m.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5159328.stm
Or
Terry Wogan:
“Terry Wogan reportedly Radio 2’s highest earner with an £800,000 salary.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4919678.stm
I wish I earned a meagre salary like that.
BBC survey claims Israel has least positive image in the world
No surprises in this new BBC survey – Israel, Iran, US are the most negatively viewed countries.
France and the European union amongst the most positively viewed countries.
It would be good if someone here found out how much money is being wasted on these Global surveys … each with 10,000-20,000 respondants.
Surveys are notorious as one of the ways to spend money in a highly unaccountable manner. They create a great opportunity for backhanders.
Its also quite interesting that you have to first hear about this Survey not on the BBC but on the Haaretz website.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/833538.html
No surprises in this new BBC survey – Israel, Iran, US are the most negatively viewed countries.
The BBC has done its work well – along with CNN, the New York Times, the Guardian, the “Independent”, Reuters, Newsweek and countless others.
Ha’aretz is a rag.
These global surveys are complete garbage.
Even if the sample is 20,000 it still struggles to have the same validity as a UK sample of 1,000.
They just are not representative.
The problem is that the samples should have weighting, but even if there is any weighting for these global surveys how can it be fair?
How are those in totalitarian regimes surveyed?
What about those from areas of the world where the language is obscure and media communications next to non existent?
In UK polls (for the reputable companies at least) there is allowance for age, social status, geography, etc. Can this really be said of a world poll?
Country by country we are only talking about small numbers of people from the population, after all for a truly representative poll then 40% must be drawn from China and India alone. Can we really be sure the poll is at all representative?
In fact the global poll is nothing more than a straw poll and must be regarded with huge suspicion that it tells us anything.
It gets published because it suits those who think its results support its agenda.
Indeed: the BBC pushes a self-interested leftist agenda. But it is not paid for by leftists, who are a minority of the British population, and who are in most cases also living off the tax-payer.
The TV licence fee should be abolished, and the BBC should be allowed to sink or swim.
i’d love to see a world survey on
“what do you think of black people?”
“do you think gays should be hung?”
“do you think that Jews should be thrown down a well?”
“Hitler? nice guy or not?”
“Are Jews the spawn of Satan?”
i would guess that the results would be rather more shocking that the BBC leftist agenda driven “global survey” bilge.
archduke | 06.03.07 – 11:48 am |
and i would love to see the breakdown by country, too, especially those bastions of truth, justice and the islamic/arab/middle eastern way
First up: A note to anyone interested Little Bulldogs is up and running again for the time being.
Second: Here’s a look at the statistics released by the Home Office yesterday and the way the BBC presented them in a deliberately bad light when they are actually quite good news:
http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2007/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html
How the BBC had used language, in particular one word, to render the most contentious concepts meaningless:
In this article they describe “animal rights” terrorists as “activists”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6423061.stm
In this article, they describe Liberal Democrat party conference attendees as “activists”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6367073.stm
In this article they describe members of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, as “activists”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4764301.stm
The BBC has reduced the description of terrorism to such a point where it cannot distinguish in its terms between a Liberal Democrat and someone who uses fear and violence against civilians to persue political goals. I could make some cheap and meaningless gags against the Liberals here, but the big point is why they put up with being described using the same term as that used for people who blow up restaurants full of innocent Israeli citizens?
Rob, good point. The BBC has tied itself up in a knot it can’t undo by helping terrorists disguise themselves as “activists” or “militants’. At the same time it’s destroying the meaning of words.
A little off topic, but Aaronovitch errs when he says that the US opposed Britain’s anti-slavery policy.
In fact, the US Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1807, and sent ships to Africa to aid Britain in suppressing the slave trade beginning in 1820.
The American navy did not play a large part in suppressing the slave trade, but it did play a part.
Jim Miller | 08.03.07 – 1:46 pm |
The US also founded Liberia as a place where repatriated ex-slaves could live independant of the US.
Not exactly the work of Satan either.