Monthly Archives: October 2007

It wasn’t exactly a tough no-nonsense interview was it? Marr certainly went through the motions, but Brown got away with a lot of nonsense and flannel that a more rigorous interview style would have drawn out and highlighted.

David Cameron, speaking on Adam Boulton’s show on Sky News, described the Brown/Marr interview:

I think there are two points. There is the manner in which the statement was made and I think for the Prime Minister who said I am going to do things differently, I’m going to be transparent, no more of the spin it was a classic example of spin. You get one broadcaster invite them into Downing Street and do a special little interview rather than actually go out there and face the press and answer the questions.

The second thing is not just the manner of how it was done but the content of the interview. I just think he is treating people like fools. He is saying I am not having an election because I want to get on with the changes. We all know he was planning an election, that he wanted an election, it was briefed that he was going to decide when he had looked at the poll. He is not being straight with people. He ought to have said I’ve looked at the polls and I recognize I have more to do to convince people then at least he would have been straight. Instead we have had spin…

Later, while interviewing Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Adam Boulton slipped in:

So why couldn’t the Prime Minister be honest with the country? Why couldn’t he tell us what he was thinking about about a general election? And why couldn’t he actually tell the nation face to face live yesterday that he was calling it off?

…obviously still smarting from being cast into the Downing Street gutter courtesy of Brown’s soft-soap opportunism and the willingness of Andrew Marr and the BBC to go along with it.

Whilst Brown and co. got a good going over yesterday afternoon and in the Sunday papers for the manner of his announcement and the fallout from his dithering, it appears that his original plan was to have Marr along for a cosy chat on the quiet, until, if The Observer is to be believed, plans for his announcement were thrown into disarray when news of his decision was leaked to ConservativeHome.

Would Marr and the BBC have announced Brown’s decision on Saturday afternoon if Brown’s plans hadn’t been leaked or would they have kept Marr’s exclusive until Saturday night or even Sunday before going public? It would certainly have suited Brown if that had happened.

A shoddy business all round.

Update: Like Blair before him, Brown has opted to have one of his ‘monthly briefings’ today – you know the sort – the ones that happen at short notice whenever the Prime Minister wants to appear as if he’s open and honest. Nick Robinson sums it up nicely on his blog, getting in a good dig in passing:

Here we go again. The prime minister, we’re told, “will brave the inquisition/face the music/confront the feral beast [choose cliche of choice] at the beginning of his worst week yet”.

Heard it before? Of course you have, whenever Tony Blair was in the soup. Downing Street organised today’s news conference to show that Gordon Brown, just like his predecessor, could withstand the slings and arrows, the name-calling and the cat calls and still emerge looking like a prime minister.

The truth is that he would far rather do this at a news conference than in the bear-pit of Parliament or a round with the media’s toughest interviewers. It isn’t that difficult when you get to choose the questions (allowing you to say “the lady at the back with the headscarf” if the going gets tough and you fancy a detour into the Middle East) and you disallow follow-ups and when you stand up in the state rooms of Downing Street looking prime ministerial.

“…or a round with the media’s toughest interviewers” – so Nick doesn’t think Brown has done a round with the media’s toughest interviewers either…

Video clips courtesy of the BBC.

Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

How embarrassing for Gordon Brown – having let speculation run riot, egged on by his spinners, rearranged his diary ready to make the announcment, only to pull out at the last minute, citing a laundry list of excuses (wanting to show his vision, the staleness of the electoral register, foot & mouth disease, the postal strike, lack of public demand etc.) – none of which would have mattered if it was in the interests of the Labour Party to hold an election now.

Brown has fluffed his chance to hold a ‘mandate’ election and secure a new five year term. He and his spinners, with all their election hype, have squandered their ace card (choosing the election date) whilst also unifying and energising the Conservatives into the bargain. Not a good day for Brown or the Labour Party.

But the boys and girls in the Brown stuff aren’t the only ones who had a bad day. Not only does the Prime Minister get to pick and choose the election date to suit him and his party, he also, it seems, gets to pick and choose who interviews him to pass on the Dear Leader’s message to the nation.

If you were in Gordon Brown’s shoes – poor battlefield marginal polls, Cameron on a roll and an election steam train of your own making thundering toward a cliff edge, how would you explain yourself to the nation?

1. Face the music live in front of the Downing Street press pack? Nope.

    

2. Give a rigorous live interview to someone who can smell your fear and who owes you nothing? Not a chance.

    

3. Or perhaps a not quite so rigorous recorded shuffle with Handy Andy Marr, for editing and transmission a day later? That’ll do nicely!

No prizes for guessing right – the answer’s more obvious than a premium-rate quiz question.

The BBC should not dance to the tune of the government – yet colluding with Brown to let him choose how, when and who will interview him is dancing to the tune of the government. Even if the BBC can’t control the how and the when they can certainly control the who – and insist on equal access for other journalists (including those from other organisations) or none at all – Brown shouldn’t have been allowed to dictate the interview terms – he should have been given the choice of full access or no access – to do anything less is not serving the public who pay for the BBC.

This is in stark contrast to David Cameron, who was interviewed live in a pooled interview (conducted by Sky) responding to Brown’s announcement. A stark contrast that should be highlighted every time the Marr/Brown clip is shown – but don’t hold your breath if you’re watching BBC News.

Other journalists aren’t pulling their punches. Adam Boulton described Marr as a “sympathetic interviewer”, blogging:

As I write in the gutter opposite Number 10, the BBC’s Andrew Marr is inside interviewing the Prime Minister. It’s unusual to make such announcements on an exclusive basis – but it’s a sure sign of meltdown, as is the radio silence observed today by both Government and Labour spokespeople.

…laying in to Brown and Co. as best he can from outside in the Downing Street gutter (see full transcript at the CWO blog).

Participating in the government’s stage-management runs the risk of damaging Marr more than the Prime Minister is damaged, unless it turns out that Marr has given Brown the pasting of a lifetime (not evidenced by the clip we’ve seen so far) and has Cameron on after Brown’s interview to respond first hand to Brown’s performance. Even then, it’s clear who Brown’s first choice is to act as his mouthpiece.

on the BBC on identity fraud.

Biased BBC reader Matthew sums up the BBC’s latest glorification:

The BBC never miss a chance to glorify Communist terrorists: Che: The icon and the ad.

This follows Tuesday’s propaganda on behalf of the Cuban dictatorship, where they described how wonderful doctors from Cuba provided free to Latin America had cured Guevara’s executioner’s blindness, saying “Four decades after Mario Teran attempted to destroy a dream and an idea, Che returns to win yet another battle”. (No mention of appalling hospitals in Cuba and illegality of dissent in Cuba)

Anyway, today’s ode to Che quotes numerous lefties on what a wonderful hero he was:

“His image will never die, his name will never die”.

“He was good-looking, he was young, but more than that, he died for his ideals, so he automatically becomes an icon”.

“He was an immensely charming man – likeable, roguish, good fun”.

“Combining capitalism and commerce, religion and revolution, the icon remains unchallenged”.

The BBC lefties ask you to:

“Send us your memories of Che Guevara using the form below”.

“You can also send pictures of Che memorabilia, posters and wall-paintings, to yourpics@bbc.co.uk”.

Truly mind-boggling.

The excuse, by the way, for this unbridled propaganda is that an “exhibition is due to open at Barcelona’s Palacio Virreina museum on 25 October 2007”.

NEVER expect to see any balance when eulogising the BBC’s glorious socialist heroes.

For instance, The Times just a month ago described the release of a critical biography (not covered by the BBC) which covers Guevara’s cold, brutal acts of summary murder for ‘treason’ (documented in Guevara’s own diaries), as well as his use of psychological torture techniques. Guevara is clearly a fairly typical terrorist guerilla-figure, more brutal than some, and far from a hero.

Yahoo also covers Guevera today, because of this exhibition. Their article? Fair and balanced. The headline is Che Guevara’s legacy fading with the years. It includes a section called “COLD KILLER?”, as well as a proper description of his status an icon.

Don’t expect any thing like this from the BBC, they really are determined to canonize the murderous terrorist.

Thank you Matthew.

Despite the fact that I (personally) consider Talk Sport to be an invention of the devil, the ‘Radio Bloke’ that everyone said Five Live was going to be, I like the cut of Jon Gaunt’s jib in this Guardian Media profile. He’s right about Victoria Derbyshire’s utility, too, though that again is a personal view.

Despite the fact that he built audiences wherever he went, Gaunt’s tendency to editorialise made him an uncomfortable fit at the BBC, which is governed by strict rules about impartiality. “I only fitted in at the BBC because I was successful,” he agrees. “They would have sacked me otherwise. Of course I should be on Radio 5.” In case I missed the point, he repeats: “I should be on Radio 5. I should be doing that show at 9 o’clock in the morning. [Host] Victoria Derbyshire’s useless. In the interests of impartiality, balance and Reithian values, they should have me on – clearly flag what sort of show it is, have guests on who oppose what I say – and that would be proper radio. Do you think Victoria Derbyshire and Nicky Campbell don’t have their political bias? They come with a soft-liberal, left-leaning view, all of them. And that’s what’s wrong with the BBC.“

Talk Sport’s predecessor, Talk Radio, had a weekly politics phone-in show presented by rightie social conservative Peter Hitchens and the Labour MP Austin Mitchell, which neatly balanced out the open bias of the presenters. You can listen to Radio Five from 6 am to 4 pm each day without any presenter ever stepping beyond the “the gamut of views from A to B“.

(Stealth-edited at 7.34 am to remove a refence to Rupert Murdoch’s non-existent ownership of Talk Sport. Thanks Andrew)

: Peter Fincham (the quintessential frightened man in a suit) and Jane Fletcher, his head of press, are expected to resign today following Will Wyatt’s inquiry into the Crowngate affair – the faked footage suggesting the Queen had stormed out of a photo shoot. An excerpt from MediaGuardian’s report:

They have decided to quit because they knew by 5pm on the day of the BBC1 press launch on July 11 that the story was untrue. But they did not correct it until the following morning, allowing the media – including BBC News – to run with the story.

The BBC did not apologise until July 12, when it admitted the sequence of events in a BBC1 documentary about the Queen had been misrepresented and would not be shown that way in the final programme.

Today’s report is expected to be equally critical of Jana Bennett, the director of BBC Vision. Mr Fincham told the inquiry that he made it clear to Ms Bennett in an evening meeting on July 11 that the story was untrue. She disputes this, and is expected to survive for the moment.

The creative director of production company RDF Media, Stephen Lambert, who admitted to the Guardian that he had wrongly edited the footage of the Queen that led to the Crowngate scandal, has also resigned.

See A Tale of two train wrecks for Biased BBC’s coverage of BBC Views Online’s typically poor coverage of the original scandal. See also Peter Fincham in his starring role on Newsnight – “I don’t think I should resign to be absolutely honest”:

Paging Noddy Yentob, paging Noddy Yentob…

Update: As expected earlier this afternoon, it’s been confirmed: BBC One boss quits over Queen row.

Thank you to Biased BBC reader Rockall for the spot.

to present Five News. BBC Views Online’s summary of Natasha’s career curiously omits her time working for John Smith and Neil Kinnock before moving to Meridian TV. Doubtless for reasons of space.

made me think someone thought it a bit cruel reminding the BBC Editors Blog about the Dame Pauline Neville-Jones broadside that they’ve conveniently excluded from their regular BBC in the news round-up since Monday.

Far from it though. In Bias, the BBC and rubbing noses Mick Fealty, blogging at the Telegraph, wrote:

Biased BBC is an excellent example of the practical application of blog software to good civic use. Indeed, I’m convinced that despite its critical premise, a large chunk of its readership is inside the Corporation. But there are also examples of good journalism that also ought to be highlighted.

Mick is right (on more than one count). Sometimes the BBC does deserve praise, and it’s not unknown for praise to come from Biased BBC. The problem of course is time – it’s difficult enough just trying to keep up with reports of BBC bias, let alone highlight the better things that the BBC does.

But that reminds me, BBC Editors Blog, can you please at least reply to me and other Biased BBC readers who’ve contacted you to remind you about the Dame Pauline article that you’ve chosen to ignore?

It’s not much to ask is it.

Even better would be if you did the decent thing and published a link to the article in the next BBC in the news section – there’s no reason not to is there? Dame Pauline, a highly respected former BBC governor, expressing her opinion about the BBC certainly sounds like BBC in the news to me.

P.S. Before you try to pretend that you don’t cover stories from the Sunday papers (“it was at the weekend, see”), you have before: see
here,
here,
here or
here (this one was on a Sunday even) for example, or that you don’t correct omissions, well, yes you do – see here for instance.

One thing that has changed since then of course is that readers (tellytaxpayers even) no longer have the option to comment on BBC in the news stories. Why is that?

Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.