Did you watch last evening’s edition of the BBC’s “Question Time” programme? Wasn’t it a laugh? I mean IF you want to see BBC institutionalised bias in all its unfettered glory this is the must-see each week because it is always a challenge to work out whether it will be the panel or the audience which contains the greater number of foaming-at-the mouth lefties.
Last night, true to form, the panel was as unbalanced as ever. We had the Labour Minister and Conservative traitor Shaun “Where’s my butler” Woodward. (There’s nothing the BBC likes more than a Conservative defector) Then we had rabidly Europhile Conservative MP Ken Clarke, the man who seeks to increase the power of the State, who seeks to ensure the UK loses any vestigial national soveriegnty to the EU superstate, the man who fails to understand the war on Islamic terror. To add “more balance” we had comedian John Sessions who seems to have not yet outgrown his “Student Grant” set of leftist values. Then we had uberleftist Bonnie Greer, (a BIG contributor to BBC, natch!) who left me open-mouthed when she declared that whilst she did not seek to glamourise crime (Oh yes) nonetheless she was very unhappy about the way that New York had successfully tackled crime! Finally, we had the commentator Amanda Platell, who holds what I would define as mild conservative values. So, a panel of four leftists and one centre right conservative. Balanced The audience were the usual anti-war anti-US pro-Welfare rabble that so distinguishes this programme. There were a few sensible souls but they were outnumbered by the moonbat fraternity who seem drawn to Question Time like moths to a flame.
As for the content of the show, we suffered the BBC’s view of the US election being rammed down our throats. In essence the big debate is whether it will be Hillary or Obama. The panelists all focused on the Democrat side of things with scant attention on the Republican side. Even then, liberal Republican John McCain appears to be the only candidate for the GOP nomination IF one listened to the garbage being talked by the panellists. Mitt Romney did not merit any discussion at all. He is evidently persona non gratia with the Beeb. Comedian John Sessions expressed his loathing for Ronald Reagan, to audience approval. In essence, the BBC is once again rooting for a Democrat in the White House which is why even in a political debating programme like this, it’s all about one side, the side of which the BBC so approves .
I find David Dimbleby a likeable chap and have met him and feel he is a professional presenter to compare with the best of them. The problem however is that the BBC lacks the guts to allow a balanced panel. They permit the occassional right of liberal commentator like Melanie Philips or Peter Hitches to make the odd token appearance but then unbalance this with a gaggle of leftist opinion. Unlike the excellent political debating programmes on Fox News, the BBC will not balance a panel, instead it weights the panel outrageously. The audience is then brought in as a prop. It’s all a great pity since real debate would be more interesting. Do you share my view of Question Time?
Could anyone tell me what the application process is to become an audience member on QT?
How do the BBC achieve their aims of filling the audience with lefties unless they are selecting them on an application basis?
I thought to be a member of any BBC audience all you had to do was apply for tickets.
Never watch Question Time, so I have no opinion on it. But it sounds to me like you’re exaggerating a bit on the panellists. Sessions and Greer are obviously left. Woodward, Clarke and Platell are centre-left, centre-right and centre-right respectively. I agree that Clarke (and Heseltine) get more BBC appearances than the rest of the Tory party put together, and that’s because they are very pro-EU, and because they are known anti-Thatcher people. But they are not, on any reasonable assessment of the British political spectrum, left wingers.
I’ve been in the audience on QT. And the audience IS selected by the BBC, also the questions – you would think they’re randomly selected, but what actually happens is that you submit possible questions in advance, and the BBC staff choose the ones that THEY think are interesting; effectively, the ones that they would ask themselves, but having audience members suggest them first gives a fake veneer of independence.
And Lee – centre-left is left by definition; and I have yet to hear Kenneth Clarke say anything that would disqualify him from serving in a Blair or Brown administration. “On any reasonable assessment of the British political spectrum” they are both left-wingers, unless you’re following the standard BBC trick of just not counting the people you don’t like.
“Unlike the excellent political debating programmes on Fox News, the BBC will not balance a panel, instead it weights the panel outrageously. The audience is then brought in as a prop. It’s all a great pity since real debate would be more interesting. Do you share my view of Question Time?”
You mean, you would advocate a few republicans to balance the endless banalities of the royalists?
Think carefully before answering.
David; Interesting analysis, but comparing things to Fox at the end really lets you down. Because what’s the one thing we all know about debate on Fox, especially during the Primaries? That you won’t see a Democrat candidate because they’re all boycotting the channel after it made up stories about the childhood of Obama.
So basically you prefer your debate to exclude one half of the political spectrum!
More seriously I do think Fox has lost its way during the Primaries. The boycott hasn’t helped. But Fox also seems to be a bit lost since Giuliani has dropped out (despite Fox trying to push him as “America’s Mayor”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH47iuMTuC8 ) And Fox seem to have real problems with Huckabee, McCain and Ron Paul.
As I’ve said before I really enjoy Fox News but I think their Primary Coverage and political debates have gone from lacking something, to just being dull with little insight. And US viewing figures agree with me.
Legally of course the BBC can’t stage a debate like Fox does, but looking at what’s happened to Fox I think that’s a good thing.
Have no watched QT since the Tories lost power. When the Tories were in power the fact that the audience and the panel were loaded against the Tories actually made some sense, and those Tory panellists that appeared on QT often did a remarkable job of defending their opinions on the programme.
With Labour in power the panellists and audience members are little more than cheerleaders for a failing government and QT looks more and more like something out of “1984”.
I think the point about the panellists should be that Ken Clarke would not get into a Cameroon cabinet so he is not representative of the Tory party in its current form. So the Tory party didn’t really have anybody representing their current position on that panel.
Aussi Bystander: “You mean, you would advocate a few republicans to balance the endless banalities of the royalists.”
You’re joking right? Almost every time there is a significant story about the Royals the BBC canvases the views of republicans to question the Monarchy’s future. It’s even been looking for republicans to put the alternative view for the Queen’s obituary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/13/nroyal113.xml)
I think you would have a hard time arguing it’s an issue the BBC has not explored.
You complain about the BBC’s biased reporting of US Elections, which I agree with. But why I find most annoying is why do the BBC give such huge amounts of coverage to an election that I can’t vote in anyway. There are so many other things they could give coverage to that are actually relevant to British people. They don’t obsess about the domestic politics of any other country, they only obsess about America.
I just don’t see any point in obsessing over an election that I can’t vote in. It’s a waste of time.
It’s not just the BBC that do rigged debates. In this Youtube video of “London Talking” in Nov 2007, a ‘debate’ on immigration with a panel consisting of Yasmin Alibi Brown, Vannessa Feltz, Nick Ferrari and David Araonvitch, with Konnie Huq as the host. Spot the Englishman. (Englishman isn’t welcome on debates about immigration into England it would seem)
Rigged debates are rife in our so called democracy, the whole mainstream media is corrupt, not just the BBC.
Maybe they hope the Englishman will waste his time obsessing over elections he can’t vote in rather than focusing his energies on matters that directly affect him such as immigration.
Ryan | 01.02.08 – 9:22 am |
So the Tory party didn’t really have anybody representing their current position on that panel
By the same token neither did the Liberals. This was one of the most unbalanced Question Times I can remember for a long time (and I do watch it most weeks).
No doubt the BBC thought this was biased towards the right, one of those istances they pop in every now and again to use, JR-like, to show that they are balanced. In BBC speak we had one Daily Mail (extreme right), one Tory (Right), one ex-Tory & now Blairite/Brownite (Centre Right), one Actor (BBC shill – Centre) and Bonnie Greer (centre Left).
It all depends on the viewpoint you look from. In my view this panal was unbalanced but only because the actor was not a Liberal then we would have had right, centre-right, centre, centre-left and left. Sadly though, no centre half as Becks has gone home … 🙂
However to call Ken Clarke ‘leftist’ is pure nonsense, he’s centre right, more left-wing than most Tories but that doesn’t make him left-wing.
Well, to get an idea of what counts as ‘balance’ for BBC-minds, it is enough to cast your mind back to several of the comments made by Sarah-Jane or David Gregory on this very blog.
Melanie Phillips is invariably defined as a ‘nutter’. And SJ recently defined someone as ‘the lovechild of Ian Paisley and Melanie Phillips.’
By the same standard, Ken Livingstone or George Galloway, to name but two, ought to be billed as ‘nutters’. But no, they’re, at worst, ‘maverick’, ‘firebrand’, ‘controversial’.
So there you have it.
If you’re seriously right of left opinion (whatever that means), you’re a nutter. If you’re at the opposite end of the spectrum, you’re a maverick.
Balanced or what?
And the amazing thing is how damn successful the BBC has been in reshaping public opinion in recent years.
Think of issues such as so-called ‘climate change’, nuclear power, anti-Americanism.
It all started on the BBC and they’ve been extremely successful in brainwashing public opinion so that the mainstream of public conversation today is largely in line with BBC-speak.
And Question Time is the most polished product of the BBC reshaping of public discourse.
It actually sounds as if it has been scripted in advance.
I’ve stopped watching it, but I recall that you could predict what the next person would say, with unerring precision. Given ‘A’, you knew ‘B’ would be coming right afterwards.
We’ve been drilled to perfection by our masters…
Hats off to them.
And yes, of course, I am a nutter.
“You’re joking right? Almost every time there is a significant story about the Royals the BBC canvases the views of republicans to question the Monarchy’s future. It’s even been looking for republicans to put the alternative view for the Queen’s obituary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ news/2007/12/13/nroyal113.xml)
I think you would have a hard time arguing it’s an issue the BBC has not explored.”
No I’m not. In the UK the republican view is brought out ONLY in respect (or disrespect) of the monarchy, as if that was the only thing that republicanism was about. Such an argument is a travesty.
Believe it or not, American republicanism wasn’t particularly about the institution of monarchy, but instead a rebellion against the absolute power of the Crown (in Parliament), and the Constitution of the United States can only be understood against that backdrop. The Declaration of Independence, for example, complained at length how the British Parliament denied the colonists the right to create their own laws for purely local circumstances or even seek proper legal redress, all the while taxing them left, right and centre for the privilege of “protection” by the Crown.
So I repeat to David Vance: is he advocating that republican views get aired on Question Time or will it be apologists for the Royalist Parliamentary state only? Because the views on Fox are solidly about the US Constitution which was instituted in opposition to the British Parliament. Absolutely none of them would advocate a monarchy or the absolute government that exists in the UK.
I’m still waiting for an answer.
My husband recently applied to be a member of the QT audience when it was being filmed near us. He was turned down because he is a member of a political party. Apparently, people with political affiliations are not allowed to take part as audience members.
The main problem is that QT and BBC political coverage in general tends to reflect the interests of the bien pensants within the M25, which is liberal in outlook and overly obsessed with issues such as racism, feminism, Europhilism, lefty art forms, anti-Americanism, Palestinians, Islam and the Iraq war – all the things covered endlessly from one viewpoint on Radio 4 for example. This is definitely out of kilter with the general opinions and worldview of the majority of UK citizens – newspaper circulation figures show this clearly. For example the Independent has a very small circulation and the Guardian a relatively small circulation in comparison to the number of appearances their journalists make on the BBC (and relative to the circulation of the Telegraph and Daily Mail).
One gets the impression that the BBC feels that its task is no longer to inform and entertain us, but to educate us (mainly working class whitey) to have the sort of progressive views espoused by the Roger Harrabins and Kate Adies of this world. But in effect this has opened up a large chasm between those of us (a very large number) on the centre right of the political spectrum in the UK, and the BBC. But as long as the BBC continue to regard your average QT audience as representative of the general pubilc, as opposed to the local chapters of Stop the War and Greenpeace, then they will continue to disconnect from the public.
I’ve been a member of question time audience on a few occassions, and while I agree with many here, I’ve never been told why I was not selected for the audience nor did I enquire.
However, once inside BBC blackstaff, you do submit your questions, and they are taken up by staff who take them away and we are told this is done so that questions could be grouped together,since many questions that are submitted by one person are submitted by many others. A reasonable explanation – since a show has to be structured in some way???
I have raised issues via questions submitted that were at variance with the peace process and they never got through nor did questions similar to it, so I’ll give credit to censorship going on at this stage.
Dimelbley is a great guy, gives a little talk and introduces himself, the audience is given a little preshow to warm up. Not so with our pathetic immitation ‘Lets Talk, which replaces QT once a month.
I didn’t see last nights show- but I will reluctantly concur that its my belief the panelists would be in favour of a democrat in the white house, but as to the assertion that McCain is a RINO, I think that is ridiculous.
Looking at David’s own blog yesterday, (or the day before) I laughed out loud at the suggestion American voters should vote Rommey because the UK media ignored him!!!!
Mostly I find the BBC a good news provider with good balanced coverage.
May I also point out that Shaun Woodward flew to the US last year at the cost to the NI tax payer of £7,500 per flight, the total cost of 3 US trips to encourage interest in the peace process was £77,000 to the tax payer!
Something I’m sure no one questioned the fellow on last night…….
http://www.irishnews.com/irishnews/2008/1/540/542/578956_335190048937Woodwardr.html
Aussie Bystander: “In the UK the republican view is brought out ONLY in respect (or disrespect) of the monarchy, as if that was the only thing that republicanism was about.”
In the UK it pretty much is as far as I know.
“Believe it or not, American republicanism wasn’t particularly about the institution of monarchy, but instead a rebellion against the absolute power of the Crown (in Parliament). and the Constitution of the United States can only be understood against that backdrop.”
Yes, I know. But what bearing does that have on UK politics? When the role of the Crown in places like Oz are a live issue, republicans have been well represented. But what other topics likely to be discussed on QT would benefit from a “republican” voice? I don’t think most Republicans in the US harp back to the civil war too often anymore. I genuinely do not understand your point.
Aussie,
I think you are missing the point. David Vance is a right winger, and the GOP in the states represents his views more than anything else, he is not, AFAIK a monarchist – in fact his views on the monarchy may surprise you. I know there are those on his blog who say the Queen has sold out the British people by signing an EU document, which is a ridiculous position to take. but they take it anyway. Don’t know if Vance subscribes totally to the view that the Queen is a traitor, but he allows it to be aired.
Although David subscribes to the view he is British (?) he bends the knee in unashamed adoration of America, which he sees IMV as saviour of the west, though since David espouses Christianity, I’d remind him of the first commandment as regards his idolatry of America.
Aussie, ‘republican’ in the states is conservative, I think that is where your confusion lies…..nothing really to do with your discussion above re ‘republican/republic/etc.
Brush up on your political terms.
Melanie Philips is not ‘right of liberal’. Her opinions are true liberal, as the term should properly be used before it was hijacked by foaming lefties. I am a little disappointed that you seem to be perpetuating the pernicious myth that rabid statists (to say nothing of rabid anti-Americans, let alone antisemites) can properly referred to as ‘liberals’.
This whole thing about monarchy vs republicanism is a bit of an irrelevance. They (the monarchy) don’t have any real power anymore.
What’s wrong with a few republicans? Think carefully before answering.
“However to call Ken Clarke ‘leftist’ is pure nonsense, he’s centre right, more left-wing than most Tories but that doesn’t make him left-wing”
Nonsense. He is a rabid statist, a rabid europhile – goodness only knows why he hasn’t defected. He is no richer than most of the current government.
‘So-called climate change’? LOL.
Let me guess: your degree is in media studies, right?
You rant (correctly) about nutters, but referring to a serious scientific field as ‘so-called’ climate change marks you out as a nutter yourself.
Nearly Oxfordian,
I totally agree with what you say re Melanie. I use the term “right of liberal” with a hint of irony.
David Gregory,
I guess I am saying that I enjoy the way Fox has commentators who are clearly from left and right perspective. I think the BBC plays lip service to the right to be honest which is why Ken Clarke, Oliver Leftwing et al get such coverage. The charge is one tokenism – after all, there ARE plenty of us on the right who can string together at least half a dozen words and challenge the prevailing leftist orthodoxy! But when we get Conservatives in name only representing us, we get a tad cross!!
Hugh:
“Yes, I know. But what bearing does that have on UK politics? When the role of the Crown in places like Oz are a live issue, republicans have been well represented. But what other topics likely to be discussed on QT would benefit from a “republican” voice? I don’t think most Republicans in the US harp back to the civil war too often anymore. I genuinely do not understand your point.”
Well there’s the problem. If you were to read about the Declaration of Independance and the Framers of the US Constitution then you would know that the criticism of the UK Parliament’s behaviour then is EXACTLY the same as the criticism made on blogs like this now. Complaints about lack of proper representation, lack of legal redress, suppression of speech, the absolute power of state over all parts of British lives, all parts of the State being above the Law, a surveillance state with dubious powers of arrest and slanted courts, and so on.
As I said, those positions are key to comprehending the US Republican view (or republican view) which have been transmitted from the late 18th Century. They are characteristic republican positions in the US, Australia, France, Germany and most of Europe.
“You rant (correctly) about nutters, but referring to a serious scientific field as ‘so-called’ climate change marks you out as a nutter yourself”
—
Nearly Oxfordian: the mark of a ‘serious scientific field’ is falsifiability.
What passes as ‘climate change science’ has gone well beyond testability.
No evidence, no evidence whatsoever would constitute proof that the theories behind ‘climate change science’ are wrong.
*Anything* that happens to the weather now is evidence for climate change.
The glaciers get shorter? Global warming. They get longer? Global warming too.
Check their papers out, you’d be surprised.
Significantly, most of the ‘scientists’ blaring on about ‘climate change’ (a meaningless platitude, given that by definition earth’s climate has been changing since the planet was first formed) have very questionable scientific backgrounds.
A small, very recent example: the reaction of a few ‘leading climate change scientists’ to the China snowstorms:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/01/this-is-global-warming.html
Read the whole post and tell me if you can keep a straight face.
And if you call me ‘nutter’ for questioning the seriousness of what passes as science these days, I’m proud to wear that badge. And no, I haven’t got a degree in media studies. I’m a mathematical logician.
Aussie Bystander: “Complaints about lack of proper representation, lack of legal redress, suppression of speech, the absolute power of state over all parts of British lives, all parts of the State being above the Law, a surveillance state with dubious powers of arrest and slanted courts, and so on.”
These are all issues discussed on the BBC and elsewhere, none of which have anything to do with republicanism in the British sense of the term. Nor in France, incidentally. I don’t know about Germany.
And if we were to use your understanding of the term, I am pretty sure David, and I, would say, “Bring ’em on”. I would dearly love to see greater representation for those arguing for smaller government, less state interference and greater accountability in government. It just so happens that in the UK these positions are not in any way linked to the Crown’s role in our constitution.
On reflection, you’re probably right about France.
David Gregory (BBC) | 01.02.08 – 9:13 am | #
“Legally of course the BBC can’t stage a debate like Fox does,….”
I’m still on the floor laughing. Funniest comment I’ve heard all week. Thanks David!
David Vance: Well it’s not as if Mellanie is banned from the BBC. She’s a regular on the Moral Maize for example.
Or Maze even
I dunno though. I think a half hour wresting with the moral implications of corn might be fun
“The Moral Maize”?
It may well happen as part of demonising bio-fuels advocates.
“Legally of course the BBC can’t stage a debate like Fox does,….”
DG – I don’t really know how the Fox debates work. What is it that stops the BBC doing the same?
A mathematical logician you may be, but you have no clue about control engineering, system stability, perturbations and feedback loops. Localised and/or colder weather could quite easily be the result of warmer air elsewhere around the globe. No serious scientist (and your sneering at the qualifications of the scientists involved is just plain dumb and ignorant) is saying that the theory is even 99% established, only that it is more likely than not to be correct, based on current knowledge.
Or perhaps you don’t know how scientific theories evolve, and expect them to be proven absolutely or ditched.
As to non-falsifiability: what nonsense. If we started measuring a long-term, consistent drop in mean global atmospheric and/or oceanic temperatures (without being preceded by many decades of decreasing CO2 etc output), that would falsify the theory.
Strike that and/or after localised.
The BBC aren’t anti-American. They are in love with America. They are showing the American superbowl on BBC2 and are giving ridiculous amounts of coverage to US elections. They are complicit in American cultural imperialism.
The BBC are anti-Republican(the American political party) not anti-American, they can’t stand the fact that a right winger like George Bush is in charge of the country that they worship and love so much. They are upset that the country that they are besotted with invaded Iraq. When a democrat becomes president of America, the BBC will be gushing with nothing but love and praise for America.
What’s Bush’s current approval rating among US voters? Did I read somewhere it’s 34 per cent? If so, it would suggest two-thirds of Americans can’t stand the fact he is in charge of the country they (rightly) love.
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
What’s Bush’s current approval rating among US voters? Did I read somewhere it’s 34 per cent? If so, it would suggest two-thirds of Americans can’t stand the fact he is in charge of the country they (rightly) love.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 01.02.08 – 1:16 pm | #
Well, Brainless, at least he’s got 4% more support than Labour have here.
DG – I don’t really know how the Fox debates work. What is it that stops the BBC doing the same?
Hugh
All broadcasters in the UK have a legal duty to be balanced and impartial. (*hollow laughter from the gallery but there you go!*) In America there’s no such obligation and hence Fox and others can be more partial. So those taking issue with the panel on last night’s QT might find a panel selected by Fox more acceptible.
That and the fact that (as Beyond the Fringe has it) “There are two political parties in America. The Republicans (like your Conservative Party) and the Democrats (like your Conservative Party).
But as I said, Fox does seem to have lost it’s way a bit recently. We’ll see how it copes in the election proper.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 01.02.08 – 1:16 pm |
did i read somewhere president bush won a 2nd term in office ?
He did.
What’s his current approval ratng?
In reply to Nearly Oxfordian:
I can only say: Heil Gore!
What else did I expect from an idiot?
As to Gore – please link me to any place where I mentioned him with approval, or even mentioned him.
Can’t? Now do you understand why you are an idiot?
You rant (correctly) about nutters, but referring to a serious scientific field as ‘so-called’ climate change marks you out as a nutter yourself.
Nearly Oxfordian | 01.02.08 – 11:48 am | #
The concept of “Climate Change” isn’t a “serious scientific field” as you call it.
It’s a catch all phrase dreamed up by the UN when it established the IPCC in 1988.
The IPCC carries out no scientific research, its mandate is to trawl the all the published science in various genuine scientific fields and, in its own words “…to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change.”
In other words – to justify its own existence.
No serious scientic research project starts by stating in advance the result it intends to prove -that’s the antithesis of real science.
Are you a scientist by the way?
Nearly Oxfordian ,
Go read something other than Real Climate for a change.
No southern hemisphere warming for 30 years with an Antarctic trend of -0.06° per decade over this period, and no overall warming for almost a decade for the whole globe would seem to be coming pretty close to causing the house of cards to come tumbling down. In fact, current temperatures are even lower than Hansen’s scenario C. Oops!
Yours,
Nep, MEng (hons) Oxon
PS, get back on topic now or Matron will spank you
I wrote to Helen Boaden ages ago complaining about Question Time amongst other things and was very surprised to get a reply. I have pasted it below for those of you who are interested.
You will notice I have changed my name below as I am a bit shy.
Dear Mr Rockall
Thanks for your kind remarks about having grown up trusting the BBC to be a beacon of integrity and truth in journalism – and I wholeheartedly believe that you can continue to trust in our passionate commitment to impartiality. Please rest assured that the issue of bias can never go away as we can never afford to be complacent and must be constantly vigilant. Of course we don’t always get everything right – but we certainly try our utmost to achieve proper balance.
With regard to the Question Time audience, there’s a good explanation about the selection criteria on the programme website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/faqs/default.stm
Yours sincerely
pp Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News
——————————————————————————–
From: Rockall
Sent: 01 November 2006 16:36
To: zzHelen Boaden-EXTERNAL
Subject: Response
Helen,
I was disappointed that you have chosen not to respond to the feedback you got on your editorial piece ‘Bias at the BBC’. It certainly seems there are some unhappy people out there. They can’t all read the Daily Mail surely? They do all have to pay the licence fee however.
I was wondering who picks the ‘Question Time’ audience as well – is it really representative? It seems like the panel are addressing a Lib Dem conference at times.
I’m a bit worried the issue of bias may ‘go away’ now you have had a meeting and written about it. Is that unfair?
I grew up trusting the BBC as a beacon of integrity and truth in journalism. It wouldn’t take much to get me back on board.
Regards,
Rockall
Benny | Homepage | 01.02.08 – 9:37 am |
Actually, certain factions of the BBC absolutely think the US elections are important to you and all UK citizens. The climate is rapidly becoming much like that of the Guardian during the previous election, when they incited their readers into a letter-writing campaign to tell us stoopid Amerikkkans not to re-elect Bush.
Mark Thompson has made it clear on his own blog that he is of similar mind to the sentiment expressed in the Flemish newspaper De Standaard: namely, the US elections affect the whole world, and are thus extremely important to everyone. He has not gone as far as that paper and said that the whole world should get to vote in US elections – yet.
The BBC wants you very much to get agitated over the US elections. This way they can prepare your thoughts and emotions for a seismic shift in attitude when a Democrat becomes President, or to up the anti-American ante when a Republican gets elected. Their own talking heads say as much on their own damn broadcasts.
This election is very, very important to certain people at the BBC. By extension, it is now very, very important to all of you as well. So much so that they do a whole segment during a lite news breakfast show on Giuliani dropping out, including analysis of what it means.
Benny | 01.02.08 – 1:05 pm |
The BBC are anti-Republican(the American political party) not anti-American, they can’t stand the fact that a right winger like George Bush is in charge of the country that they worship and love so much. They are upset that the country that they are besotted with invaded Iraq. When a democrat becomes president of America, the BBC will be gushing with nothing but love and praise for America.
Correct you are, sir.
Ask yourslef this question. The two biggest selling newspapers are “The Sun” and the “Daily Mail”
How many people in a typical BBC QT audience would put their hands up to reading either of those papers?
I’ve always found the audience is full of left wing tossers, usually teachers, social workers, students and political sad gits.
I can’t remember EVER seeing a truck driver or white van man on there.
The BBC hate the white working class. If the BBC had their way they would be exterminated (excpet for the fact they need them to pay their tele tax of course)
The BBC live in thier little world of Islington dinner parties, the Guardian jobs section and Nu Labour lunches at 10 Downing street.
The funniest thing I’ve seen was when Clarkson on Top Gear had to attend the “spoof” team meeting. It looked like a meeting of the UN with every ethnic group present and endless copies of the Guardian scattered across the table.
Problem is, that IS the real BBC.
pedant – they were jokes.
Galloway is clearly a nutter if it’s any consolation.
Livingstone definitely has his moments too.
But at least they are not boring, and neither is Melanie Phillips.
The funniest thing I’ve seen was when Clarkson on Top Gear had to attend the “spoof” team meeting. It looked like a meeting of the UN with every ethnic group present and endless copies of the Guardian scattered across the table.
Problem is, that IS the real BBC.
Martin | 01.02.08 – 2:35 pm | #
It’s a certain small part of it, that we all spend our time doing our best to avoid and ignore.
Clarkson is a hero among the staff because he has ratings so he can say what he likes and says what a lot of us think.
The Sun is a really widely read paper among journos because Kavanagh is so well connected. You would be surprised how many read the Mail too – because we do look at the circulation figures and we know what the audience reads.