Yes, if you want to get a good dose of BBC bias in full-on mode, just tune in to the morning Radio 4 flagship “Today” programme. I have to admit I rarely listen to it these days since it only spoils the start to the day for anyone who is not a foaming at the mouth lefty. But in the interests of this blog, I did bite my tongue and tune in this morning from the “Thought for the Day” section at 7.45am all the way through to main post 8am headlines political interview. My worst expectation were immediately exceeded when I realised that the “Thought for the Day” contribution was a sterling defence of the Imam of Canterbury by a Muslim contributor. Amazingly, he claimed that Rowan Williams had been “misunderstood” and that “most people” were now coming around to sharing this view. This was a pure PR piece engineered to offer support to the not so good Dr William. Following straight on from this was another item on Druid Williams, and the fact that he faces a meeting of the General Synod later this week. Again calls from within the Church for him to resign were downplayed and instead the claim was made by the BBC reporter that Williams was a much loved and respected figure who was holding the Anglican Church together and that it was inconceivable that he would resign. Do you think Lambeth Palace writes the scripts for the BBC?
After the News headlines at 8am, the lead story was “Is Afghanistan a failed State?”, a favoured BBC theme. One might more accurately ask “Is the BBC a failed broadcaster?” We had the usual “It’s a quagmire, get us out of there” defeatist mindset in full flow, with the BBC presenter seemingly oblivious of the fact that Al Qqueda have used Afghanistan as a base from which to bring terror to the West. The hapless David Milliband (Aged 13 and 3/4) tried to explain why we need to defend our interests by staying the course here and fighting and killing the “insurgents” in the southern part of Afghanistan but the BBC interviewer seemed much more sympathetic to the French and German view that whilst armed forces could go to Afghanistan, they mustn’t go to where the danger is! A pacifist army that travels the world is probably the BBC’s fantasy – a crack legion of aromatherapists is something they MIGHT just tolerate! And so it ended, and so did my interest in listening to this drivel. You know it’s when you actually reflect on how interviews are constructed, on how interviewees are chosen and allocated time, and on how running orders are established, that the anti-Britishness of the BBC comes through in all its glory. Do you ever listen to the “Today” programme and if so, can you share how you do this for more than 15 minutes without feeling nausea?
Simon:
Rockall:
Who lives on the 4th floor?
You beat me to it Rockall.
You’re not anything to do with the (now apparently defunct) Rockall Times website are you?
Simon | 11.02.08 – 2:57 pm | #
Nothing to do with that – I’ve never heard of it actually. I decided on Rockall because I am miserably lonely, isolated, bleak, inhospitable and birds are allways sh*ting on me 😉
Sarah-Jane,
The “interfering political busybody” is but a part of the story. It’s the institutionalised hatred of all things British that concerns me. And judging by comments here, I’m not the only one. As for the 4th Floor bigwigs, maybe they need to learn to come to earth a little and respect the valid concerns of many os us who seek a fair and balanced media. You see I have argued that to admit bias is the starting point – it’s natural to have bias. You do, I do, we all do. The issue is then how to deal with it – and that’s where balance comes in – providing equal share of time to opposing views. That’s an area the BBC really gets wrong in so many ways. We’re dealing with substance here, not style. The 4th floor need to humble themselves and that starts by accepting that they are not perfect and there is a massive culture change.
“Unlike you, I am doing this for nothing”
You’re overpaid. Seriously: a neutral reader could assume you’re a paid stooge to make BBC critics look like a bunch of one track bigots.
Concern from beeboids about Andrew is deeply unpersuasive. Andrew was/is/and ever shall be a loser — vain and vapid, anal-retentive, easy to stoke and stroke and point in the wrong direction. IN short, a useful idiot. No wonder some of you want him back. Oh well…
p and a tale of one chip,
Tell you what, I reckon you are a tale of two chips, one on each shoulder!
Tell you what David, that’s the first time you’ve recognised balance since you started posting here.
Where is the point of balance between the arsonist and the fireman? Geddit?
Anonymous:
Concern from beeboids about Andrew is deeply unpersuasive. Andrew was/is/and ever shall be a loser — vain and vapid, anal-retentive, easy to stoke and stroke and point in the wrong direction. IN short, a useful idiot. No wonder some of you want him back. Oh well…
Who’s that? He sure doesn’t like one of the founders of this blog.
Are you a beeboid Rockall? I’m not.
F**k me! If you say you miss Andrew (if only for bit of variety) then you’re in thrall of the BBC according to this guy/gal.
David Vance:
Where is the point of balance between the arsonist and the fireman? Geddit?
David Vance | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 3:34 pm | #
but…but….didn’t you produce a vlog for your own blog saying you weren’t interested in balance?
Do you have any left/nationalist/other ‘writers’ for your blog? No, everybody must have the same right of centre point of view is you, but you hold the BBC to a different standard?
“Where is the point of balance between the arsonist and the fireman? Geddit?”
Not really, no. Perhaps because you’ve butchered the metaphor. Personally, I’m quite clear on the distinction between an arsonist and a fireman.
On the other hand, I’m not sure what point someone who specialises in right wing polemic has to make on lecturing the BBC about objectivity and balance.
The BBC charter holds it the standard I request. Plus there is the multi-billion license fee. If the Government gives me the right to demand money from people, we can then talk about my bias. The point of the Churchill quote is that there is no point of balance between right and wrong. That was what I was conveying to Mr Two Chips.
Oh god this blog gets better by the minute.
Before David Vance appeared I’d be lucky to see 10 or 15 responses to each article before I had the chance to comment on anything. Now I’m seeing 50 posts attached to each new article.
But what I love the most is how much BBC wordworm has crawled out of the state owned furniture to predictably shrill in the same identical key singing the same tune at his posts. I have yet to see a BBC drone post a comment that doesn’t immediately sound like every other BBC drone. Why are they so homogenized? Don’t ANY BBC staffers have their own unique identity?
However, it seems since David Vance began posting, the BBC spongers that post up here are trying a new game. Namely:-
“Well, we used to take this blog seriously and we would listen and were willing to do things about it, but now David Vance is here being REALLY spiteful, we’re not playing any more.”
Good for you David Vance. I think it’s about time someone played the same hardline tactics the BBC have been forcing upon us with their work shy, lah-di-dah student politics for years.
It’s so enjoyable to see them clucking like excitable hens because a fox has broken into the coop.
To clarify: your own, acknowledged, biases are off limits because you’re not paid a license fee? You’re that confident that they don’t colour your views one iota or qualify your credibility as an arbitrator of balance/bias?
Typhoo
David Vance doesn’t exhort money, on pain of imprisonment, from the readers of his blog. Therefore, it is up to him how he wants to run it and what he wishes to promote.
This is the clear difference between the two.
“predictably shrill in the same identical key singing the same tune at his posts”
It’s called Roneo culture. Groupthink. The herd instinct, particularly when the herd’s under attack.
Also explains why there’s nothing interesting on telly.
This is the clear difference between the two.
No it isn’t, its do as I say and not as I do – mentality.
The beeb invite David on, he was on yesterday morning bbc radio ulster. His dislike of the beeb doesn’t appear to affect his appearances on it. They may invite him but no one puts a gun to his head do they?
I always tend to look at who is doing the preaching and pontificating.
Simon | 11.02.08 – 3:39 pm |
No I’m most certainly not a beeboid. What an accusation.
Vance dosn’t like me I think because I told him he came across like a nutter in one of his first posts.
I think Anonymous is one of the guys that got banned by Andrew hence his comment.
I definately want Andrew back moderating as this place is getting a bit weird lately.
Typhoo – short of outright libel Mr Vance can be as biased as he likes; he is not in receipt of the licence fee.
The People’s Front of Judea:
Before David Vance appeared I’d be lucky to see 10 or 15 responses to each article before I had the chance to comment on anything. Now I’m seeing 50 posts attached to each new article.
This is certainly true – hence my comment about him getting this blog noticed. I’ve been lurking and very occasionally commenting on this blog for 2 years and he’s certainly livened things up!
I am grateful to David, Andrew, Natalie, Pounce and anyone else who puts valid comments on this site so that I realise that I am not alone when I see the dishonesty of the BBC.
However the growth of beeboid responses and trolls suggests we have them rattled – but pity they cannot provide sensible replies. I do exclude David Gregory from this comment because he is more honest than the rest of them put together
The beeb invite David on, he was on yesterday morning bbc radio ulster. His dislike of the beeb doesn’t appear to affect his appearances on it.
Typhoo | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 4:05 pm |
And your dislike of this site doesn’t seem to affect your appearances on it.
And your dislike of this site doesn’t seem to affect your appearances on it.
I dislike this site. Someone should have told me earlier, I wasn’t aware that I was. O well one learns something new every day eh?
As I said, I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of running down a particular organisation and frequently appearing on it.
Deborah:
“However the growth of beeboid responses and trolls suggests we have them rattled – but pity they cannot provide sensible replies.”
Personally I think most of the Beeboid comments seem to have been generated by a random word generator. Nearly all of them seem to use the same effete public schoolie language that sounds like they’ve never taken a bus in their life.
Just pick and choose from the following and then paste this into your reply to sound like a bona-fide Beeboid.
“Tin-foil hat”.
“Nonsense.”
“We don’t always get it right.”
“You just don’t understand journalism.”
“This blog is more biased than the BBC”
“He/You/They are using this blog as a soap-box for your political agenda.
Don’t forget to use clever sounding words like:
“Caveat” and “Tendentious”
And the odd bit of Latin or French wouldn’t go amiss, so mummy and daddy’s money wasn’t completely wasted on your education.
Typhoo – I wouldn’t regard this as hypocrisy. Just because BBC Ulster provides him with some airtime does not mean that the BBC is immune to criticism from him or that criticism of the BBC from Mr Vance is hypocritical.
I listen to the Today programme out of habit – but my tolerance levels are steadily decreasing. I turned off after about twenty minutes this morning. But I did catch the BBC correspondent (before 7am) explaining how Rowan Williams was “nudging” the Church in a “liberal” direction. How the accommodation of sharia law within British civil law could possibly be regarded as a “nudge” in a “liberal” direction is utterly beyond me. As brave people of the left like Nik Cohen, Andrew Anthony and Christopher Hitchens have cuttingly observed – when the liberal consensus has to negotiate gay and women’s rights in relation to Islam they fall into a mass of moral equivocation. Burkas are suddenly rebranded as ‘liberating’ and gay rights are frankly ignored. As for anti-Semitism – they are at one with their Jew hating Muslim brothers. These days the left hardly bothers to cover up their anti-semitism in anti-Zionist garb – just read the comments any day of the week on CiF. The left/liberal hegemony has become a sewer of some very very nasty ideas packaged in special smug ‘PC’ trappings. Anyone who opposes this powerful group is automatically demonised. The Today programme in particular leads the way with their project of social engineering. For a long time now, as posters on this site have remarked, the BBC has been softening the British up to adopt ‘sharia’ compliant attitudes. And if you don’t like it – you are branded an ‘Islamophobe’.
Hmmm…Balance
BBC – Thousands of staff, Billions of pounds, uncountable “Opinions” pushed at taxpayers expense, TV channels, Radio, Web, Pod casts…..
David Vance – Just him, Zero money, his own opinions, No TV, No Radio, just blogs and a book perhaps.
BBC trolls trying hard to undermine a single source of opinion whilst being paid tax money…..
Fair enough really, but only if your sense of Balance is somewhat “Un-balanced”
Biased BBC used to be a pretty good read, some of the time. I used to look at it — from my desk in TV Centre — once or twice a day. I disagreed with, and was able to disprove, a lot of what was written. But every so often it would correctly point out where we’d gone wrong. And often, it would do so with a reasonable amount of humour.
BJ – what mythical halcyon days were these? I’ve been posting (on and off) on this site for some years now and all I’ve ever got is scorn and abuse (in about equal measure) from your BBC colleagues. This invented ‘decline’ is yet another of your polemical devices to discredit this site. Unchanged over the years. One thing I have learnt tho’ – the unerring intellectual dishonesty of BBC employees has made them masters of sophistry and propaganda. Demonisation is one of your favourites – just like totalitarian states. Bravo.
I have to agree with PFJ in his assertion that David Vance has really put the wind up the BEEBOIDS.
David Vance is now a prime target for the BBC counter propaganda unit and I find it both entertaining and informative.
Keep up the good work David Vance, you seem to be hitting the BEEBOIDS in a sensitive place.
“BBC trolls trying hard to undermine a single source of opinion whilst being paid tax money…..”
No I’m pretty sure I’m not paid for by tax. Another source of amusement here are the lectures on groupthink shortly followed by the automatic assumption that if you’re not a yes man you work for the BBC.
BBC trolls trying hard to undermine a single source of opinion whilst being paid tax money…..
I hope that is not addressed to me, I am not a BBC troll, or a troll of any kind, I merely call it as I see it. I have a problem with anyone not only David Vance, calling for The BA to stay where they are in Afghanistan while the French and Germans are not in the danger zone. There was NO bias as far as I can see in the Milliband interview. If there is bias, and the bias is pointed out, then I’ll agree. I disagree with many things David says, and I’m known to him, he even knows where I live.
That will not prevent me from calling things as I see them. I find if a person calls for balance in reporting while opting out of balance in their own reporting is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I cannot comment on the thought for the day piece of the programme, as I didn’t hear it in full, but I heard the Milliband interview, and saw no Bias in there.
Should I agree with something just because its is posted?
I think the 4th floor is where they have the money fights.
For anyone who cares, it’s my day off and I posted both this morning’s message and this one from my house. Maximum value for you the licence payer, I think you’ll find.
I hope none of you are posting from desks owned by companies in which I am a shareholder….
Oscar – no, something has changed: the frequency of headlines, almost exclusively by Vance. Since the start of Feb in 11 days there have been 21 posts, all but two by DV.
ed, Laban and Andrew made generally well-targetted contentions on BBC bias when they saw it, which was maybe an average of once a week each. But DV has turned this blog into the David Vance show, with the quality of argument in inverse proportion to the frequency of posting.
Sarah M:
“I don’t include BBC apologists like Hillhunt and Aussie Bystander it is clear you do not work for the BBC, in fact I rather assume you have no gainful employment.”
Actually I do, and I probably earn considerably more than you. I assume you have gainful employment consonent with your limited education.
Does any of this have to do with why Vance employs the rhetorical skills of 911-Truthers to weave fantasy fiction stories from trivia? Or how he manages to make the BBC look unjustifiably well-balanced by launching such comically contrived arguments that are so easily refuted?
I think that’s ‘consonant’ actually. Lucky your oh-so-well-paid job doesn’t depend on such things as spelling
Cassandra
David Vance is now a prime target for the BBC counter propaganda unit and I find it both entertaining and informative.
But what if it’s a double bluff?
i.e. that beeboid central have decided Vance is a walking disaster bound to discredit this blog, so are laying into him with verve hoping the siteowners will decide to keep him.
p and a tale of one chip:
“BBC trolls trying hard to undermine a single source of opinion whilst being paid tax money…..”
Typhoo:
BBC trolls trying hard to undermine a single source of opinion whilst being paid tax money…..
Fairly obviously…it’s only you if the cap fits…otherwise the comment is aimed at those who know they work for the BBC.
My nod toward David & Goliath holds true, let’s put it in another context…
If it where the US bashing say Montserrat which side would the BBC be on?
They always purport to be the champion of David, but cannot seem to see that they are in fact a Goliath and act as all Goliaths do.
“Fairly obviously…it’s only you if the cap fits…otherwise the comment is aimed at those who know they work for the BBC.”
Fair enough, but how are the BBC trolls trying hard to undemine a single source of opinion when they allow him air time. Why do they allow him air time? Is he an elected representative? Is he spokesperson for any organisation. NO. David is a private citizen with a blog, they give him a lot of air time considering he doesn’t represent anyone but himself? So how are they undermining his opinion?
David Vance | 11.02.08 – 3:10 pm | #
David, if more of your posts were that measured, we would have a much more constructive time of it.
who’s suprised the lefties attack the messenger rather than discuss the matter in a reasonable manner like adults?
Typhoo | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 5:33 pm | #
By trying to demonise him for comments on this site, the fact that one small section of the BBC “allows” David a little air time in no way diminishes the concerted efforts of other BBC staff to render his opinions as those of a “crazy”.
Consider how surprising the the BBC found the outcry against the ABC’s comments. Take a look at some of the HYS that has been published, I think you may see that the great British public will find a lot more in common with David’s opinions than those that troll here for the BBC.
“Consider how surprising the the BBC found the outcry against the ABC’s comments”
What makes you think they were surprised, out of interest?
Dear M of S & P,
If ifs and ands were pots and pans, thered be no need for tinkers!
(old northern saying)
You may be right in your assertion, you may not, but the acidic tone and aggressive nature of the BEEBOID posts is just a little too engineered to be spontaneous?
Clearly there are lots of new posters who have ‘all of a sudden’ taken an interest in this blog, why? Isnt it strange how all these ‘anti DV posters’ come along just as DV starts posting?
Is this a concerted leftist smear campaign?
I for one am puzzled by the emergence of this new breed of poster at this time BUT perhaps its a little early to draw conclusions?
I think the old saying, give em enough rope and they will hang themselves, just might do the trick?
In the meantime they are certainly quite entertaining!
David Vance:
Where is the point of balance between the arsonist and the fireman? Geddit?
David Vance | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 3:34 pm | #
At first this comment just seems inarguably right doesn’t it? Of course the BBC should not give a voice to arsonists.
But, without getting into the quagmire of moral equivalence (which I dont believe in) sometimes these voices must be heard because:
“We must not allow our justified loathing of the horrors and tragedies of the past to become a barrier to creating a better and more stable future for our children”
What makes you think they were surprised, out of interest?
Easy, read and listen to the coverage, think about who were asked to comment on what he said. How much time has been devoted to explain how “intelligent” and “respected” he is. It’s really not too difficult to see a damage limitation exercise. As another contributor here noted, many in the BBC thought they had done enough to make this sort of statement “acceptable”. Indeed they think it IS acceptable and so feel the need to “support” the ABC.
By trying to demonise him for comments on this site, the fact that one small section of the BBC “allows” David a little air time in no way diminishes the concerted efforts of other BBC staff to render his opinions as those of a “crazy”.
I don’t think they’re demonising him, but taking issue with what he says – perhaps in the wrong manner, but that is the nature of a free society and David Vance would be the first to defend their right to say it.
David is no crazy, he appears to be a nice guy who tries very hard to do what he thinks is right, He is also an intelligent and very articulate blogger, but I still take issue over the Milliband interview. I saw no Bias in it, and some of the other stuff he posted re bias, was either weak reporting or of very little bias value.
Thats all I’m saying.
More BBC stealth editing?
“It’s really not too difficult to see a damage limitation exercise.”
I don’t know about that. The BBC broke the story, and I suspect knew exactly how it would be received given the sensitivity of the topic.
They’ve got a duty to report the follow up and the context and they have. The ABC’s comments on R4 were a less nuanced version of what he actually said in his speech, which broadsheets like the Sunday Times noted and the BBC is entitled to report without being accused of damage limitation.
The BBC’s reported detractors – like Carey – and supporters – like Brown. As the originator of the story I hardly think the BBC can be accused of damage limitation on the ABC’s behalf.
Typhoo | Homepage | 11.02.08 – 6:01 pm | #
And I respect your point of view, and how you are saying it.
If all the BBC commentators could do the same then we would have much to discuss. It should not fall to a large organisation to try and belittle what they perceive as a descenting voice.
p and a tale of one chip | 11.02.08 – 6:08 pm | #
Well I guess we can agree to disagree on that one, which is fine and as it should be, how boring if we all saw everything in the same colour.
However I am listening to the news at present, and it still seems like damage limitation to me…..
Sorry to anyone in process of reply to me. I must set off for home and will be unable to reply.
Thanks to all who engaged.