Where would the BBC be without it’s regular diet of “surveys”, “reports” and “enquiries” ? On Radio Four’s seven o’clock news this morning, the first three of four stories were all supplied to the BBC. While I’m not a great fan of the journalist Nick Davies’ analytical capabilities, his observational skills are first class – and in his book Flat Earth news he charges that too many news organisations are content to regurgitate the press releases without enquiring into the motives behind them.
Today’s top story featured an organisation new to me, the “Independent Asylum Commission“, which has produced a report lambasting Britain for its appalling treatment of asylum seekers. Said report is getting top billing on BBC news.
The morning is young, and I have work to do. But given that the Commission is sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, what are the odds that it will turn out to consist of pro-asylum, pro-immigration activists ? If any commenters have time to dig I’d be grateful.
Let’s look at another “independent” organisation.
From BBC News a while back :
Reforms of the criminal justice system are largely ineffective in cutting crime, an independent think-tank says.
The Crime and Society Foundation, at King’s College, London, says ministers should focus instead on tackling root causes such as poverty and sexism.
This ‘independent think-tank‘ is staffed by :
A former communications director for the anti-prison, pro-criminal National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.
A former researcher for the anti-prison ‘children’s liberation’ National Children’s Bureau and the Child Poverty Action Group.
A former Communications Officer at Action for Prisoners’ Families.
A former employee of the Howard League for Penal Reform, aka the Howard League For The Abolition of Punishment.
On its advisory board sits the anti-prison campaigner Una Padel and one Nick Page. Could it be this Nick Page ? Alas I think it’s this one.
There’s “independent”. And there’s BBC “independent”.
UPDATE – I see David and I have taken the same story this morning. Let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend, as Chairman Mao once said.
Victoria,
You say that the BBC would report on any group that puts out a report? But they dont do they?
Look at the Heatlands international conference on climate change where hundreds of highly qualified scientists and a european head of state attended and the BBC ignored it!
Migration watch has put together dozens of reports and the BBC ignores them!
Look at the taxpayers alliance and all the reports they have produced and the BBC ignores them!
Look at all the reports by UKIP on the EU but the BBC ignores them!
The BBC seems to ignore any report that does not fit its political prejudices!
The BBC ignores any alternative view on climate change and never ever allows a platform to anyone who dares to challenge the AGW orthodoxy!
The BBC did a series on white people and their struggle in the face of mass immigration BUT the whole point was to push a multicultural agenda and portay these white people as ignorant of the ‘benefits’ of multiculturism and worse portrayed white people as retarded neanderthal idiots who only have to be “properly educated” by the BBC and the scales would be lifted from their ignorant eyes and they would see just how wonderful mass immigration and multiculturalism is! More time was given over to non whites in what should have been a series on whites! In short that series was a disgrace and clearly showed not just bias but a hatred of the white native working class!
In conclusion, the BBC will never allow any party airtime which disturbs the BBCs comfort zone and political prejudices.
Cassandra, I really don’t think separate replies to Alex and Victoria are necessary.
Cassandra @ 08.15 just about sums it up for me.
Nothing more to add – great post!
“The question to ask is just why they seem to fall prey to leftist fake stories only!”
Really? Like this bunch of Bolshevist career-dhimmis?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7246085.stm
“I am interested in the facts and background to a story by the BBC that seems to promote a pressure group and present it in such a way as to hide its politcal agenda. It only takes the BBC to add some relevant facts about the pressure groups aims and background but this seems to be beyond them for some reason?”
Let’s compare shall we? They do go into background:
“The Rusi report was written by Professor Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and the Marquess of Salisbury, the former Conservative leader in the House of Lords.”
You get the writers’ CVs. Yes, it includes his party affiliation when he was leader of the House of Lords, but does it say “right-wing think tank”? Does it mention any other affiliations and recommendations that might discredit RUSI as you want it to do with the IAC?
And look how much space there is for other opinions:
“But a Cabinet Office spokesman said some of the claims “do not stand up to scrutiny” and some recommendations had already been introduced…a Cabinet Office spokesman said: “The safety and security of our citizens is the government’s main priority, and the government rejects any suggestion that Britain is a soft touch for terrorists.””
The government half disputing ‘soft touch’ and half agreeing with the think-tank and saying its suggestions were already being implemented. Any word from the Muslim Council of Great Britain?
Alex,
Yes that last post you did actually made sense, are you sure it wasn’t by Victoria?
I do believe that political persuasion of groups are disproportionately labelled as right wing but not mentioned when left wing, but that certainly is not always the case.
I would probably be more vexed about this were I right wing myself, I’m not, but its bias and I don’t like it whichever quarter it comes from.
That seems to be your issue with B-BBC. you seem to assume that all have a homogenous right wing view and you tailor all your posts accordingly.
Its called Biased BBC, not left wing biased BBC, and its about all of the biases at the BBC, whether political or otherwise.
Yes the BBC does appear to be biased in favour of Brown and NuLab, they are the government, I can remember them favouring conservative governments years ago when we used to have them.
State broadcasters do that, that’s why its time we did away with a state broadcaster alltogether.
“Its called Biased BBC, not left wing biased BBC, and its about all of the biases at the BBC, whether political or otherwise.”
The first part is true, but if you look through the site it is exclusively occupied with what it considers to be ‘left-wing’ bias. My last post was evidence that a right-wing report got almost exactly the same treatment.
Alex,
The Muslim council of Britain refuses to use the word great in connection with Great Britain because it(mcb)feels that only their God deserves that title. Perhaps if you got that wrong you could be mistaken in your earlier point where you tried to bring up the Rusi report but shot yourself in your size 12s when the BBC tagged the reports author as a conservative BUT my point as you know is that the “Independent commissions” authors were not tagged in any way whatsoever!
You know full well that I never asked that the BBC must couch its description of the reports in negative terms and you are misrepresenting my post. I asked that the BBC give the same treatment to either side right or left!
If you are going to quote me then please try to get your facts straight!
Alex @ 14.57
“almost exactly the same treatment”
Your version of the above is a very very different one to most peoples notion of that phrase Alex! In fact when you use that statement you must in fact mean that ‘all authors of reports are equal BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”!!!!!!!
Your post has highlighted your blind and kneejerk loyalty to the BBC, look Alex on this blog you will find that blind political loyalty is anathema to why we are here and that is to point out party political bias in the BBC and you really do yourself no favours by posting partial and political tripe, why dont you start by being critical of the BBC for a change, it will do you good I promise!
“You…shot yourself in your size 12s when the BBC tagged the reports author as a conservative BUT my point as you know is that the “Independent commissions” authors were not tagged in any way whatsoever!”
The only author of the IAC report who has held a comparable government position is Lord Ramsbotham, who is, oh look, a crossbencher.
“You know full well that I never asked that the BBC must couch its description of the reports in negative terms and you are misrepresenting my post.”
I accused you of wanting the BBC to “mention any other affiliations and recommendations that might discredit” the IAC. You were “interested in the facts and background to a story by the BBC that seems to promote a pressure group and present it in such a way as to hide its politcal agenda” and wanted “some relevant facts about the pressure groups aims and background”. In short you wanted its background “agenda” mentioned, in order to detract from its claims. Why, when the BBC had nothing to say about the RUSI’s agenda, should it do similarly with a left-wing think-tank?
“the site it is exclusively occupied with what it considers to be ‘left-wing’ bias.” Alex
‘exclusively’? Alex you are a liar.
“gather a group of professional researchers, set up a non-governmental (otherwise known as ‘independent’) commission, find evidence to support everything you’ve just said and knock-up a press release.”
alternatively, create a series of multiple identities on a webiste and create your own ngo/pressure group.
for fun you can have each of your own set of characters interacting with each other on a website maybe, backing up each other in arguments.
or maybe make some real friends instead of playing make believe with imaginary friends.