I’m sorry I won’t be able to blog more today but I have other pressures on me however I did want to quickly draw your attention to the way in which John Humphrys introduced an item on Prince William’s flying visit to Afghanistan on the Today programme this morning at around 6.50am. He lined the report up by suggesting that “some people” (ie Beeboids) might say that the reason for this visit to the war-zone is a cynical attempt to get over the bad publicity William has incurred in the past week or so regarding the use of military helicopters for private use. I felt this was totally gratuitous and a crude attempt to undermine the Prince’s efforts. Humphrys must know that such arrangements are not slotted in with but a few days notice but then again “some people” can’t resist the opportunity to put the boot into the Royal family. BBC bias? You bet.
PRINCE WILLIAM AND THE BBC.
Bookmark the permalink.
This is indeed a load of old toss. I can imagine that its not a walk in the park going to Afghanistan even in a ‘visiting’ capacity. He’s also a member of the BRITISH royal family and hence a figurehead for the BRITISH military, a point the troops I know seem to appreciate even if the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation doesn’t.
The BBC online version also carried the same slant, but through the comments of nominated sources:
“Former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe said William would have been in no real danger during his visit to the war zone.
He also thought the visit was a public relations exercise.
“I’m slightly sceptical about this. I think the cynics amongst us will say it’s an attempt to cover up the Chinook jollies,” he said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7374589.stm
Once again, I just marvel at the fact Humphrys is still alive and working when he must be well into his nineties.
Cut him some slack — I know I do with my senile old grandma.
So think of him as your senile old grandma too, and everything becomes clear.
It’s not bias to say that some people will think it is a PR stunt. SOme people like me DO think it is a PR stunt. So that is accuracy not bias.
http://www.charliebeckett.org/?p=459
It’s not for the BBC to say whether or not it’s a stunt. THE BBC IS SUPPOSED TO REPORT THE NEWS, NOT PUSH ITS AGENDA.
Which part of the above is unclear?
Since,there was an assassonation attempt on Karzai
How true is this?
“”Former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe said William would have been in no real danger during his visit to the war zone.”
It’s always great to hear “former” anyones, not on the spot, giving their opinions.
I suppose the Pope was in no real danger on his recent visit to a non-war Zone ( we call in New York, Ken)… stoooopid Americans, wasting all that money on secret service, SWAT teams and police protection in a non-war zone.
Sheesh.
I’ve just read the same thing on the website.
What a load of bollocks. The Beeboids really can’t help themselves, can they?
I was trying to remember which PR disaster they were referring to. And there it is. Apparently, Wills landed his chopper on his girlfriends’ lawn. Awful, awful behaviour. No wonder he had to fly all the way to Afghanistan to make amends.
Good for him (and Mark Urban, who reported well from Musa Qala last night. Thank goodness not all the Beeboids are of Humphrys-like hideousness).
Mr Vance:
“some people” can’t resist the opportunity to put the boot into the Royal family. BBC bias? You bet.
But probably not…
Humphrys’s remarks were all being bounced off the BBC royal correspondent who treated them as the devil’s advocacy they were and explained that the visit had been pre-planned and was a proper part of William’s duties. It was an entirely respectful view of the prince’s function.
Why do you assume that listeners only hear what the host has to say? And why not recognise that it’s routine broadcasting practice for a presenter to put one side of a case to allow an authoritative voice to explain the other side?
.
Well, I do think that William is a tosser for not realising that this is not 1908 and his behaviour is disgraceful (although he is not in the same league as his ghastly brother, who seems to have his mother’s brain), and of course William’s superiors are mega-tossers for allowing him to do so – but it’s still not the BBC’s place to say this.
Is Hillhunt for real? Or is trying to play devil’s advocate for Humphrys, who has form as a patronising, overbearing little beeboid?
Well I saw the same story this morning at 730. Am curious as to why the BBC felt it had to call Max Clifford for a sound bite about how dodgy this trip is?
Why not just report it as a visit and leave it at that? Adding Max Cliffords personal opinion adds nothing to the fact Willy was in Afghanistan. And personally, I couldnt give a flying f8ck if it was a PR stunt or not.
Mailman
What a better ‘Today’ prog it would be if they had treated the helicopter stuff as a bit of innocent fun, a show of spirit and humour from a young man no doubt mostly hemmed-in by advisors and no-sayers. This morning’s snide remarks all but inexcusable.
‘Some people’ think certain welsh wind bags are rather too full of their own importance and too busy defending the indefensible.
Humphries on his knees in front of gordon brown, has provoked pretty strong reaction from posters across the blogasphere . The consensus is, it wasn’t a pretty sight !
Oh, what a poor young man … what a dreadful life he must lead … and I don’t care a flying f8ck whether Jason considers or doesn’t consider my remarks ‘inexcusable’.
Since,there was an assassonation attempt on Karzai
How true is this?
“”Former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe said William would have been in no real danger during his visit to the war zone.”
Peter | 30.04.08 – 11:19 am | #
Maybe that’s one of the reasons Ken Wharfe is a former royal protection officer?
Er, I don’t think Jason was referring to your remarks, Nearly O. I think he meant the remarks in the Today programme.
Ah, chuffer: but in this case I agree with the substance of the Today remarks, as I tried to make clear, even though I consider it quite unacceptable to make them on such a programme.
Hillhunt: The “visit had been pre-planned”. You can depend on a professional to murder the language.
“You can depend on a professional to murder the language.”
Hillhunt a professional? You jest surely?
Blimey, if that’s making clear, I’d hate to see what would happen if you were to adopt a policy of obfuscation.
My remarks were addressed to literate persons, Chuffer, and you are hardly an example of one.
Little BS:
You can depend on a professional to murder the language.
How flattering, but I have to hand that honour to the BBC royal corr who used the phrase. In any event, I suspect that it might carry more meaning than appears at first sight – he was making the distinction between an event planned at the last minute and one arranged before HRH dropped in on the GF in RAF hardware.
.
Ooooh, you really are the master of the wounding remark.
Just keep on making an arse of yourself for our entertainment.
It is interesting that the prince’s stupid use of a military helicopter should be done when our forces in Afghanistan are screaming out for more helicopters.
Also ironic is the fact just made “public” that Government and MOD cost savings has stopped the £1 billion UK helicopter programme, and this will initiated the demise of this business in UK, and the purchase of Sikorsky or Italian helicopters.
I have first hand knowledge of Afghanistan, a war we cannot win, and the cost of providing legions of security persons for the prince’s brief visit far outweighs the “benefits” of his visit.
Chuffer can’t read simple English, and claims I am the one making an arse of myself … Off to nursery school with you, little boy.
So I’be been back to school, and, with brain refreshed, looked again at the postings here.
Jason said:
“What a better ‘Today’ prog it would be if they had treated the helicopter stuff as a bit of innocent fun, a show of spirit and humour from a young man no doubt mostly hemmed-in by advisors and no-sayers. This morning’s snide remarks all but inexcusable.”
Shortly afterwards, N.O. said:
“Oh, what a poor young man … what a dreadful life he must lead … and I don’t care a flying f8ck whether Jason considers or doesn’t consider my remarks ‘inexcusable’.”
I’m baffled as to why you feel it neccessary to sound off at Jason when he wasn’t referring to your comments. According to my understanding of English, he was finding the Today programme’s commment ‘inexcusable’.
Cassandrina,
Imagine if Winston had lost the battle of the cabinet room and adopted your surrender monkey view?
You would be speaking German now, instead of enjoying the freedom provided by those who died in conflict.
Afganistan will be lost, not because the war is unwinnable, BUT because surrender monkeys like you will get in the way and inhibit this countries ability to win (pacifists should be hung drawn and quartered like Haw Haw)!
I would think Argentia will be eyeing up the Falklands now simply because surrender monkeys like yourself have made it virtually impossible for this country to do anything that involves the use of its armed forces.
Mailman
Cassandrina | 01.05.08 – 8:26 am | #
First of all I’d wager there’s a difference between the Chinook Wills was flying and a combat ready one.
Secondly, if buying better hardware and technology at a better price means the demise of the British defence industry, so be it. I don’t think our armed forces personnel should be getting second rate gear just to subsidise BAE et al.
Sadly, politics will probably pay a large role for many years to come in defence contracting. Just look at the tanker contract in the US (the Reaper contract is a good UK example)
“According to my understanding of English, he was finding the Today programme’s commment ‘inexcusable'” – and if you bother to read the rest of the thread, and ask your teacher to explain it to you, you’ll discover that I agreed with the programme’s comment and said so.
From the Telegraph (re. climate change).
It’s going to be interesting to see how the Beeb spin this one.
!!BBC celebrate drug use!! (really)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7377041.stm
“everybody went to church” (in the 1950s) – yup, clear evidence of a brain fried by LSD.