Paul Mason has replied to a comment on his blog criticising it for being, well, a bit left wing. “Where the hell do the BBC actually find people as left wing as you?” asks the reader. Mason’s response:
If you are American you may not be used to this but the UK consensus is “liberal” and I am happy to be slap in the middle of it. On science, on the desirability of avoiding mass unemployment, on the world being older than 3,000 years.
To start with, I’m not sure a Trot who – as an adult – is still fond of aping Che is really even in the middle of the left-wing. Surely he’s closer to the Galloway fringe? But it’s instructive that’s where he’s aiming, so let’s have a look at that left-wing consensus in the UK:
- Support for the death penalty: 49%
- Global warming: 40% reckon it’s not as bad as claimed, and most oppose green taxes
- EU: 74% favour a looser relationship with the EU or withdrawal
- Immigration: 60% reckon there are too many immigrants, and, er, 20% describe themselves as “racially prejudiced”.
- Conservatives polling 46%; Labour 27%
All positions, I’m sure, we can see are well reflected in the Beeb’s coverage.
Hat-tip to Libertarian in the comments
UPDATE: Tories are now on 52%; Labour on 24%. Looking forward to the BBC reports reflecting this new consensus.
On the ‘Aping Che’ link, did you spot Beeboid Laura Kuenssberg’s signature on a message just above Paul Mason’s?
On Paul Mason, from the Wikipedia entry:
He graduated from the University of Sheffield[1] in 1981 and trained as a music teacher at London University Institute of Education, after which he undertook postgraduate research in the music department at Sheffield University until 1984.
He’s the Business correspondent of Newsnight and he graduated in which subject? I think it’s important that correspondents should be graduates in the field which they cover. After all, surely it’s right that they have some idea what they’re talking about. Roger Harrabin?
By what stretch of the imagination is what appears to be rampant enthusiasm for trade union action ‘liberal’?? Turning up en masse with the aim of preventing someone working isn’t liberal.
Equally denying imbeciles the right to teach creationism in schools isn’t very liberal. Entirely correct but illiberal.
Looking at his quote, I hadn’t realised there was a “liberal” consensus on science.
What, all science, or just the AGW bit?
Equally, what with the ‘3000’ years? Even the loopiest of hardcore creationists thinks it’s 6000 years. It’s a minor point, but it shows yet another open-minded seeker after truth with absolutely no interest in what his opponents are actually saying.
Cockney: By what stretch of the imagination is what appears to be rampant enthusiasm for trade union action ‘liberal’?
To be fair, he does make it clear he’s talking about the American definition of liberal, so left-wing rather than libertarian. Actually, though, that’s why I think it’s so revealing: he basically argues that the “consensus” in the UK is left-wing, so it’s fair enough that this is reflected in their reporting. As someone once said: It’s not a conspiracy. It’s visceral. They think they are on the middle ground.
DJ – yes, I noticed that.
“If you are American you may not be used to this but the UK consensus is “liberal” and I am happy to be slap in the middle of it.”
Put through my BBC translator:
“If you are American you may not be used to this but the BBC consensus is “liberal” and I am happy to have my snout slap in the middle of it.”
It’s lucky isn’t it that Mason’s views just happen to sit slap bang in the middle of the UK consensus? Otherwise he’d have to make an effort to avoid bias. This way he can just tell us what he thinks. Perfect!
I think of people like sam Brittain at the FT, Anatole kaletsky at the Times – Economics Edotors with real knowledge, usually good judgment. Or Andrew Neil in his earlier days, good degree from Glasgow in economics and politics, started in journalism, editor of the Britain section of the Economist by his mid-twnenties, editor of the Sunday Times 10 years later. Now THAT is professional journalism with an economics slant.
But the Newsnight prog runs with this klutz Mason! Patently unfitted to be “Economics Editor” of a church magazine. Stir in his Trot views, and you have the epitome of BBC reporting.
riddler:
Looking at his quote, I hadn’t realised there was a “liberal” consensus on science.
What, all science, or just the AGW bit?
riddler | 17.09.08 – 8:46 am | #
Clearly you are unaware of the politicization of the Climate Change issue.
Spend an afternoon here:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
It is obvious that Mason is a crap musician if the only job he could get is Business Correspondent.
I’ve just tried to point out to Mr Mason, that he starts from an erroneous opinion, and proceeds from there.
‘If you are American you may not be used to this but the UK consensus is “liberal.”‘
No it’s not. That’s the Institutionally Leftist BBC “consensus.” The fact that you would even say that proves the point.
In fact, most people are quite “conservative” in their views.
I’ll give you one example. The Death Penalty. Now I could quite confidently assert that the vast majority of those “employed” by the BBC are against it. Probably 90%.
Maybe you don’t know this, but all polls of the BRITISH people, as opposed to the BBC, the consensus was not “liberal” at all.
In fact, even the latest YouGov poll shows the majority favour restoration of capital punishment. (Though I think their polling methods actually UNDERESTIMATE the actual pro-hanging sentiment quite severely)
Whatever — even when this skewed polling asked the questions:
Should the death penalty for murder be restored or not? Yes, it should: 50%. No, it shouldn’t: 40%. Don’t know: 10%.
You can go down the list to find that far from a “liberal” consensus, there is a very large anger at the way the “liberal” elites have hijacked and imposed their views on illegal immigration, Islamofascism, Petrol Tax, the Thought Police, et al. The list, as they say, really is endless.
Working for the BBC means never having to say you’re sorry for being wrong.
‘If you are American you may not be used to this but the UK consensus is “liberal.”‘
Clearly to Mason, the BBC is the UK, and the UK is the BBC. Lefty twat. You don’t speak for me and you never will, you know nothing communist ponce.
jb – good points well made.
Mason’s reply is astonishing. As you say the liberal consensus he talks about is in reality nothing more than the BBC consensus. What on earth is a liberal view of science? The fact that he can utter such phrases shows he knows nothing about science — a subject which is above trivialities such as political opinion. He merely reveals how he agrees with the manipulation of scientific knowledge for political ends. Very BBC.
I notice he has yet to place any blame on the Community Reinvestment Act for the sub prime crisis, a liberal/leftwing piece of legislation which forced banks to make unwise lending decisions. The very same decisions he is now berating.
As for his remark about the world being older than 3000 years. He would never make the same off-handed comment towards a group of Muslims. If he did he would probably get sacked by the BBC for racism. Making such insulting stereotypical bigoted remarks about Americans however is just fine in BBC land.
Although the BBC does tend to swing to the left on most issues, it seems that they do actually believe that this is “neutral” territory. When a muslim bomb goes off they are all out to show “not all muslims are terrorists” and hit us with lovely muslims doing western-type things instead of investigating the root causes of extremism (which is NOT the one-answer-fits all “U.S. foreign policy).
Personally, I do not understand why certain issues HAVE to be left or right. Why can’t people make up their own mind instead of following one wing or the other exclusively? I support the death penalty for child abusers (they can’t be healed or reformed) but find it disgraceful that genuine/under review asylum seekers have to survive on pissy luncheon vouchers for months on end.
Take the environment for example. The far Left politicise this to slam big business. The Right politicise it to slam the Left. The reason so many people are “undecided” is because of right-wing lies and misdirection over many issues. They’ll say that temperatures have stayed the same over the past century or point out that the ice sheet extended further than ever last winter, and that lefties ignore this and only report when ice retreats. Yet mean temperatures at weather stations and in your back yard may well be the same but in the upper atmosphere and in the oceans they are most definitely increasing (which is the POINT); ice may extend further south than last winter, but it is nowhere near as thick, ie, there is LESS of it; besides, winter isn’t the true measure of the ice sheets, anyway because one or two exceptionally cold days can produce far more than usual.
Meanwhile, the Left trumpet about how a few birds nesting at odd times of the year is down to climate change, and how an increase in snakes is down to climate change, and how turtles in Cornwall is related to climate change, how lung cancer, allergies, a bit of extra rain over Hull, all these things are reported as FACT that they are related to man made climate change. Perhaps the journalists believe it, perhaps they are deliberate lie, but whatever, they are WRONG. They sensationalise it to the point of what appears to be self-mockery, damaging their stance, almost BEGGING the Right to highlight this as leftist propaganda.
So what is the public to believe? The Right, who so desperately want to discredit the Left they’ll say anything to do so? Or the Left, who so desperately want to be heard they’ll take any minor fact and blow it out of proportion?
God, I’m confused myself.
The BBC is in that left camp, no doubt about it. I think they honestly believe that their point of view is neutral. I think they are wrong on many things, and the environment is one of them — not necessarily that the IPCC is completely wrong, just that the BBC is wrong to report it as FACT. There is no contention in the established scientific community that MMCC exists and presents a real threat, but not every quirk of the weather is connected to this. They need to do their jobs better.
Sorry for going on, but you could cut and paste this into pretty much any category of BBC reporting.
As an ashamed Sheffielder (sorry folks the university needs closing down)
I will post submitted to his blog and probably omitted here too.
————————–
>>>If you are American you may not be used to this but the UK consensus is “liberal”
opps
“If you are American you may not be used to this but the UK consensus is “liberal”
NO IT IS NOT. There is no such thing as consensus in a democratic open society.
AND I certainly do not pay for consensus from the BBC.
Just so we can clear it up, Is that Left wing Post modern liberalism, or right wing classical Liberalism?
Here is a tip Mr Mason, The Chinese have a saying, A good teacher protects his or her pupils for there own influence. Now you certainly should not be a teacher as a journalist, but this principle applies even more to explainers like yourself.
Here Mr Mason is something you might wish to explain.
From the NYT September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
( I am sure you can google it)
In short the “not a kindly liberal type like BBC employees” George W. Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, and in doing so the entire regulatory framework of the US mortgage market, The democrats chucked it out, and this is what they said.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Sort of Falsifies this statement of yours, “(Regulation) asleep at the wheel during the entire Bush administration and for much of the Clinton years”
Facts are inconvenient things are they not Mr Mason, they get in the way of your chosen Paradigm.
SM Sheffield UK
Lurker in a Burqua:10:33
Yes I am. That was precisely my point. Perhaps I should have stated it more obviously:)
Devil’s Advocate | 17.09.08 – 12:35 pm
First class diagnosis of the problem.
Sounds like Mason is using the word ‘consensus’ to mean that everyone who he mixes with has roughly the same opinions as he does and that everyone else’s opinion doesn’t matter as they are all ignorant, bigoted, in someone’s pocket or probably all three. That’s the modern, climate change nutter usage of the word too.
The ever so liberal Brits and their newspaper reading:
News of the World — 3,249,147
The Sun — 3,148,792
The Daily Mail — 2,258,843
The Mail on Sunday — 2,177,527
skip another 17 publications, including the liberal bastions of the Express, Telegraph and Star to get to:
The Guardian — 332,587
Of the people who oppose the reinstatement of the death penalty, most are probably worried about hanging a man who later turns out to be innocent,rather than any liberal views on the sanctity of a murderers scum`s life.
Out of those Guardian sales, 30,000 copies are from Beeboids.
Guardian is not liberal. keep going
adam:
Guardian is not liberal. keep going
adam | 17.09.08 – 5:03 pm | #
It is by the definition used by Paul Mason, which is the commonly used word in US politics to describe assorted leftists starting with socialists, through to communists.
Devil’s Advocate
A useful rule of thumb is that leftists tend to be wrong about absolutely everything, because leftist ‘reasoning’ tends to consist entirely of post hoc confabulations to justify an instinctive emotional reaction based on the status connotations of the subject matter.
jack bauer,
oh right.
In that case wouldnt the Sun be a good contender as its a working class paper with socialist leanings.
“To start with, I’m not sure a Trot who – as an adult”
ouch. thats gotta hurt.
nice one Hugh!
“Original Robin | 17.09.08 – 4:05 pm |”
indeed – if you qualified the question to folks such as “if the DNA evidence was rock solid, and it was proved 100 per cent that etc etc”… then that 49 per cent would shoot up.
would make for an interesting poll if such a qualification was made.
“I support the death penalty for child abusers (they can’t be healed or reformed) but find it disgraceful that genuine/under review asylum seekers have to survive on pissy luncheon vouchers for months on end.”
Devils Advocate – i’m with you on that one. we have totally normal and loyal folks from ex-Empire territories being expelled, whilst at the same time Islamic nutjobs get council houses and live off the taxpayer.
there’s something highly wrong with a British government that wont allow Victoria Cross wearing Gurkha’s to settle here, yet at the same time bungs some foreign Islamic terrorist supporting nutjob all the social welfare and house but refuses to expell him becuase of his “human rights”.
something is seriously broken in british governance.
The Ghurka Brigade is now about 10% of the main British Army. The sharp end. I met a lot of Ghurkas in Nepal, lovely people.
archduke | 17.09.08 – 8:04 pm |
Yes, the Ghurkas. Now why would a government treat them so? Could it be that China doesn’t want any well trained Nepali Nationalists on it’s borders so it is pressuring Comrade Brown into ditching them from the Army?
But of course he can’t directly .. so he’s pursuading them by other means. Just a thought.
Paul Mason – a person who uses Venceremos as their signoff isn’t slap bang in the middle of any UK political consensus.
Of course, at the BBC that would probably put you on the extreme right.
Twat.
Mason’s ridiculous riposte sums up everything that is wrong with the BBC- a hardcore institutional leftism, combined with crass ignorance about the reality of opinion at the grassroots in Britain. There’s going to be several red faces when Labour gets the electoral hiding of the century…
If ever there was a consensus on any scientific subject, that particular branch of science would be dead. This just goes to show how well the BBC staff know of science, even on a casual basis.
I’ve long since stopped watching the BBC. The final straw was when the BBC “popularised” the “Horizon” programme. They did it by placing an intermediary, a BBoid, between the public and the expert on the subject. The BBC has always thought of its viewing and paying public as sub-IQ material. Thus science, which was damned difficult even for super-IQ BBC, was bound to be too complicated for the general public, and needed a BBoid to explain what the scientist actually meant. What we got then was a partially understood or mis-understood mish-mash of the science – all with an extrememly loud music sound track, specially when the scientist was speaking.
riddler:
Lurker in a Burqua:10:33
Yes I am. That was precisely my point. Perhaps I should have stated it more obviously
riddler | 17.09.08 – 1:51 pm | #
Yes, I see. Sorry!
UPDATE: Tories are now on 52%; Labour on 24%. Looking forward to the BBC reports reflecting this new consensus.
It got a mention on this morning’s breakfast news along the lines of a 5 second sneering comment of “the tories are now as popular as they were during Mrs Thatcher’s time”.
Don’t mention the Tory actual percentage lead. Tick.
Attack Thatcher. Tick.
Sneer at the Tories. Tick.
Quickly move onto dross to keep the negativity away from Labour. Tick.
That’s about right. Job done.
thats an obvious attack, mentioning Thatcher
Indeed it is. Margaret Thatcher was and is seen by the BBC as ‘that dreadful woman’
But didn`t Maggie Thatcher rule in an economic depression and high unemployment ? I thought the latest groupthink from Polly Toynbee and the BBC was that recession was a Good Thing ?