The BBC did itself proud today heaping praise on Gordon Brown. Online Reeta Chakrabarti was leading the way with this incredible pile of Brown-boosting. Notwithstanding the fact that she highlights the cheesiness of the conference speech occasion and its artificiality (not that she adequately describes how set up the whole edifice was), she squarely falls into the trap of simply praising Gordon.
Look at the segue in the following:
“he pushed all the right buttons – personal about how the NHS had saved his sight – political with some crowd-pleasing Tory-bashing.
‘Pro-market’
Serious about the economy – and substantial when talking about the Labour agenda.”
We go from the standard language of “button-pushing” to the stupid cheerleading of Gordon’s supposed qualities.
What about the observation that this year there was no no more boom and bust? What about the absence of the usual crowing about his own long-term management of the economy?
Instead Gordon was boasting that he was the man for the crisis. There’s no downside to Gordon’s rhetoric, is there? Just what kind of dupes do the BBC have to be to fall for this so completely and without reserve? The only reserve they can muster is that this speech might not be enough for public opinion. But then the public are mad, aren’t they (when they oppose Labour)? It’s child’s play to score a hit against Gordon, but the BBC’s kid gloves were tailor-made for protecting such a moron.
One final point: it is true that other media also reported Gordon’s speech as a good one. But they (eg. Sky) made clear that it was good from the partisan point of view. And they (eg. Sky) do not habitually acquiece to the Government’s own notions of its competence. The BBC is uniquely funded and uniquely wedded to the delusions from which Gordon drinks so deeply.
Strange piece all together. It contains this weird paragraph:
“While he talked genuinely about his beliefs,Mr Brown will never be good at delivering a cheesy line – declaring that at all the polls and criticism were worth it if he made life better for just one child felt, well, unlikely.“
Can anyone understand what this means ? Do they have editors ? Does anyone actually read or check stuff before it goes public ?
So Radio Four’s Six O’Clock news was:
five minutes of Mr Brown’s edited highlights and the ‘journalist’ saying this might have put his critics off for a while. Nice and upbeat that.
Then a Labour Government Minister saying how good the speech was.
Next on, for balance, was the renegade former Tory and New Labour MP Quentin Davies who, oddly, thought it was a great speech, reminiscent of Mrs Thatcher in her heyday and so unlike Mr Cameron who is trying to be all things to all men.
Then on to other news.
So, no pro-Labour bias there, then.
Jack – try it this way:
“Mr Brown will never be good at delivering a cheesy line – declaring that at all the polls and criticism were worth it if he ‘made life better for just one child’ felt, well, unlikely.”
pass the sick bag.
BBC News bulletins are stating that Brown apologised over the 10p tax affair. How do they construe an apology from this?
And where I’ve made mistakes I’ll put my hand up and try to put them right
So what happened with 10p, it stung me because it really hurt that suddenly people felt I wasn’t on the side of people on middle and modest incomes – because on the side of hard-working families is the only place I’ve ever wanted to be
And from now on, I tell you, it’s the only place I ever will be
He wasn’t “stung” that he had twisted the lowest incomed tax payers out of £200 pa (which has only been half corrected), he was “stung” that he had been foud out.
Why has the BBC news 24 channel just given the President of Iran 16 minutes un-interrupted coverge of the President of Iran’s UN speech?
After the speech BBC correspondent Kim
Garat(?) was asked “what did you pick out from that?”
this is what she said as a direct quote:
“well in a way the address of teh Iranian President .. (full name given)…has become the highlight of these General Assemblies here at the UN New York every year, everybody always looking forward to it to see what he’s going to say. He’s given us a lot of what he’s had to say in past addresses – there’s a lot there about God about love about justice about the aggressors he doesn’t name them but its pretty clear who he thinks the aggressors are…..I think its pretty clear he means the US ….”
That all live from the BBC, is this news?
should he have been given 16 minutes live on News 24?
That went out from 21.08 through to 21.24
+
the correspondents “analysis”
I can only think that she is in the pay of the Iranians.
If she wants to sue for me saying that I am quite prepared to give out my address via biased BBC.
What a TOTAL disgrace.
Compare and contrast:
Question: Who thinks Sen. John McCain is “absentminded” and “terrible” and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, doesn’t have any appropriate experience? Who thinks Sen. Barack Obama is “highly educated” and “eloquent” and would serve the world much better and improve America’s overall situation? Who thinks Sen. Joe Biden is a “very respectable” man with a “good reputation”? Who said “McCain doesn’t know anything, poor thing. He is terrible. Let me tell you, he’s awful”? No, not Matt or Justin…
Answer: Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh, a political science professor at Shahid Behshti University, speaking on the REPUBLIC OF IRAN TELEVISION NETWORK.
Any of it sound familiar?
BBC 10pm News comes from the deserted Conference Hall with Edwards stood in front of the giant Labour slogan, filling half the screen. The BBC at its most subtle with its subliminal message?
Talk about pompous, overblown bullshit!
If Chakrabarti crawls any further up Brown’s backside she’ll be wearing him as a wig.
Sky news did seem on a par with the BBC in how positive they considered the speech. Can’t put a fag paper between them frankly.
eu referendum makes some good points:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/09/of-politics-and-policies.html
“Thus, while Gordon Brown plays to his domestic audience with recycled schemes of very little import • and a proven track record of failure • the real stuff of politics goes on elsewhere.”
“Then we see our prime minister reduced to prattling about a recycled policy on “computers for kids” • wasting up to £300 million into the bargain (more cheap computers in Bradford pubs) • while our masters are discussing a policy with a near £8 billion price tag, which will have enormous long-term consequences for all of us.
Welcome to the Urban District Council of Great Britain.”
watching newsnight coverage of the brown speech now.
i am particularly amazed at the “parish council” level of the politics on display – in stark contrast to the vibrant U.S. presidential election.
certain topics just are not coming up such as:
Energy security
Foreign policy and the War against Islamofascism
Agricultural policy , and rampant food price inflation
Trade policy
The reason being, of course, is that all of the above are controlled by the EU, and not by our parish council in Westminister.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/09/financial-times.html
more brownies spotted in that speech.
I’m willing to bet that barely 1% of the UK population looked at the BBC News tonight.
The other 99% went to bed real early, or down the pub.
Large Hadron: I can tell you why.
Energy Security – fatso hasn’t a clue, except plant a few windmills and raise taxes on fuel
Foreign Policy: Suck up to Mulsim terrorists. Give them free houses, people carriers and hope they decide not to blow up a few tube trains.
Agricultural Policy- pay lots of money to bone idle French farmers, make everyone go veggie and flog off our fishing waters to the Spainish.
Trade policy – we don’t make anything anyone, so we have nothing to trade. But we do like cheap labour that ignores our employment and safety laws.
The Conservatives are heading to Brum confident that they are on their way to government. The media, in particular the BBC, will be more than willing to throw a spanner in the works.
From Guido
http://www.order-order.com/2008/09/gordon-lives-cchq-celebrates.html
I just puked. Sorry.
DHYS is fun tonight – until someone reads the top 20 most recommended and pulls the plug. The BBC have misjudged this by a long way it seems. No one has a good word for McDoom, except for a few obvious Millbank bloggers.
So, expect Labour to hang on fiercely for 2 more years doing as much damage as they can to the economy and social fabric of the country. Just like they did in the ’70’s. When the Tories get in the country will be in a fine mess – but where is the New Thatcher to save the day? It certainly isn’t Blair-lite Cameroon!
So, expect a Labour government in 2014! What joy! 🙁
Oh and as for Sky, I treat all Murdoch’s output with the contempt it deserves.
News International serves which ever government gives it the biggest tax break.
So Brown thinks it was all worth it if he “made life better for just one child.”
There’s his problem, right there.
The UK has over 12 million children – not just one.
Gordon Brown thinks it was all worth it if he fulfilled one twelve-millionth of his responsibility toward British children.
Release the balloons.
The TOADY SHOW is reporting Browns speech as “well regarded” Hmmm, the media are rightly ripping it to pieces!
Gordon Brown said “the 10p tax rate really hurt me” Hmmm NO! it hurt the low paid workers! The 10p tax rate theft was Browns idea, Browns total responsibility and all he could say about it was that it hurt HIM! Brown earns a well over the hundred grand mark NET and he says it hurt him, its all about him isnt it?
Go look at what the MSM are saying about Browns speech and how self regarding and dishonest it was, then go to the BBC and see how they are reporting it! Uuuuuugh, it makes my skin crawl!
Do they have editors ? Does anyone actually read or check stuff before it goes public ?
Jack Hughes | 23.09.08 – 9:24 pm |
No. I know it is ‘just a blog’, but online I often have to ask Newsnight’s Michael Crick if what he wrote is what he meant.
Often it can be funny, but on occasion meanings can be distorted… from the writings of a senior political commentator on a significant news blog from our 20k+ staffed, £3.5B funded national broadcaster. I’d have thought running it by more than the tea lady, security guard or work experience student (if he even does that) might be in order for professional integrity. As they often get left up I am not even sure they ever check back. ‘Post & forget’ seems to be the order of the day.
As to Mrs. Brown’s hubby’s Churchill moment…
‘Churchill… what exactly will be happening and how will it be paid for…?’
‘Ohhhh… yersh’
… credit to BBC Breakfast for revisiting the two (major statistical x-section there, mind) families they were tracking, neither of whom shared the Westminster Village and its media camp followers’ shock and awe at the genius of wheeling out the family to say it will not be used as a prop.
When it comes to substance, I am reassured that the general public have more sensible heads on their shoulders than the hype and spin-obsessed numpties who think they speak for ‘us’.
I await the blonde’s moment with Dear Leader later with… well… ‘interest’.
Compare and contrast the BBC’s handling of Ruth Kelly’s expected resignation in the Daily Mail and the BBC website.
For one, it’s because she’s blissfully happy with her job; for the other the reason is that she was “disgusted” with Brown’s speech.
Guess what the BBC is pushing?
Quick question for Mrs. Brown’s hubby, which I would have wished our plucky blonde interviewing heavyweight may have pursued a tad harder…
How many others of those seeking to be paid and pensioned to ‘have a go’ at ‘leading’ our country have not quite figured out what is involved running a country whilst also managing a family?
And may loyally choose, having run it by the Party Leader four months previously, ‘totally understandably’ drop this decision on him with truly exquisite timing?
Just how daft is the public thought to be?
Robin: I think the BBC are pushing the line that she herself has claimed, or does the Daily Mail know her better than she does?
If she is lying to save face for the party, then that’s her decision. Reporting this without evidence however, is appalling. Until there is something concrete, the BBC is right just to state what the person in question has stated.
Reporting this without evidence however, is appalling.
Anonymous | 24.09.08 – 9:54 am | #
I’d have thought announcing this resignation the day after GB’s “make or break” speech was pretty convincing circumstantial evidence that we are not being told the whole truth. She’s been considering this for a few months (according to GB on Today this morning) and chooses now to announce it?
In these circumstances I think it requires more than just stating what Ruth Kelly says.
Rubbish. Kelly was unhappy with the Stem Cell research and the gay marriage thing. That was reported a long time ago.
Roland: circumstancial evidence is dismissed in a court of law, so why is it suitable to publish it in a (debatably) objective article?
Did anybody else catch the first hour of the hilarious Bacon show on Radio5Lite last night? They managed to discover, and get to air for several minutes, a lunatic Marxist who was hammering the BBC for it’s bias AGAINST New Labour. His views were not questioned and the idiot Bacon even finished his call with “I know what you mean”.
My flabber was ghasted.
Hmm. What evidence did Michael Prick have on Caroline Spelman?
What about the lies peddled by the two wankers Frei and Webb about Sarah Palin?
The BBC don’t seem to care about having confirmed sources when it suits them.
Trifecta,
Its known in soviet/Marxist circles as muddying the waters with counter accusations to deflect any critisisms, all Marxist revolutionary movements the world over have used it and the BBC just get a leftist/beeboid sympathiser to fake up a complaint and voila the BBC scum can say ‘oooh look everyone says we are biased’ they always think that lying and cheating to further their political aims is justified! Just like their close kin the Nazis!
Their crooked, dishonest and childish games have been rumbled and more and more people hate them for it.
Anonymous | 24.09.08 – 11:09 am | #
Because the article isn’t a court of law.
I’m not a lawyer, so stand to be corrected, but is it true that circumstancial evidence is dismissed in a court of law? I thought it merely carried less weight.
“circumstancial evidence is dismissed in a court of law”
Says who?