Well, as forecast here yesterday morning, the BBC has lavished praise on the Brown conference speech. Indeed in the BBC worldview bubble, Brown has triumphed magnificently, silenced his critics, routed the Tories, and laid down solid “serious” plans for the future. They have even suggested, oh so subtly, that Brown has moved the Party “slightly” to the left. Cheers all round and time for more “regulation”. The thing is that the BBC is now completely immersed in the NuLabour spin zone, indeed it is the broadcasting arm of the Labour government. They have been doing their best to “Save Gordon” for some time now and will feel that their mission has been accomplished, at least for this week. Let’s see if Cameron gets such an easy ride next week. Of course OUTSIDE the BBC bubble, things remain as they were. I suggest that Labour remains in terminal decline and the loss of the seat in the forthcoming Glenrothes by-election will surely bring some reality back to this BBC created faux reality. Finally, if you want to see just how great the Brown love-in is, just check out the image on the Today page this morning – Gordon and Sarah kissing each other, even as the BBC drools over them. Pass the sick bag.
A FOURTH TERM?
Bookmark the permalink.
A point of view absent from the ‘Today’ programme’s appraisals of the Labour Party Conference:
“Labour doesn’t get it. It thinks the voters are wrong.”
(D. Finklestein):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article4813038.ece
A nice friendly chat between Tony Woodley and the Toady programme’s Jim, I wonder who he supports, Naughtie this morning on the subject of our glorious leader. But where was the question asking the union leader whether the public service unions were going to row back on their pay claims and accept less than inflation rises to help the Government out of its financial and political mess. That would have been public service broadcasting!
Gordon Brown attacks Banks for “off balance” transactions. Odd that James Naughtie didn’t bring up PFI.
Ah, to be a Toady presenter today ! A good gun control story to kick off with, then a little light self masturbation over the Dear Leaders speech.
BTW, did you catch the incredibly slighting reference to Sarah Palin ?
Only the beeboids could think the PR type beard of a truly dysfunctional disaster, stands comparison with an elected state govenor with an 80% approval rating !
“Back to the Future”
(Melanie Phillips)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2170056/back-to-the-future.thtml
Well that was a nice cosy chat between Gordon Brown & James Naughtie on Today. I think it important that commenters here keep a note of this sort of thing to compare it with the treatment dished out next week. Somehow I suspect that David Cameron’s interview next week might be a tad more argumentative.
Similarly last night’s 10 o’clock news reported GB’s speech but I didn’t notice a single opposition politician quoted to challenge it. What are the bets that after Cameron’s speech next week we get a “But Labour said…” story afterwards?
There has been no critical analysis of McBean by the BBC all week.
You can bet next week with the Tories we will get endless Labouroids wheeled out to “give us the truth”
Roland Deschain:
Well that was a nice cosy chat between Gordon Brown & James Naughtie on Today… Roland Deschain | 24.09.08 – 8:46 am
Yes – I wonder if they rehearsed it over dinner the night before – in the best Naughtie (“If we win the election”) tradition.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200112170062
…The quality of Naughtie’s contacts is peerless. He counts the Prime Minister among his friends, and has an annual dinner with Blair on the eve of the Labour Party conference.
Your BBC – Redefining the concept of impartiality
Well that was a nice cosy chat between Gordon Brown & James Naughtie on Today
After years of complaints about BBC interviewers interupting politicians, this morning we have the reverse with Brown’s interuptions effectively dictating the “questions” by preventing Naughtie from framing them.
Also the programme suggested that news of Ruth Kelly had leaked out & was in danger of taking attention away from the magnificent speech of the great leader.
Whereas on Newsnight last night the BBC reporter breaking the news of Kelly & Buff’s departure made very clear that the “leaks” were from sources inside No10.
Anonymous | 24.09.08 – 8:38 am abit too cryptic for me, I’m afraid. Who was compared to Palin?
NotaSheep
I think you missed out the word “sheet” after “off balance”. That notwithstanding the point is well made. But do not forget that the renationalisation of Railtrack is also off Gordons balance sheet when considering his “golden rule”, which the present Chancellor is about to drive a coach and horses through if not has already done so. As other commentators here say I cannot imagine such an easy ride for the Tories next week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7632778.stm
Have you noticed how Ruth Kelly has ‘stepped down’ rather than ‘resigned’?
Conservatives seem to resign…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm
It was very public spirited of Today this morning to assist Gordo (prompted by Naughtie) in the unchallenged delivery of an edited version of yesterday’s speech. I predict that in next week’s interview of Cameron the Today interviewer (probably Humphrys) will act the rottweiler and attempt to tear the interviewee limb from limb.
All we need to do is count the interruptions in today’s love-in and then count those that Cameron gets, and compare them. Simple.
Wonder whether Brown’s concern for “hard-pressed families” would ever extend him proposing a cut in the telly-tax?
Thought not.
I liked the way Gordon won’t pose for pics with his kids because they’re not props (a line which was approvingly reiterated by the Mewsnight boys last night).
I dunno, maybe they don’t know they’ve got a website.
The BBC has plumbed new depths over this fawning Brown love-fest.
I thought that they had to give a right of reply, so when this morning on Toady some union dinasaur was saying what Tory policies were, there should have been a right of rebuttal from the Conservatives. But of course it was allowed to pass unchallenged.
Barstewards all of them except Jeff Randall.
Mrs. Trellis 12:30
I don’t think Jeff Randall works for the BBC anymore, unfortunatley.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7633388.stm
‘Kelly bids a fond farewell’
Starts by reminding us all of when Howe tore Thatcher a new a-hole, and then goes on to completely lap up this whole ‘for my family’ nonsense. You’d think Kelly and Brown were engaged.
Heard on the TOADY SHOW this AM:
BBC mong says ” well anyone would have to be churlish in the extreme to deny(beeboids love marking out deniers)that Gordon Browns adress wasnt a total success and a fine speech” Er I deny it for a start you beeboid mong! It was one long self justifying,self serving,lying, misleading and ego inflated monolgue that was torn to bits by the MSM, but guess what? yep, the TOADY comrades only picked out the few sympathetic headlines and ignored the critical ones, who woulda thunk it!
In reality, the Labour delegates are so unhappy and desperate for ANY show of unity that they would have clapped and cheered if McMental had read out the names of the 9/11 dead!
Do the beeboid labourite scumbags really think that they can cheerlead for Brown without Joe public noticing?
Isn’t it interesting the way the BBC deals with Ruth Kelly’s religion (and membership of a weird fringe group called Opus Dei) and her views on Stem Cell research and abortion to the way Sarah Palin is treated?
Martin,
Good point. Anyone seen someone act like Justin Webb or Katty Kay saying she shouldn’t be in a position of power because her beliefs deny reality or are unwanted by most of the public or whatever?
I like Justin Webb. I’ve heard him defend the US against the usual hampstead dinner party views on various occasions (eg on foreign policy, gun ownership). His long radio talkpieces are particularly good. I’m new to this site, but, mindful as i am that you’re all on the Right side of the political spectrum, I wondered why there’s so much animus to him? Genuine question.
whitwineliberal.
You obviously have been agreeing with his blatant pro Obama anti McCain/Palin broadcasts over the last few weeks. If one topic has galvanized the posters on this site like never before it is the bias he has shown.
Whitewineliberal,
I get the impression that Webb can’t make his mind up about America, not that it is his duty to do so, certainly not on the BBC. They can’t just stick to the facts.
Perhaps all this time away from England and in America will actually do them some good (i.e. open their eyes).
We can dream on…
The last time i saw him he was jumping up and down with excitement on the back of Palin’s convention speech. He seemed rather pleased by it. Is he blatantly pro-obama?
Whitewineliberal – i think there are a lot of centrists here as well, not just right wing people, who are annoyed at the fact the BBC can’t be impartial on a whole range of subjects.
We don’t have a problem with MSNBC/CNN/ITN etc, because, principly they are NOT funded by the taxpayer. They might also be biased but they are not directly accountable to you.
This is why this blog exists.
I may have dropped off during Brown’s speech but did he (or the BBC afterwards) talk about the wonders of Labour’s MASS IMMIGRATION policies over the past 11 years, and how Labour is campaigning for 75 million Muslim Turks to join the EU, with an anticipated 1 million plus of them, coming to the UK?
This blog seems to be against the license fee as an afterthought. What drives it is the perception of left wing bias on the bbc (thus the name). Isn’t the notion of impartiality oversimplified on this site a little? journalism which “sticks to the facts” is not really journalism is it? A balance of views is the issue. Can anyone find incidentally coverage on the bbc of perhaps the biggest us election story yet (McCain’s campaign manager and his lobbying links)? surely the beeb would be on it like stink if its prime purpose was to shill for obama.
whitewineliberal:
You are brilliant. Just as the BBC is soft on Islamic Jihad, so you are soft on the BBC’s leftwing bias.
You sound as desperate and as unconvincing as Labour’s Brown, or the BBC’s Thompson.
George, you have just manshamed my argument. i will retreat from the fray defeated.
whitewineliberal:
No, you’ll be back to support the BBC and its ‘impartiality’ and to try to disparage this site.
This small site, apparently so effective against the billion-pound, subsidised Orwellian propagandists.
whitewineliberal | 24.09.08 – 5:39 pm This blog seems to be against the license fee as an afterthought
Well that’s just what you think. Do we have to preface every comment with the words below, before you get the importance of our objection to compulsory funding of the BBC?
The BBC could be whatever the hell it likes, if we weren’t forced under duress to pay for the increasingly biased shit it churns out. I wouldn’t give a toss.
I’m not saying the bbc is impartial. I’m just looking to balance some of the arguments here, which at times are a little off beam.
will: 10.18
If you go to Open Thread, la marquise at 10.06 today I think you will find your answer. Worth a complaint.
Why hasn’t the BBC with all its vastly over staffed political staff chosen to point out that a Secretary of state announcing their resignation at 3am is very, very odd indeed – especially in the middle of a party conference. Other news outlets has noted this
If there is something more to this story and I am sure the BBC is aware of it
I actually thought Brown’s speech was good, but this morning was reminded that they are all accomplished lyers. As we know “Tired and emotional” = drunk as a skunk . “Resigning to spend more time with her family” = she is not happy with government policy.. So they lie about this with out any shame , how can we trust Gordon Brown and his conference speech?
whitewineliberal:
I told you you’d be back: to tell all the people contributing to this site, from your great and righteous intellectual height, how the motley lot here should behave.
Thanks. But no thanks.
whitewineliberal | 24.09.08 – 4:49 pm |
I like Justin Webb. I’ve heard him defend the US against the usual hampstead dinner party views on various occasions (eg on foreign policy, gun ownership). His long radio talkpieces are particularly good. I’m new to this site, but, mindful as i am that you’re all on the Right side of the political spectrum, I wondered why there’s so much animus to him? Genuine question.
For example, Justin Webb has stated on air that people who hold religious views he disproves of should not be allowed to hold public office. He has also spoken falsely about the US being too racist to elect a black man (Key point: During the campaign for the nomination, he was questioning whether Democrats were too racist. Not nasty, rich, white, bigoted Republicans – Democrats). If you have ever read his blog, you will see lots of wetness over The Obamessiah. Webb is one of the main pushers of the idea that electing The Obamessiah will redeem the US from its ugly racist history. As if nothing else matters.
You’re right that Webb has come to the defense of United Statesians against Leftoid prejudice. I’ve said before that he understand the reality of how United States citizens actually are much better than Matt Frei, who anchors the BBC World News America broadcast. Webb is just a correspondent for it.
However, think about how ol’ Justin defends us: we’re not all that bad, not quite as violent as everyone says, etc. He’s not saying we’re any good, just not as awful as you might think. Big difference. He is also on record – as recently as two weeks ago – as saying that he does report from a perspective that is critical of Republicans and US foreign policy. Backhanded compliments are not the same thing as support. What he does is usually described as “analysis”, but that’s not reporting – that’s opinion mongering.
You accuse us of having an oversimplified idea of impartiality. On the contrary, it’s the BBC who tries to oversimplify the term to the point of non-existence. We don’t want the opinions of what the BBC thinks should happen, or what Justin Webb or Matt Frei or Simon Mayo think “the world wants” or any other nonsense. We don’t want them to tell lies, misrepresent the issues, or hide the truth from the public.
“Stick to the facts” is a gross oversimplification of what we’re talking about here. Also, it’s a bit of a giveaway when you say that we’re “all on the right”, and thus must by default love it when Justin Webb speaks out in defense of the US, as if the US is exclusively a right wing country, and we’re all in lockstep or something.
I realize that anyone not to the left of Gramsci must appear right wing to you, but I think an adjustment of perspective is in order there.
Read Justin Webb’s blog posts about The Obamessiah, then look at his reaction to Gov. Palin’s speech, or anything else he says about her or McCain.
In fairness, though, I think the only reason Webb appears to be a whipping boy here is because he’s the main voice UK residents hear about US current affairs. Matt Frei is worse – he has stated on air, while sitting in the anchor’s chair, that a Democrat President is preferable, especially a Clinton – but he’s not in your faces as much as Webb. Instead, he’s in the US poisoning the airwaves, attempting to manipulate a few viewers into voting for the Dems. But really, it’s more than just Webb: it’s the whole of the BBC News division’s reporting on the US. I myself make a comment here almost every day pointing out one of their lies or misrepresentations. It’s not the opinions as much as the actual lies they tell.
Perhaps you could spend a little time having a look around here at main posts with the “Justin Webb” tag, or US elections.
Mr Preiser anticipates the point I was going to make. Generally speaking, it is regarded as the done thing to read a forum or blog for a few weeks before commenting.
The case against Webb and Frei – indeed against the BBC in general – is large and widespread and it is made over several weeks, and in great detail, not just in two or three posts on a thread.
The problem with the BBC is that its journalists (if we can call them that) have long since given up on the idea of reporting the facts and letting the people make up their own mind.
Leftie’s don’t like that idea. People might not come to the conclusion that the Islington elite would like. After all, the Guardian circulation is about 7% that of the Sun newspaper.
Far too many beeboids peddle their opinion as fact.
I really don’t give a shit what Webb thinks. His job is to report the facts about Sarah Palin, not what he reads off left wing hate sites. If that is BBC journalism, then they really have gone down the toilet bowl.
Whatever, I don’t want to be funding it to the tune of £140 a year, just as I don’t want to be funding the Guardian.
whitewineliberal:
[I]”journalism which “sticks to the facts” is not really journalism is it?”[/I]
This is a counter-argument?
The BBC “journalists” often offer their opinions on a variety of subjects. The problem being, they are not always labelled as opinions, not often balanced with counter-opinions.
The BBC ‘newsround’ “They did it because of American policies in the Middle-east” is the classic example of what the BBC should NOT be teaching children as fact.
I’m not going to provide you with a link; the tale is epic enough for you to google.
thank you for that david. I understand your perspective on mr webb better now, even
though I don’t agree with it . i’m not particularly partisan in any direction, btw. but I do in the main enjoy and respect most of the bbc’s output. martin – if by facts you mean the objective truth, then you really do misunderstand what webb’s role is.
To add to Nelson’s point, the BBC also indulges in an orgy of selective reporting, where certain facts are regarded as better than others.
The recent ‘now you see them, now you don’t’ opinion polls being just once instance among many.
It applies the same principle to commentary too, with a preponderance of outside ‘specialists’ coming from the Guardian – effectively the print version of the BBC.
The same is true of political commentary, where both the Greens and Lib-Dems are given platforms out of all proportion to their polling strengths.
whitewineliberal: Webb’s job is to report the news. If I want opinion I will buy a newspaper or read a website.
If Webb quoted as many stories off of right wing hate sites as he does off of left wing ones, that might be balanced, but it would still be a load of bollocks.
The problem with you lefties is you think we saps need to be ‘educated’ and not just informed.
What makes you think that some liberal beeboids’ view of the world is the correct one anyway?
whitewineliberal | 24.09.08 – 9:17 pm |
Actually, Martin raises one other point I forgot to mention, but one that should be very instructive. I’ve found that Justin Webb (and others who produce the News Online articles) seem to basically parrot things written in The Nation, The New Republic, The Huffington Post, and The Washington Post. Aside from WaPo, these are all openly partisan media outlets. If you read some smear about a Republican candidate in any one of those, chances are ol’ Justin will repeat it within 48 hours, either on his blog or in a report. We’ve seen it and busted him on it more than once.
These memes seem to infest BBC reports on the elections pretty regularly. Check those out for a week, then watch the BBC. It’s almost like they just copy and paste, and never bother to do their homework properly. It’s one thing to do that to an AP report or other wire services (standard practice in the business, we have no problem with that), but quite another to do it with partisan opinion pieces.
“This blog seems to be against the license fee as an afterthought”
Says who?
“What drives it is the perception of left wing bias on the bbc”
What drives it is the fact of left-wing bias on the BBC.
“Isn’t the notion of impartiality oversimplified on this site a little? journalism which “sticks to the facts” is not really journalism is it””
You are a beeboid, right? Nil grasp of the difference between reporting and editorial comment.
On BBC ‘Newsnight’ tonight, Paxman’s introduction refers to the problems of ‘AMERICAN CAPITALISM’.
But the BBC does not describe Britain’s Labour’s government as presiding over the problems of BRITISH CAPITALISM?
Is the BBC’s omission here to do with some BBC wishful thinking (SWP influenced?) that the present British economic system is temporary, and will soon be replaced by some incoherent ‘BRITISH SOCIALISM’?
why do white whiney liberals always stick up for the beeb.
now what could it be they feel sympathetic or defensive toward given the beebs the bastion of impartiality.
I guess beeboids must be a minority ethnic group or summat.
This COULD have been a title for an article about the European Union overriding NATIONAL ANTHEMS (which the BBC would not want to run):
“Brussels is ‘EU burglary capital'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7632169.stm
Something more on these lines:
“My plan to sabotage the EU national anthem” (Daniel Hannan)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/09/24/my_plan_to_sabotage_the_eu_national_anthem
[Extract]:
“Now, the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee has just voted to restore emblems and, indeed, to give them greater prominence than before. The idea is that, every time the EU President comes before the Parliament, the ‘national anthem’ (Beethoven’s Ninth) should be played, while MEPs stand to attention.
“I am wondering what to do during this orgy of Euro-nationalism. I don’t want to sit there sulking, or to walk out. One idea, which came to me as I belted out the French national anthem at the MPF party conference on Sunday, is to replicate that glorious scene from ‘Casablanca’ where the café guests and waiters sing drown out the German officers by singing the Marseillaise. It’s a wonderful cinematic moment: a symbol of popular resistance. What if our small band of anti-federalist MEPs, from several different nations, did the same? There would be a special poignancy given that the current EU president is Nicolas Sarkozy. What do you think, my friends?”(Daniel Hannan).