Monthly Archives: September 2008

Given the observations already made in the comments, it seems redundant to point out the deficiencies in this report on health minister Ivan Lewis or the contrast with fuller accounts elsewhere. Instead, I’ll issue a challenge to see who can be the first to come up with a report from anywhere in the mainstream media on, er, any story that gives the reader less idea of what actually happened. A shredded copy of the BBC charter to the winner.

Mark Easton is clearly not afraid of the stereotypes portraying the media as part of an out-of-touch liberal elite. Here he is on the forthcoming recession, which in fact could be jolly good for us:

“I can’t help feeling that for many, the downturn might act as a positive corrective. For those too young to remember what a recession feels like, belt-tightening may bring a new and healthy understanding of what “essentials” really are; a realisation that economies (as it says in the small-print) can go down as well as up – and we need to be able to adapt to both.”

Most of the criticism of the Beeb comes from the right, but not all of it. Nick Cohen’s piece in Standpoint is a good critique of its drama and particularly the appalling Bonekickers:

“As a matter of course, BBC writers have blamed crimes against humanity perpetrated by the enemies of the West on the “root cause” of Western provocation. Occasionally, but more frequently than the casual viewer might appreciate, they have gone a step further and presented the atrocities of totalitarianism as the atrocities of the West,” he notes.

“For whatever reason, the BBC still had the brass neck to show fanatically racist white Christian sectarians beheading a moderate Muslim, when nowhere in the world are white Christians, fanatically racist or otherwise, beheading Muslims.”

Mostly, though, it’s worth reading just to be reminded of the reviews Bonekickers received: “Mind-bogglingly dreadful,” said The Guardian. “Rubbish,” said The Times. The authors have the right to fail, said the man from The Independent, but “I’m not sure that it was wise of them to exercise it so vigorously”.

Hat-tip to deegee in the comments

“Her speech to the Republican Convention was a Roman triumph: there’s no doubt about that,” says the Today’s Jim Naughtie on his blog this morning. And there’s more: “It reminded me of Norman Tebbit or Michael Heseltine or Tony Benn at their height…” he goes on. Surely there can be no greater praise than to be compared to Tony Benn?

There was some doubt yesterday, though, when Naughtie didn’t seem so keen, and you do wonder whether the concillitory tone has anything to do with criticism such as this Mail piece or its editorial. The latter suggests “the BBC, despite its supposed obligation to report the news impartially, seems to find Mrs Palin a little hard to digest” and points to the contrast of its coverage with the “almost religious reverence with which the BBC covered Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention last week”. This is the second day in a row the Mail has run with an accusation of bias against the Today programme. I’m not sure that yesterday it found the most deserving target with its complaint against Evan Davis (below). With Naughtie, though, I’d say it’s bang on.

Thanks to those in the comments who flagged up the Mail piece.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

I’ve hesitated to write about this, because I actually quite like Evan Davis. It has attracted a fair amount of comment and criticism, though. And I don’t think it’s entirely unfair. Davis says he was just attacking the reporting, not defending Darling, but since the reports were attacking the Chancellor it amounts to the same thing. More to the point, as the Guardian mentions, the BBC has clamped down on their staff’s ability to write comment pieces elsewhere in recent years. Given the continual stream of opinion coming from their BBC-hosted blogs, what was the point?