There’s been much already written about the difference in treatment the BBC has shown to the Conservative and Labour conferences, and it is a real contrast. Even less arguable, though, is the extent of the coverage. Look at the website, where this is easiest to evaluate. By this stage in the Labour conference last week, and in fact earlier than that, there wasn’t a single mention of the opposition parties on the politics page. Every one of the 40+ stories related to Labour – and most related to the conference. Now, with the Conservative conference ready to close, well less than half focus on them. And it’s not just the bank bailouts: strip away the stories relating to that and there’s still room for concerns about plans for 42 detention; the Ghurka’s battle to stay in the UK; the millions of young in poverty; Afghan talks; observations on Lembit Opik’s facebook page; and Cherie Blair’s relief she didn’t have to pose with Carla Bruni.
The point is not that these shouldn’t be covered (well, apart from the one about Cherie Blair), but to illustrate just how over-the-top the BBC’s enthusiasm and interest in Labour politics is and the extent to which this is never shared in its attitude to the official opposition.
Did anyone see the One Show tonight (01/10)? A long discussion by the presenters and guests on why the minimum wage introduced by Labour was a good idea – no attempt at balance at all. This was then followed by a section Muslims and Ramadan. I truly despair
BBC featured an analysis of David camerons’ speeches over the last few years with a word count. Why didn’t we have a similar analysis of Comrade Brown and his oft repeated mantra “I am right”
Jon: Whitwhinerliberal is just a troll twat.
DaN: You should have listened to the 5 live phone in this morning. Talk about being in the tank for the fat one eyed jock. They even got the usual fake Tory voter to call in who then spent five minutes rubbishing the Tories!!
The BBC must think we’re really thick.
Peter Wilson: I’d rather danlge my testicles in boiling acid than watch the ‘One Show’
Dan – by contrast C4 News did a floating voter reaction to Cameron’s speech and every single one of them said they were more inclined to vote Conservative after listening to the speech. No surprise that the BBC1 floating voters all made negative (and strangely off topic) comments. Personally I think this ‘floating voter’ straw poll thing is so susceptible to being rigged that they should all be treated with caution. But it makes you wonder how FiveLive selected their group and what the process was. I never listen to Five Live but from what I read here it seems even more biased than R4.
If they picked there floating voters from Radio 5 listeners – then its no wonder the results were skewed towards Labour. If people are drip fed the rubbish on there every day then I’m afraid that they will lose their ability for rational thought.
Erm, excuse me but what exactly did James ‘call be Gordon it’s more Scotish’ Brown do before he was in Parliament?
He was a Journo. And they think Cameron has his head up is arse!
No wonder the economy is in tatters!
Oh and not even a proper Journo but a TV one for a Scottish TV station!
FFS how provincial is that?
Great ‘experience’ as a economics policy maker, my arse!
whitewineliberal | 01.10.08 – 6:14 pm |
arguing that political parties are committed to the race replacement of white britons is not quite as racist as it is stupid; but it’s still racist.
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain to all us thick bigots just how it’s actually racist, and not just something you don’t like. If your answer is that it should be obvious and if we can’t see it we’re not worth the effort to explain it, then that’s just more stifling of debate.
Oscar: Radio 5 has a permanent sneer towards the Tories. Some of the most famous anti Tory comments have come from 5 live.
The one from Jane Garvey, Anita whats her name (when she did the night slot) who when talking about Tories said somethnig to the effect of “oh no I could never be one of those”
The classic Stephen Nolan who ranted about Boris Johnson sipping Chamapgne after he won the election for Mayor. Nolan went off on one about “who was paying for all this” The guy went mental live on air.
Radio 5 are notorious for allowing people on air to spout left wing crap without interruption, yet cut across anyone with a right of centre view.
Nikki Campbell is perhaps the worst turd of all at 5 live. He spouts left wing crap only to add the phrase “or so some people might say…” as a way of getting around the impartiality nonsense.
Had James Whale added that to his comment about voting for Boris Johnson, Ofcom would probably have done nothing.
Anyone recall that turd Dimbleby lolling about in a studio armchair at 10:02 pm on the night of the 1987 general election, pompously announcing that the BBC exit polls showed a lLabour majority of 30.
Anyone recall the actual result.
R5 was truly excelling itself just after 5 p.m. They interviewed five people in Telford (Stratford?), all of them thought Cameron’s speech was poor. In fact the views were so similar, and repeating the same points, a suspicious person would think they were all Labour party plants. They then gave us the results of a panel of 10 supposedly floating voters, five would vote Labour three were undecided and just two would vote Conservative.
Contrast this with the BBC “selection of views” they published on their website after Brown’s speech. Four views, three of them incredibly positive, one mildly critical. This was in stark contrast to the replies on their “have your say” website where opinions on Brown were overwhelmingly negative.
Bodo:
Yes; it was a BBC, anti-Tory set-up.
To try to deflect from Cameron’s performance, the BBC gave prominence to only those 5 anti-Cameron nonentites, and included some anonymous ignoramus who said it was the worst speech he’d ever heard, a comment which the BBC broadcast within 5 minutes of the end of Cameron’s speech!
Memo to BBC: your ever greater deceptions will inspire your critics to ever greater vigilance against your propaganda.
In a direct reversal of last week’s reaction to Brown, the HYS comments on Cameron’s speech are overwhelmingly positive. But the reactions they are broadcasting are overwhelmingly negative. Of course last week they did the exact opposite. The obvious political engineering is getting so blatant.
bodo: it was on Radio 4 at 6 – a total setup that didn’t even try to be balanced.
I think the BBC have seen how the MSM have smoothed the way for Obama and figure they can do the same.
Their abolition cannot come too soon.
This assessment of David Cameron’s speech by Simon Heffer, contrasts starkly with the BBC’s knee-jerk, anti-Tory negativity:
“Tory Party Conference: Superb David Cameron speaks up for Conservative values”
[Extract]:
“David Cameron made a superb speech at Birmingham. It cast Gordon Brown’s laboured effort at Manchester eight days earlier into the shade in terms of delivery, content and credibility. If Labour thought it was having a bounce, it may now find that gravity takes over again.” (Simon Heffer).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/3117484/Tory-Party-Conference-Superb-David-Cameron-speaks-up-for-Conservative-values.html
Apologies for stifling your debate david. How about James’s”ethno-aggressive muslims”; that racist in your world?
And thanks Martin for the new name. Tough choice between that and your earlier suggestion of whitewinetwat, which i liked.
whitewhinerliberal: I was thinking of calling you Winehouse Liberal after the great lady herself!!!
Okay, so let us ‘compare and contrast’ the reactions of the respective BBC correspondents. Guess which speech is which. No peeking.
[Note the repeated use of the word ‘but’ and contrast the use of the word (preceding a negative) in the first speech with its application in the second (preceding a positive).]
Political correspondent Gary O’Donoghue
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7647136.stm
“But the speech by *** defies easy classification.
“So, some of us thought, what on earth is he going to fill his 60-odd minutes with then?
“What we got was in fact something a lot more defensive than you might expect from a political leader…
“But the truth is that *** has been hurt…
“So he felt he had to address…in sober and relatively low key terms…
“But at the heart of this speech was a highly significant message on tax that will be hard for many…to swallow…
“But there would, said Mr ***, be difficult and unpopular decisions…
“But the real question for the *** leader and his advisers is…
“Mr *** says he’s a man with a plan – and it is clear it is a pretty austere plan at that…
Political correspondent Rita Chakrabarti
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7632251.stm
“It was a masterful…
“But it mattered not, as the man himself did as near a shimmy onto the stage as he can muster… I can’t believe my luck – he seemed to be saying – what a wife! What a party!
“The atmosphere of mutual love-in continued for several minutes….[his] “I’m a serious man for serious times” went down a storm.
“And throughout he pushed all the right buttons…political with some crowd-pleasing…
“Serious about the economy – and substantial when talking about…
“While he talked genuinely about his beliefs… will never be good at delivering a cheesy line…
“But the end verdict was resoundingly positive.
“‘The best he’s done,’ declared a couple of people approvingly.
“Has he done himself good? Most certainly.
“Has he done enough? Who knows.”
Sproggett: You made it too easy!!!!
Sproggett, thanks for that.
What an absolute fucking disgrace. I’m going to use those two articles for complaint #4 this week, not that it will do any good. Fuckers.
Nick Robinson’s latest post on his blog ‘Toxic talk – is it so bad to mention Thatcher’ (implanting in everyone’s mind that it is). Funny he didn’t say that when Brown invited Thatcher to No.10. Then, I seem to recall, he went into a gleeful gloat about how it would upset Dave.
Sproggett | 01.10.08 – 10:14 pm |
The contrast really brings out the bias – it is unbelivable.
Got it from ConHome so can’t verify, but apparently Crick said Brown’s speech was better.
Shock of the week.
David Preisner,
The Book IS still on the agenda and yes this is worthy addition. I have been overwhelmed by other priorities but we WILL do our book. Please bear with me.
Apologies for stifling your debate david. How about James’s”ethno-aggressive muslims”; that racist in your world?
whitewhinerliberal | 01.10.08 – 10:05 pm |
Not in mine but clearly in yours.
For me racism is any form of positive discrimination. Racism is making excuses for black criminals, making excuses for their under-achieving, making excuses fort their aggressive tendencies, making excuses for Paki and Bangladeshi youth who are unemployable, making excuses for muslim extremism where the majority of those extremists are Arab, and all the time seeking to blame white society.
I’m beginning to think you are silly bunt hillhunt come back on a different ISP.
whitewhinerliberal | 01.10.08 – 10:05 pm |
Apologies for stifling your debate david. How about James’s”ethno-aggressive muslims”; that racist in your world?
I think James misspoke and meant that the Muslim immigrants taking advantage of the open borders are religio-centric and culturally aggressive. I believe there is a consensus on this blog that being anti-Muslim (anti-Islamo-fascism, in calmer tones) is not racist, as Muslims come in many races/ethnicities. Yes, that can be considered religious intolerance, but everyone will have to define for themselves where they stand on the anti-Islamo-fascism or anti-Islam, full stop, spectrum.
Pragmatically speaking, though, what I think James was talking about (he can correct us both if I’m wrong) is that too many Mohammedan immigrants – or even children of them – seem to be demanding that the indigenous population not only subjugate themselves to Islamic needs, but to alter state law to grant supremacy to Islamic law in certain areas of society. This last bit is, I shouldn’t have to remind anyone, is actually contradictory to Islamic law.
I consider that attitude to be whatever the correct term is for cultural or religious self-centeredness, and certainly aggressive in subsuming other people’s rights. Ethno-aggressive isn’t the correct term for that, so I can only assume that James used the wrong term for what he meant. If nothing else, what I’ve described seems to be the general consensus here, though.
Hi Whitewineliberal,
If you are changing your name may I suggest Whitewineilliberal? It just seems to fit your “thought police” views.
I notice you posted the headline from an article: “BA criticises Tory Heathrow plan”claiming this is “on a par” with the Labour conference reporting. As you might expect from the headline the article is completely negative towards the Conservative party, and I fail to see where the BBC has provided any balance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7646383.stm
The obvious objection to these comments from the chief executive of BA is that he has a vested interest in expansion of the major airport used by BA in preference to airports where other airlines have a fair chance of getting a foothold.
No views are presented other than those of the BA chief executive in response to the “Tories”. Are there no environmental or local campaigners against a third runway? What about other airlines’ reactions to BA’s attempt to entrench their position?
I laughed at the BBC reporter’s attempts to cover their back on the bias issues with this one:”The Tories were not immediately available to comment on Mr Walsh’s latest comments.”
Just to add my “compare and contrast”:
Compare the first highlighted quote on the David Cameron speech “main story”, and the only quote from 17:11 to 21:21:
“All we got was warm words and easy populism”
Yvette Cooper, Labour
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7645053.stm
Contrast to the highlighted quote from the Gordon Brown speech:
“I’m so proud that everyday I see him motivated to work for the best interests of people all around the country”
Sarah Brown
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7630567.stm
how about “their aggressive tendencies”. that smack a tad of racism to anyone? the term is overused I agree. my point is that some comments on this site – not many, but some – whiff of racism. and that’s bad, mkay.
whitewineliberal: “A lot of what goes on here assumes party political bias (weak case i think); others a more generic liberal bias along the lines of the Marr quote (a stronger prima facie case here i think). Genuine question: is there any evidence, other than that catalogued here (not really compelling) that substantiates either hypothesis?”
A liberal bias is likely to see journalists naturally favouring Labour or the Lib Dems over the Conservatives, and I think you’ll find that’s what most on here argue. The BBC do sometimes attack Labour, but mostly to the extent that it’s not left-wing enough. And there’s plenty of evidence, ignoring the high profile ‘mistakes’ the BBC has admitted to that all tend one way (9/11 Question Time; The archive Redwood footage dug up to disparage his plans to slash red tape; Naughtie’s if “we” win the election moment).
Its own report on its EU reporting found its reporting was failing to appear impartial; its report on business reporting found it focussed too much on the consumers views; it has paid hundreds of thousand to keep the Balen report private (presumably because it says they’re doing a jolly good job); and the seminar from its Seesaws and Wagon Wheels report gleened quotes from current and former employees of the corporation such as the one you quoted from Marr.
I suspect you will find this not really compelling, though. But then, had you been here prior to these reports and posters were complaining about bias in the Beeb’s reporting of the EU, business or the Middle East, or a generic liberal bias at the BBC, I’m fairly sure you wouldn’t have found that compelling either.
how about “their aggressive tendencies”. that smack a tad of racism to anyone? the term is overused I agree. my point is that some comments on this site – not many, but some – whiff of racism. and that’s bad, mkay.
Hugh:
whitewineliberal: “A lot of what goes on here assumes party political bias (weak case i think); others a more generic liberal bias along the lines of the Marr quote (a stronger prima facie case here i think). Genuine question: is there any evidence, other than that catalogued here (not really compelling) that substantiates either hypothesis?”
A liberal bias is likely to see journalists naturally favouring Labour or the Lib Dems over the Conservatives, and I think you’ll find that’s what most on here argue. The BBC do sometimes attack Labour, but mostly to the extent that it’s not left-wing enough. And there’s plenty of evidence, ignoring the high profile ‘mistakes’ the BBC has admitted to that all tend one way (9/11 Question Time; The archive Redwood footage dug up to disparage his plans to slash red tape; Naughtie’s if “we” win the election moment).
Its own report on its EU reporting found its reporting was failing to appear impartial; its report on business reporting found it focussed too much on the consumers views; it has paid hundreds of thousand to keep the Balen report private (presumably because it says they’re doing a jolly good job); and the seminar from its Seesaws and Wagon Wheels report gleened quotes from current and former employees of the corporation such as the one you quoted from Marr.
I suspect you will find this not really compelling, though. But then, had you been here prior to these reports and posters were complaining about bias in the Beeb’s reporting of the EU, business or the Middle East, or a generic liberal bias at the BBC, I’m fairly sure you wouldn’t have found that compelling either.
I’m not sure we should take lectures about racism from someone who rejoices in calling himself “white”.
I notice the “what did you think of Cameron’s speech” HYS has got stuck on comments from late last night.
It’s probably just a coincidence that the first page it’s stuck on has a 2:1 balance of anti-Tory to pro-Tory comments.
Just fired off another complaint about the BBC’s political bias against the Tories. Managed 3 in yesterday’s Victoria Darbyshire phone in on 5 Live about Conservatives … everytime I turn on the news or look at the BBC website my blood pressure increases, to the point my wife gets me a stiff whisky when ever Maitliss come on – ugh!!
how about “their aggressive tendencies”. that smack a tad of racism to anyone?
whitewineliberal | 02.10.08 – 7:58 am |
Not to me squire. Especially when I’ve been on the receiving end of those aggressive tendencies, (assorted cuts and bruises and a broken nose twice) during the course of my work. That was the inner-city riots in the early eighties, various street confrontations, moving violent blacks between cells and courts.
Wow. I’ve just seen the light. All this time I was ‘Institutionally Racist’ and never realised it.
Ypu need to go into the real world boy and try clearing up the shit.
Here’s someone with aggressive tendencies.
Axeman jailed for police attack
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7648614.stm
The disproportionately high ethnic link in criminal activity like this is all too common these days.
But to point that out incurs the wildly hysterical use of the epithet ‘racist’.
Thankfully there is a groundswell of opinion now to counter this far left hysteria.
whitewineliberal | 02.10.08 – 7:04 am |
how about “their aggressive tendencies”. that smack a tad of racism to anyone?
How is that term at all racist? Surely you’re not saying that any criticism can be considered racist if it’s directed at someone of a different ethnicity. No way.
the term is overused I agree. my point is that some comments on this site – not many, but some – whiff of racism. and that’s bad, mkay.
This sounds very much like the Duke University professors who refused to recant their public letter of accusations of racism and rape against a few white lacrosse players even after the accused were fully exonerated. Their excuse was that racism exists, so their false and libelous accusations should be allowed to stand. They were just opening dialogue about how racism exists, and so all accusations were valid, regardless.
I don’t accept that defense. Your point was that James’s statement was racist. Now you’re changing that to “some comments on this site…have a whiff of racism.” I’m not buying it.
Lefties throw around accusations of racism like confetti at a wedding and to be honest I think people are starting to become immune to it. Rabid political correctness is on its way out.
Incidentally on the subject of racism, has it occurred to anyone else that the Obama campaign has perhaps been the first in US history not only to smear its opponent candidate (every campaign does that) but also to smear the supporters of that candidate – when they imply that they won’t vote for Obama because he’s black. I can’t think of one presidential campaign that’s actually smeared and insulted the voters.