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.
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
An absolutely must-read commentary for those concerned about the effect of the BBC’s leftism and suffocating power:
From Donal Blaney’s blog:
“Tory activists brainwashed by the BBC”
(Posted originally by George R)
I see the Beeb’s gone big on the Osborne/oligarch story. Just like old times, the Beeb running smears for Lord Mandy. Didn’t think it would be quite that blatant – it’s not as if there aren’t other things to write about, after all.
The BBC and its political investigations, based on its political party preferences: No elephant lording it on the yacht?
The issue of the Labour-Tory Party alleged involvement with the Russian billionaire was given a characteristically partisan treatment by the BBC’s ‘Today’ programme this morning. Mandelson was barely mentioned, but Osborne was put centre-stage by the BBC.
For weeks, the BBC has studiously avoided any airing about Labour’s unelected Cabinet Minister and his relationship with the Russian oligarch, ignoring what several newspapers have been reporting about it, e.g.:
“Peter Mandelson met Russian oligarch twice for dinner”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3210414/Peter-Mandelson-met-Russian-oligarch-twice-for-dinner.html
Something about Mandelson’s role came out, late in the day, on BBC’s
Marr programme:
“Lord Mandelson faces fresh questioning over his integrity after new allegation”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3227110/Lord-Mandelson-faces-fresh-questioning-over-his-integrity-after-new-allegations.html
With the BBC’s Robinson and the inevitable Brown biographer and Labour supporter, BBC’S Peston, leading the ant-Tory charge on the ‘Today’ programme, Robinson did at least mention, near the end, not near the beginning of the piece, that: ‘the BBC has resisted so far’ publicity about Mandelson’s relationship with the Russian billionaire. Why? Politically inconvenient? No, it suited the BBC to single out Osborne later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7681000/7681433.stm
The Osborne/Deripaska story is of genuine interest. However, as RR comments, the BBC story is the smear not the seeking of answers to underlying questions which are:
1. Did Osborne meet Deripaska? Yes
2. Did Osborne solicit funds from Deripaska? Who knows – but it would be unlikely (and unbelievably stupid) for Osborne to do this were a “neutral” third party present. Mind you, in conversation, I wouldn’t be surprised if talk of Conservative party funding arose. Osborne is, after all, shadow chancellor and no. 2 in the party.
3. Did Deripaska cough up funds? No – although the Conservatives admit (I believe) that £50,000 was offered and refused. The amount is paltry and even Osborne – idiot and ingenu that he is – would see that for the sake iof £50,000 the game of re-routing such funds to make them spuriously “legal” is not worth a candle.
So given a choice between a genuine search for the truth and the opportunity to smear the Conservatives (diverting attention momentarily from Mandy and the Labour-caused domestic financial crisis) the BBC takes its customary low road: bias and crap journalism all in one.
Quite a vintage political propaganda edition of the BBC ‘Today’ programme this morning, e.g.:-
1.) an ‘Observer’ view on ‘understanding’of the ‘Islamic’ (-word not used) Taleban assassination of Christian aid worker, Gayle Williams;
2.) a study of effectiveness and appropriateness of anti-Palin humour;
3.) an investigation of alleged Tory (not Labour) association with Russian billionaire.
And all paid for by us.
I see the never-elected quango-queen “Baroness” Ashton gets the softly-softly treatment here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7681457.stm. The write-up seems very different from Bruno Waterfield’s take on the same subject here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2008/10/20/browns_bureaucrat_baroness_breezes_it
Headline here on BBC website:
Rich and poor gap ‘narrows’ in UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7681361.stm
but 4 paragraphs down it says:
“But the report says the UK still has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world.”
Peter Wilson, it IS a disgrace. I demand that 90% of the nation be made CEOs immediately. Then we can import foreigners to do the labor. But then… they’d be the victims of inequality. So…. maybe make them Company Directors too…? And get in other poor people to do the work the new Directors used to do?
But then…
My Arts degree isn’t as useful in these matters as I’d hoped it would be.
George R
You forgot the item on the latest OECD report: “good” news for the BBC – gap between “rich” and “poor” in the UK narrowing but “bad” news that the gap is wider than in “other countries”. To comment on this, the BBC selects – out of all the economists and vaguely neutral experts out there – David Halpern (coincidentally – oh yes! – an adviser to Blair) who, though welcoming this trend, wants things to go much further: for instance he wants to see the “wealth gap” abolished by making inheritance tax far more taxing.
This being the BBC there were no questions as to whether or not the “poor” had become better off despite the OECD reported gap. Unsurprisingly Halpern was allowed to get away with a final piece of propaganda for his clients. In the closing remark of the interview he commented that, to the credit of this government, “there are indications” that social mobility is “improving”. No facts, no stats, no learned reports – just an unchallenged assertion.
The Mayor of London/Britain’s most powerful Tory speaks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/21/do2101.xml
Osbourne – Conservative Party Funding
Did anyone else hear Today and Nick Robinson say that the Conservatives and others had been trying to make mischief for Mandy about him and the Russian. But, he said, they had not made much of that.
So, why is that when Labour wants to make mischief for the Conservatives about meeting the same man the BBC do decide it is worth running a story.
Bias or even handedness?
can the 1.08 pm post by whitewhineliberal be removed please on the grounds that it appears to have no relationship with bbc bias.
thanks
why aren’t the bbc reporting it is what I want to know. our very own colin powell no less.
Presumably, WWL, because they are currently too busy doing Peter Mandleson’s bidding.
wwl
And your point is what precisely? That Boris supports Obama? Big deal!
I don’t think there’s anything in the rules of the Conservative Party preventing a leading Conservative giving his support to a Democratic candidate for President. OTOH there is a statutory obligation on the BBC to be “impartial” which – as you can see evidenced day in-day out on this blog (and elsewhere) – is largely ignored.
Re Osborne and the Russian.
Nick Robinson is being monstered in the comments over this one!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2008/10/the_corfu_story.html
(Posted originally by George R)
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 21.10.08 – 11:31 am | #
Thanks to both, and the original author.
I have been trying to understand a strange transatlantic difference… beyond our common languages, of course.
Over ‘there’, an entrenched, deeply unpopular (it seems) incumbent administration is taking a drubbing mainly on the basis of the economy which, if many who post here are to be believed (and such links as I have seen provided bear out) has mainly been shaped by those who are set against them, from Clinton to majority Democrat voting subsequently.
Meanwhile, over ‘here’, an entrenched, deeply unpopular (it seems to me on the ground, but not so much in the rarified circles of our Westminster Village Useful Idiot media) incumbent administration is getting a free pass from many, especially around an economy which was in pretty good shape when they inherited it over ten years ago and they have been free and clear to play with ever since, unencumbered by many of the legislative hurdles our US cousins’ systems can impose.
Both sides of the pond have ‘left’ and ‘right’ print and broadcast media, so why the discrepancy, he asked, rhetorically?
JBH
I am at the third round of a complaint to the BBC about use of the word “creationist” by Justin Webb in a report about Sarah Palin requesting their justification of same. Best the BBC have come up with at the moment is that she is “in favour of teaching both creation and evolution”. However even that is without giving the context of the “statement”.
What does a politician say to a potential (moslem say) voter if he asks should islamicism be taught in schools? I can just imagine Tony Blair’s all inclusive (don’t antagonise the voter)answer along the lines of… yes, as part of a overall view of religious theories.
Mrs Palin is very definitely the victim of “if its said or heard often enough it must be true”. A principle well understood by many in politics and the media.
Staggering bias. The BBC boasts about not covering the Mandleson dodgy dealings and yet goes all the way to cover Osborne.
They’re actually proud of their bias.
On Today this a.m. thet said ‘A major political storm is brewing’ about Osborne. And they’re making dan sure they stir it up as much as poss.
Is this the Beeb’s way of apoligising to Mandy for the tough but entirely fair grilling he got on Sunday? [a rare case of decent Beeb journalism].
if you want ID and evolution taught in science lessons you are an
idiot or a creationist or both.
is there a link to webb’s comment?
whitewhineliberal
Were you alerted to this article by something you heard on the BBC, because it has been mentioned? I wonder if the BBC would have thought it worthy of comment if he had rubbished Obama?
Anyway, we still await enlightenment as to which newspaper(s) you actually pay for, do tell. It may also be interesting to know who pays for all the other newspapers that you appear to have time to read – your employer?
Alerted to the boris article by conservative home.
I just wanted to see the webb link. sorry if you’ve posted before
Employer for newspapers, yes. and on the net for free. Economist streets ahead of them all. I sometimes buy the sunday times.
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 2:01 pm |
if you want ID and evolution taught in science lessons you are an
idiot or a creationist or both.
Except Gov. Palin is on record as saying she would not force her beliefs on anyone. She does say that she thinks both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools, but she never made any attempt to force that while Governor. She told the Hannity idiot that she would never force her religious beliefs on anyone. Her opinion is one thing, her actions as someone with the power to get involved in legislation are quite another.
Very large difference there. I won’t ask you if you think Muslims should also be prohibited from holding public office because you’ve declined to answer that before.
As for a link to Justin Webb’s comment, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you’ve been hanging around here for at least a couple of months now yet you haven’t seen a single instance of anyone here linking either directly to Webb’s post or his on-air statement that “all rational people” don’t like her.
In fact, I don’t believe you at all. I think you are deliberately attempting to show us all up as biased liars, and that there’s no evidence of Webb ever having said such a thing.
Here’s his blog post from Aug. 31:
‘Events dear boy, events!’
As for Sarah Palin! Her creationist views are bound to become an issue (can you really have a president who denies basic truths about the world?).
Would he dare say any such thing about a Muslim candidate? No. He even recently singled out Colin Powell’s statements about how fine it would be to have one:
Colin Powell’s America
after all America has a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant story to tell when it comes to religious liberty and tolerance and togetherness. Second to no other nation on earth in fact.
Except when it comes to a specific religious belief which ol’ Justin not only doesn’t like, but misunderstands.
You owe Gerald Brown an apology.
I can also provide you a link to Webb’s other blog post in which he refers to the Governor of Alaska as “the woman rational, educated Americans regard with ever-increasing horror”. In that same post, he said that any success Palin might have in her debate against Sen. Biden would come at a cost: “further alienation of the college-educated centre ground.”
I won’t provide the link so you can demand evidence, suggesting that I’m lying.
White Wine Liberal:
I read the article written by Boris and decided that he sees only what he wants to see. Example: “In the end I gave up, goggle-eyed and exhausted, having trolled the wilds of the Neocon internet without finding anything remotely approaching a smoking gun.” And this guy is in charge of the Olympics. Don’t let him near any balance sheets. He may not see the obvious.
Gerald Brown: re “creationist”
The media knows that if McCain loses, Sarah Palin will be a player in the next four years. She has a genuine popular appeal, though not yet the finished political operator.
Her enemies know that if they create damaging myths about her, she’ll spend valuable time breaking them down before she can even begin to express own her views and policies. To this end they have willing allies in the media.
Myths – “Reagan is stupid”, “Bush is a war monger” etc etc are the lifeblood of the media, a useful shorthand for reporters. If interviewees come with a ready storyline, reporters don’t need to search for “an angle”, they simply ask the same silly questions over and over again (Paxman to Blair: “Did you and George Bush ever pray together?”).
Remember: the media is lazy. They operate with a set of questions they ask a regular cast of characters about recognizable events. These “events” are called “stories”. “There’s no story there” means the editor/reporter cannot recognize the pattern of events as familiar, and the “story” is therefore discarded. How many important stories from the Wright brothers first flight to the success in Iraq have been spiked because they do not fit the conventional “narrative”? Two bicycle makers inventing a plane is as unlikely a “story” to the media mind-set as the USA actually winning a war.
And so here they come again: the nutty vicar, the brilliant lefty professor, the off-the-rails soap star, the philandering MP, etc etc…round and round like carnival horses on a fairground roundabout for our entertainment. Only the names change as the decades pass.
The media is made of up of very stupid clever people. They need to label Sarah Palin before they can identify her as a stereotype: only then can they understand her. So she is now being ironed out into a “right-wing nut”, a “bimbo”, and hey – what about “creationist”? In Hollywood-speak (and there are more braincells in a chicken than a Hollywood executive) she is the evil Margaret Thatcher meets the bimbo Goldie Hawn…
Palin has a mountain to climb. Let’s hope she’s up to it.
John Bosworth,
If McCain loses, Palin will be finished on the national stage. All blame will be laid on her, as unfair as that may be.
You’re right about the way the press must label the heroes and villains because they tend to think they have to cover everything as a story out of a Christmas panto, but I don’t see any way for her to come out of a loss looking like anything other than the cause, especially because of those labels.
I genuinely just wanted to see the link. Happy to apologise for that.
I don’t think anyone should be barred from office on account of their religious beliefs. it’s a judgement call for the electorate on palin. she has come out on the “teach both” side of the debate. most educated people, including the religious, wouldn’t agree. so I would personally answer “no” to webb’s “can you really have a president who denies basic truths about the world?”
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 3:12 pm
she has come out on the “teach both” side of the debate. most educated people, including the religious, wouldn’t agree.
Just like the BBC, you are seriously distorting her position.
You (and Justin Webb) make it sound as if she supports giving room in the science curriculum to creationism/ID alongside evolution.
She does NOT.
Her position is that teachers should discuss the controversy if it happens to come up in class.
That is totally different.
Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 3:39 pm
There you go again. Smearing and misleading and putting false spin on things. You are incorrigible.
You …ever so conveniently…LEFT OUT..the explanatory/clarificatory coda:
I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.
Are you sure you don’t work for the BBC?
She said what she said. she then sought to water down what she’d said at a later date. the quote I posted is best read without the subsequent spin. it’s what she believes and good luck to her.
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 3:57 pm
she then sought to water down what she’d said at a later date.
Was it the day afterwards? Or was it two days later?
I think you’ll agree that she “clarified” (not ‘watered down) on the first occasion she was challenged to explain precisely what she meant.
the quote I posted is best read without the subsequent spin. it’s what she believes
It’s only best presented like that if you’re trying to give a misleading impression of her policies.
There is an important debate in some US States about including ID or ‘creation science’ within the school science curriculum.
Both in the statement I quote – and in practice – Sarah Palin has been clear that she does not approve of introducing ID/creationism side by side with evolution as a formal part of the curriculum.
Do you think the controversy should be discussed if it come up in class?
Unless you are really a whitewineauthoritarian, then I’m guessing the answer is – yes.
Does that make you a ‘creationist’ too, then?
Newsnight’s Peter Marshall likes Oliver Stone’s “W”. No surprises there.
But my favourite character is Condi Rice (Thandie Newton). Somehow she plays her as a cyborg, ultra-loyal to W because that’s how she has been programmed. She has no doubts, no opinions and her only emotions revolve around serving her mentor. It rings true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/petermarshall/2008/10/stones_w_is_hollow_man_and_con.html
BBC journos have a real problem with powerful conservative women, don’t they?
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 3:12 pm |
so I would personally answer “no” to webb’s “can you really have a president who denies basic truths about the world?”
I wasn’t going to ask, but now I must: Does that include Muslims and orthodox Jews?
Also, you say that you don’t think someone should be barred from holding public office, but then you say they shouldn’t hold public office.
Which is it? Do you mean you wouldn’t vote for someone who holds those beliefs, but will not vote in favor of a law which would bar them from office?
Lastly, do you find it acceptable for a supposedly impartial, tax-funded State Broadcaster (not Fox News, not a newspaper, not an independent broadcaster, not anything other than an Official State one with a Charter and Agreement) to permit Webb’s statement against one specific religious belief?
“Do you mean you wouldn’t vote for someone who holds those beliefs, but will not vote in favor of a law which would bar them from office?”
yup
“Lastly, do you find it acceptable for a supposedly impartial, tax-funded State Broadcaster … to permit Webb’s statement against one specific religious belief?”
not what he said. creation
myths and the denial of basic truths are common to most religions.
Check out the comments at Gavin Hewitt’s blog – the Obama supporters are very impressed with him. As with Justin Webb, Hewitt is pushing the “anything might happen if Obama loses” meme. Politics of fear, anyone?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2008/10/the_risk_of_expectation.html?moduserid=movabletype203_39676&pid=70499983&upm=False&asb=False&pmp=False#dnaacs
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 4:28 pm
15 out of the 43 Presidents were elected before Darwin even came up with his theory of evolution.
Melanie Phillips:
“Boris succumbs to neocon derangement syndrome”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2534161/boris-succumbs-to-neocon-derangement-syndrome.thtml
Next time the BBC tells you that there’s no evidence that there’s no proof that fraudulent voter registrations effect elections, rub their noses in this:
Vote-Fraud Ruling Shifts Pennsylvania Senate
Saying Philadelphia’s election system had collapsed under “a massive scheme” by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.
In making such a sweeping move, the judge, Clarence C. Newcomer of Federal District Court here, did for the Republicans what the election had not: enable them to regain control of the State Senate, which they lost two years ago.
Makes no difference whether it’s ACORN or not. The BBC’s position is that this kind of voter fraud doesn’t affect elections, and only voter intimidation by Republicans can do that.
Newsnight has lied to you. Meirion Jones, call your office.
WWL,
Why keep flogging a dead horse? You hate Palin and where hate is concerned their is no balance or logic!
You hate her politics and her religion, fair enough, but FFS stop moaning on about her! We might think that you had a political axe to grind here. WTF, do have a little voodoo doll that you stick pins in?
Theres tonnes of other stuff to moan about.
George R | 21.10.08 – 4:38 pm |
Phillips is a bit late to the party on this one. During the last year or so of his tenure as editor of the Spectator, Golden Boy Boris was suffering from full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome which, due to the Iraq connection, was caused by his chronic Blair Derangement Syndrome.
This is nothing new from Boris, and shouldn’t surprise anyone. Wasn’t she paying attention back then? No wonder I don’t read her stuff.
tom – true that.
Somebody was just on the World Service saying that by 2020 there will be 600 million “middle class” people in China.
Once again China’s smoke and mirrors baffles the BBC.
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 4:28 pm |
not what he said. creation
myths and the denial of basic truths are common to most religions.
That’s a bit of semantic dancing, since he was obviously talking specifically about Creationism. However, you are accidentally partially correct, because ol’ Justin has form slamming Christians:
More than rain in Georgia, a faith-friendly BBC would be a real miracle
This complaint from the above:
Should Justin Webb, the US Editor of the “impartial” BBC, be likening “praying for rain” to “a get-together of Stone Age men”?
is in response to this post from Webb:
But boy does the dotty stuff keep happening here: the latest being governor Sonny Perdue’s prayers for rain on the steps of the Atlanta statehouse. Anti-Americans, the softer European variety, look at that kind of behaviour and wonder at America’s capacity for self-delusion and religious literalism. Nothing much separated that gathering from a get-together of Stone Age men, let’s face it.
Webb criticizes US Christians only.
Just wondering. Can anybody tell me who was the last Republican president the BBC didn’t regard as being absolutely unqualified for the office by virtue of being irreparably stupid? Nixon maybe? Eisenhower? Herbert Hoover? Calvin Coolidge? Warren Harding (who in fact was)?
“Denial of basic truths”
1984 and all that eh? Look closely at WWL when his ‘psuedo liberal’ mask slips he is every bit as intolerent and prejudiced as any BNP knuckle dragger.
I believe in the theory of evolution but at the end of the day thats just what it is, a theory.
One can only wonder if you would be as vehement about a Muslims beliefs.
From the Roman Missal:
PRAYER FOR RAIN
O God, in Whom we live and move, and have our being, grant us rain, in due abundance, that, being sufficiently helped with temporal, we may the more confidently seek after eternal gifts. Through Christ, our Lord.
Amen
So presumably there’s nothing that separates a Catholic – say an EU Commissioner for purposes of the argument, or perhaps the Pope – from “a get-together of Stone Age men, let’s face it” if he chooses to use a prayer sanctioned by the Church?
Wonder whether there’s a similar prayer in Islam (some of them live in pretty dry countries after all)? Would that make them members of the Stone Age tendency too? Wouldn’t be very culturally sensitive, would it, were he to say that about them?
whitewineliberal | 21.10.08 – 4:50 pm
Good. Glad we’ve got that settled.
Now, since you appear to be taking a close interest in the US elections, and since I happen to agree with your point (on another thread) about this blog tending sometimes to see bias where none exists, perhaps you would give me a straight answer to the following question:
….all things considered, has the BBC’s coverage of the US elections this year so far been:
a. Scrupulously fair and impartial: a model of professionalism and fairness;
b. noticeably biased in favour of the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama
c. biased in favour of McCain/Palin.
In answering this question, please take into account the way issues have been framed, the selection of storie, what has been excluded as well as what has been included and the tone of reporting/blogging.
Thanks in anticipation of your considered response…….
The British Elite Intellectual as personified by Justin Webb sees the world as one to be observed not participated in. I guess that’s a relic of Empire, a “just visiting” mentality. perfect for the eye-browing raising superior Beeboid that he is.
Who, in the BBC’s opinion are the worst torturers in the world? – Sudan, Iran, Somalis, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria? No,no,no -they’re not even mentioned. So which country does the BBC concentrate on for next Monday’s Radio 4 programme (8 pm), ‘The Torturer’s Tale’? A clue: it’s initials – U.S.A.
[Extract of BBC blurb]:
‘The Torturer’s Tale’
Monday 27 October
8.00-8.30pm BBC RADIO 4
“It’s hard to imagine what it would be like to be a torturer, and how one might look back on the experience. Presenter Jolyon Jenkins talks to former torturers about how they come to terms with their actions.”
Maybe Jolyon Jenkins might like to ask John McCain about being tortured. No? Thought not, somehow.