Is the loathing of Bush’s Republicans so firmly established in the minds of all right thinking people that the BBC, as with global warming, has abandoned even the pretence of impartiality? Here’s Peter Marshall’s Newsnight blog following in the steps of Justin Webband the rest in this review of Oliver Stone’s film ‘W’:
Indeed Stone’s Bush is remarkably similar to the “hollow man” I identified in the 1999 election campaign, a characterisation which so annoyed the then Texas governor that for a while he refused to speak to the BBC. He is a man with a drink problem who’d failed in various ventures, reached 40, found God and resolved to join the family business: running the country. At the time it was gratifying for one’s critique to be noticed by the candidate – and also rather worrying. If he were to be so distracted by a foreign correspondent’s personal analysis, how would he cope with the slings, arrows and barbs that inevitably befall any inhabitant of the White House? Well now we know. He can’t take criticism and, in a politician, criticism is part of the climate
And here he is on Condi Rice:
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.
It’s worth reminding ourselves, again, that the Beeb’s guidelines on impartialityapply just as much to blogs as elsewhere. In particular: News and Current Affairs staff should not:
- advocate support for a particular political party
- express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
- advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate
Of course, the BBC’s commitment to impartiality is so fundamental that it doesn’t actually bother monitoring it, but even so how hard can it be to see this piece has no place in its output?
But hey he’s right: the Bush family business is running America, whereas the profoundly honest and always truthful Al Gore was fully expected to help out at the local Wal-Mart when he grew up.
Those guidelines – and the Charter: can they be enforced by external compulsion as in a Court Order? People who pay their licence fees must somewhere have the right to impose the BBC’s own guidelines on the BBC.
“People who pay their licence fees must somewhere have the right to impose the BBC’s own guidelines on the BBC.”
You would think, but no.
Justin Webb on Sarah Palin: “She’s not funny and she’s not clever.”
I wonder what might happen if he dared to say that to her face…
DB – yes, I noticed that: obviously Sarah Palin is another of those uncontroversial issues on which it’s appropriate for a BBC man to express an entirely partisan opinion.
MY COMMENT ON MARSHALL’S BLOG IS AWAITING “MODERATION”.
Yaeh, that’s gonna happen… so here it is:
If you think Oliver Stone is a crazy paranoid leftist, who makes crap movies, what can one say of Peter Marshall. An card carrying BBC Institutional Leftard, who couldn’t make decent argument to save his Groucho Club membership.
His whole “review” reads like a parody, not one clichéd turn is left unStoned.
My God the quy’s ego even has him quoting himself for a piece of crud he wrote in 1999. Wow. Talk about maniacal.
Clearly Marshall Twerp suffers fools gladly. Starting with himself.
This is the sort of simplistic rubbish that floods through everything Marshall writes. I have mold on my shower stall with greater depth.
How perceptive he noticed (in 1999) that Bush can’t take criticism. And thank goodness Bush doesn’t get any, he would have a breakdown if he was criticized by a relentless media, the way Obama has been savaged by the BBC, for his gaffes, idiocy, and empy rhetoric.
I jest of course, as Obama is proven to have a skin thinner than an anorexic super-model.
A man who’s can’t even be asked a question by a voter, without enabling his thuggish supporters in the media to spend the next week sliming Joe the Plumber. That’s right Marshall, Joe the Plumber has had more vetting than the socialist Presidential candidate.
I guess Marshall has failed to notice that Condi Rice has totally sold out to the Democrat infested State establishment on every issue, from North Korea to the Middle East to Israel.
I guess that sort of “observation” is beyond Marshall Twerp.
Actually I can’t see the problem here.
Nothing Marshall is quoted as saying breaches any of the quoted guidelines.
Plenty of partisan Republicans think George W Bush is a bozo too, just as even more thought his father was a bozo.
Forming a judgment about a politician’s character (or lack of character) isn’t necessarily taking any position on the issues.
Marshall’s blog post is fair comment, and doesn’t fall under any of the three bullet points that Hugh cites (other BBC blog posts, especially some of those by Justin Webb, are more suspect in that regard).
How people respond to other people’s appraisals of their character is often far more revealing than the appraisals themselves, and that’s what I got from Marshall’s piece. An extra bit of colour from someone who has actual experience.
Jack Bauer’s “comment”, not so much. Be thankful it’s not yet been published, Jack: that will make you look like less of a fool.
Scott — oh please.
I’ve listened to Marshall’s sneering, supercilious, and frankly, simplistic garbage for years.
I’m being kind to him. His comments about Condi Rice are so ignorant and far from reality, you can’t even take them seriously.
Tell me which part of my comment makes me a “fool” so that I can respond.
But if it’s just that I have unloaded on this arrogant jerk, Marshall Twerp, don’t bother.
Tom/Scott: So you’re allowed to state that Condi Rice has no opinions and is simply a Bush lackey and that Bush is a failure who can’t take criticism and that’s not breaching the editorial guidelines? You don’t think such observations might favour the Democrats. In effect you’re allowed to damn any politician in any terms you like so long as you don’t mention any specific policy positions.
That’s your argument?
Plenty of partisan Republicans* (sic) think George W Bush is a bozo too, just as even more thought his father was a bozo.
And you don’t see any difference between that — and a BBC reporter?
I guess that’s the problem.
*CONSERVATIVES…
Say, seeing as how the BBC worships at the alter of diversity! can anyone point me in the direction of a balancing piece of ‘fair comment’ by a Beeboid calling the Obamamessiah an entitled pillock with a freakshow entourage?
Hey, there’s no policy positions mentioned, right?
I think the interesting point here is the BBC guy patting himself on the back for being right in his prejudice all the long, when it’s just an Oliver Stone film- you don’t expect them to be true in any sense whatsoever!
I think his view of Condi Rice is particularly interesting- no curiosity whatsoever in the big change that was heralded in US foreign policy when Rice went to the State department and the Bush administration went diplomatic. Condi certainly didn’t do the old Bush doctrine thing.
But that’s boring stuff I suppose, unlike the vivid stereotypes of an Oliver Stone movie.
Richard Bacon had an American actor on his R5 show last night. This person had been in a White House based TV drama called ‘West Wing’. The actor told us how he had to deliver lines about complicated political and economic issues despite having no understanding of them. Fair enough. What made me laugh was that this actor then started on a long, uninterrupted rant about how awful the Republicans are, especially Sarah Palin. His self-confessed political ignorance didn’t stop him, and of course Bacon failed to picked him up on this.
Where’s WWL I need some comedy, or is this finally enough to convince him that the BBC are biased after all.
“Justin Webb on Sarah Palin: “She’s not funny and she’s not clever.”
Whereas the Democrat VP candidate, Joe Biden,is a riot
“The Obama policy is Jobs,”J.O.B.S is a three letter word”.
Here i am.
Your comment’s up Jack.
Is it not the case that these guidelines refer only to British political parties? If so, they certainly don’t hold for Marshall’s piece. And even if they do (which i doubt), they don’t seem to have been breached to me.
Mikewineliberal
A bbc employee. Says he/she isn’t. But he/she is blatantly lying.
Just heard the latest gushing about Obama on Radio 4, about him ‘suspending his campaign for two days’ (of course, there will be no cameras, will there – just like the injured soldiers in Germany he decided not to visit because no cameras were allowed) to visit his sick white granny in Hawaii – the one he called a racist in his throw-Jeremiah-Wright-under-the bus speech (a point strangely unmentioned by the BBC).
Here’s Obama on his ‘Typical White Person’ granny:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/21/ferraro-offended-by-comparison-to-pastor-wright/
Anon – i swear on both my balls, i’m not
Mikewineliberal
“i swear on both my balls, i’m not”
Well, considering you fessed up to being “the daughter of a science teacher” at 3.39 pm today on another thread, I think swearing on both your balls is stretching the truth a little, don’t you?
Full quote, including the extracted quote, reposted below:
whitewineliberal:
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 | #
George Bush is not hated in this county, except by the wackos. American wackos encouarged european wackos to thate him as well, and now there is a profitable niche market for George W Bush haters. What I got out of that article is that this man is on the wagon, and wants to be read. As such people are self-centric, they believe their view is predominate. I cannot wait until this is over, and in two years they can stop with this sickness. But, I belive their next target will be Sarah.
I have not agreed with everything Bush has done, sometimes he has infuriated me, like about the latest immigration bill. He has a peculiar honor, and he doesn’t take crap from murdering rag heads. When everyone else was still sitting down, George Bush stood up, and the brave stood up with him. This dweezle Marshall is a bore.
HA!! Bagged – I always suspected WWL was female!! For using effeminate words in a sentence position, such as “silly”, where a woman would.
BTW – the link is gone now but earlier today Fox announced a landslide victory for McCain in a military poll, 68%. Behind every soldier there is a family, and they will also vote McCain. My brother is in Tampa, the big swing state of FLA, and among his customers and freinds, they have gotten out the vote for McCain.
Joe Biden is off the trail, pulled by the party for announcing not once but twice that voters must support Obama when we are attacked shortly after he gets in office, for making wrong decisions about the emergency.
Sarah may not be funny, but Joe is simply hilarious!!
Sarah Palin IS funny and she IS clever- hence Justin Webb’s assertion to the contrary.
Anonymous | 21.10.08 – 11:34 pm |
Oh for heaven’s sake, that’s a Palin quote.
This defender of the indefensible is having you for lunch, with all that dancing around.
Please can we stop with the obligatory accusations of BBC employment hurled at every single opposing commenter that comes in here? It’s embarrassing.
As far as I know, every single actual Beeboid who has stuck his or her head above the parapet has admitted it within moments. The rest are here to show us all up as brain-dead, neanderthal, fucking idiots who only want to smell our own farts, and you’re playing right into their hands with this nonsense.
Go back to explaining how wrong it is to claim that Sarah Palin wants to end science in schools. Please.
Poor Matthew Price must feel like he’s got the BBC short straw having to cover the McCain campaign. His delicate sensibilities have been so offended by the Republican hordes that he has felt compelled to pen a defence of socialism.
MikeWineLiberal: “Is it not the case that these guidelines refer only to British political parties.”
A new argument – BBC rules on impartiality only relate to domestic politics. Brilliant! Unfortunately, not true. “It [impartiality] applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format…The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/index.shtml
If you read it, you’ll find that, perhaps not surprisingly, “impartiality” in the context of the BBC means “impartiality”.
Since it’s not yet universally accepted that Bush is a moronic warmonger who has been a disaster for the World; that Condi Rice has no mind of her own; and that Obama should be the next president of the US, the Beeb’s reporters are obliged to refrain from giving their opinion.
“…our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.”
It’s also worth noting that even if the Beeb wanted to exempt its blogs or foreign correspondents or any other aspect of its output from the requirement to be impartial it would have no right to do so. It’s not a voluntary agreement: the BBC is obliged to be impartial. It doesn’t actually make the rules.
With all those BBC hacks and hangers on desperate to bask in the glory of an Obama win, election night could be very costy for the licence payer:
The best-funded political campaign in American history says news organizations will have to pay — in some cases almost $2,000 each — if they want to cover Barack Obama’s election-night celebration in Chicago.
A memo sent to news organizations on Tuesday by the Obama campaign says credentials will cost $715 to $1,815, depending on whether electrical and phone lines are needed and whether an indoor or outdoor seat is requested for the event, which is expected to be held outside the evening of Nov. 4 in Grant Park.
The only free admissions are for a “general media” area. But, the memo says, “Please note that the general media area is outdoors, unassigned and may have obstructed views . . . standing room only.”
The area also does not include access to top Obama campaign officials, whose statements likely are to be in hot demand on Election Night. They apparently will be available only in the “press file” tent, to which an additional admission fee of $935 per person is being imposed.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=31483&seenIt=1
anon and bety – david’s right. that is a sarah palin quote. I should have put it in quotes. sorry for confusion.
hugh – not an argument. I just wondered whether those particular guidelines pertain to uk political parties only. I think they do. I take the broader point about impartiality though. and blogs are clearly a very grey area here.
I like condi rice. and Bush too, although he has been a poor president.
I really don’t think we can accuse the BBC of bias for telling us that Obama has suspended his campaign to visit his sick grandmother.
I’m sure they’d do the same for John McCain’s grandmother.
whitewineliberal: “I just wondered whether those particular guidelines pertain to uk political parties only. I think they do.”
Why? Is there anything at all to support that interpretation?
“blogs are clearly a very grey area here.”
No, they’re not. The BBC’s own guidelines make it clear news and current affairs staff’s duty to maintain impartiality even apply to their personal blogs written in their own time, let alone those they do on the clock under BBC branding.
Even if the guidelines were not clear, as I said the BBC doesn’t have an opt out from its obligations which apply to all its output.
A few more key paragraphs:
“…when someone clearly identifies their association with the BBC and/or discusses their work, they are expected to behave appropriately when on the Internet, and in ways that are consistent with the BBC’s editorial values and policies.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/index.shtml
And what are those editorial values and policies?
Well one of them is that “Even if they are not identified as a BBC staff member, editorial staff** and staff in politically sensitive areas should not be seen to support any political party or cause.”
More generally, they would seem to include impartiality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/editorialvalues/
And here again:
“Those involved in editorial or production areas must take particular care to ensure that they do not undermine the integrity or impartiality of the BBC or its output on their blogs. For example those involved in News and Current Affairs or factual programming should not advocate a particular position on high profile controversial subjects relevant to their areas.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/blogging_managers.shtml
Hugh | 22.10.08 – 8:54 am
In effect you’re allowed to damn any politician in any terms you like so long as you don’t mention any specific policy positions.
That’s your argument?
More or less. Not just damn. A while back I heard a BBC World Service reporter praising both Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf as ‘courageous’. This was at a time when the two were at daggers drawn.
The beeboid wasn’t being parti pris between Musharraf and Bhutto (quite correctly) but was making an informed judgment about their characters. I have no problem with that.
Tom:
Well, for one, if you damn two Republicans without even mentioning any Democrats, that’s inevitably partisan. You might have the beginnings of an argument if you can find anywhere Marshall labeling Clinton as habitually dishonest, for example.
Even if you did, though, I think it’s pretty clear that such comments fail the test. All the guidelines suggest impartiality means just what one would expect: a refusal to take sides on matters where there are significant differences of opinion. And don’t forget that Marshall’s original damning assessment of Bush was made during his election campaign, when half the country supported him.
As a final thought, isn’t it interesting Marshall seems quite proud that he came up with an assessment considered insulting enough by Bush to boycott the BBC. You would think such an incident would worry an organisation that claims its raison d’etre is to deliver impartial, balanced reporting and prompt a bit of critical self analysis. But hey ho, life goes on.
Hugh | 22.10.08 – 10:15 am
I understand your point, and I don’t want to make too much of this, but it seems to me that you are equating the making of any kind of assessment or judgment on the part of a beeboid with a breach of impartiality.
And they are by no means the same thing.
For example, there must be many conservative commentators in the US right now, who are making very negative assessments of the McCain campaign and damning judgments of his prospects. At the same time they are very partial: they actually WANT the gut to win.
My reading of the BBC’s duty to be impartial is that they must refrain from taking sides. That does not mean they must refrain from making judgments or delivering assessments, damning or otherwise.
I’d add I agree with your point about having to look right across the piece – if the BBC only deliver themselves of negative judgments of Republicans and are always praising Democrats, then, sure, that would call their partiality into question.
For the record, I don’t think the BBC has observed due impartiality during this US election campaign. They have been markedly and blatantly pro-Obama.
And…. outrageously anti-Palin.
But I don’t think Marshall’s impartiality id compromised by what’s been quoted from his blog.
Tom | 22.10.08 – 1:32 pm |
My reading of the BBC’s duty to be impartial is that they must refrain from taking sides. That does not mean they must refrain from making judgments or delivering assessments, damning or otherwise.
Sorry to butt in here, but surely if a BBC reporter is passing judgment on someone or some group, that’s taking a side, no ?
That’s not the same thing as explaining pros and cons, reporting on a variety of viewpoints, etc. It’s taking a stance.
They do that all the time on certain issues.
“Forming a judgment about a politician’s character (or lack of character) isn’t necessarily taking any position on the issues.”
I agree with Tom…McCain for most is the lesser of two evils, compared to Obama and the liberal illuminati behind him….there are a lot of Republicans who don’t agree with McCain’s gimmicky character and ideas, but will still vote for him.
Mr. Marshall’s latest blog on Newsnight is an odd mix of, I think, lampooning Mr. McCain whilst sort of praising him.
Meanwhile as I type BBC Breakfast News is addressing the vastly important, topical issue of… Mrs Palin’s wardrobe.
Now, I have to say that as a man I have in my wardrobe the same suit I had a decade ago for smart stuff, while the missus is on La Redoute’s frequent buyer programme, so there is an ‘issue’ here.
As it wasn’t mentioned, I wonder who is paying, and if not the taxpayer whose business it is and hence who cares. Maybe Mr. Obama’s helicopter has seats made from whale foreskins? Maybe they are just still smarting over the expose over their bubbly bill… which is paid for by the licence fee and hence, in part…me.
When it comes to the BBC, might they be skirting (sorry) dangerous ground here, considering, how to say, more ‘favourable’, uncritical ‘reporting’ of the fashions sported by oh so many they ‘approve’ of (from Princess D through WAGS to Mrs. Brown), and from ladies who also don’t seem to lob up each day in the same one-piece.
I merely note such as Newsnight’s Ms. Wark being involved with a progamme that is currently quite active in getting kickers in a twist over ‘inappropriate’ relationships, and today’s fragrant blonde commenting on today’s chirpy weather girls’s lovely frock.