Monthly Archives: October 2008

Another Boring Story

By | |
31 Comments


Another boring story

It’s not a good day for Peter Mandelson. Well, at least it isn’t if you read the paper – any paper. Mandy admits tycoon meetings, says the Sun; Mandelson back under the miscroscope, says the Guardian; while the Mail is a little more wordy with Mandelson admits he has known Russian oligarch years longer than he previously acknowledged; the Telegraph, though, is worst of all: Mandelson admits public were misled, it says. It’s no better elsewhere: Pressure rises on Mandelson, says the Press Association; and ITV goes with something similar: Pressure mounts on Mandelson. So, what of the BBC? Well, there doesn’t seem to be quite the same level of enthusiasm. Instead it opts for the fairly innocuous Mandelson met with tycoon in 2004. Even that, though is an improvement on its earlier draft which had Mandelson clarifies tycoon meetings.

Understandably, the BBC’s Nick Robinson has so far resisted the urge to blog on such a dull-sounding story. Nor has Robert Peston, despite there being an obvious business angle this time. Well, it is the weekend, after all.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THOSE BAD REPUBLICANS

By | |
48 Comments

THOSE BAD REPUBLICANS

Classic case of BBC bias in this woven report on the US election. It commences with an attack on Sarah Palin’s “alleged abuse of power” before (cue strings..) informing us that Obama’s beloved grandma may not live to election day and then segueing into the statement that McCain is “taking advantage” of Obama’s enforced absence. Aren’t those Republicans bastards?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Just Because He Always Does It

By | |
56 Comments


Just because he always does it…

doesn’t mean it’s not worth pointing out how far Justin Webb’s blog goes in ignoring the BBC’s obligations on impartiality. If the rules really do permit the Beeb’s North American Editor to suggest that Palin would be the number one choice (after McCain) to lead America for those that hate the country, what’s the point of them?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Who Controls The Present Controls The Past

By | | , ,
10 Comments

“Who controls the present controls the past ….”

Dominic Casciani has been briefed by the Home Office, or Justice Ministry, or whatever they’re called this week, on the underreporting of violent crime. Decent of him to pass the briefing on to us verbatim.

But does this serious error in one particularly crime affect all the figures? No, insist the statisticians and ministers.

What’s more, police chiefs say it’s purely a technical problem with how some forces have recorded violence, rather than how they have investigated incidents and pursued attackers.

They say that all recorded crime is still going down and overall violence in April to June 2008 was down 7% on the same period of last year.

The British Crime Survey, the authoritative rolling study of experiences rather than police records, says your chance of being a victim is at a historically low level.

You’d never know that there were any serious criticisms of the BCS, but let that pass.

It’s the regurgitation of the government spin that’s so misleading. Strange, but “history” doesn’t go back very far when it comes to BBC crime reporting. Not so for all crimes committed in the past, eh ?

For New Labour, statistics tend to start in 1997, when they gained power. A longer time perspective is rare, especially regarding crime. The claim that ‘the risk of being a victim of crime remains historically low’ relates specifically to a comparison of the British Crime Survey of 1981 with the figures for 2003 – as if the nation enjoyed a low crime rate in 1981.

I think this graph, taken from this parliamentary report, may give us more perspective than Dominic Casciani can as to whether crime is “historically low“.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Open Thread

By | |
59 Comments

General BBC-related comment thread! 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

Labels:

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Bad Racism, Good Racism

By | | , , , , ,
22 Comments

Bad Racism, Good Racism

The BBC are worried about the Bradley effect.

The theory goes that some white voters tell opinion pollsters they will vote for a black candidate – but then, in the privacy of the polling booth, put their cross against a white candidate’s name.

And the fear among some supporters is that this could happen to Barack Obama on 4 November, when the country votes for its next president.

Now if it were true, it would indeed be sad. But what’s this ?

Other polls, meanwhile, suggest that white Americans have steadily become less reluctant to vote for a black person in the last few decades.

A recent Gallup poll suggested that 9% of Americans would be more likely to vote for Mr Obama because of his race, compared with only 6% who said they would be less likely to vote for him.

Brings a whole new meaning to ‘less reluctant’, doesn’t it ?

You could use the Gallup evidence to write a BBC piece suggesting that McCain is the victim of racism. I wouldn’t wait up for it though.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Poetic justice

By | |
11 Comments

After the Beeb’s efforts to keep the Osborne story going for as long as possible, it seems fitting that the accusations of bias against it don’t seem to dying off quickly, despite the protests by both Steve Mawhinney and Nick Robinson.

The integrity of the BBC is coming under question for the way it has treated the case of the Russian billionaire and his British contacts. Hundreds of viewers are complaining of unbalanced reporting — and with good reason, begins The Sun’s leader on it today, while the Mail records that Robert Peston has been inundated with complaints over his ‘biased’ coverage of Mr Osborne’s dealings with Mr Deripaska. More than 100 viewers have accused him of ‘twisting’ facts and questioned why the corporation’s business editor should be reporting on the story.

Even the Telegraph’s chief leader writer has been prompted to comment on his blog (The BBC defends its hounding of George Osborne). He’s not convinced by Mawhinney’s explanation either:

[T]he idea of the Shadow Chancellor committing a crime is really big potatoes and would warrant the lashings of coverage devoted to it by the BBC. Just one problem. Soliciting a donation is not a crime, or a wrong-doing if it comes to that… A call to the Electoral Commission would have ascertained that. Why didn’t the BBC make that call? Perhaps they did – and that’s even more worrying.

All that, and it’s Friday, with the weekend ahead! Have a good one.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THIS WEEK.

By | |
11 Comments

Nice to see a consensus on the contributors on This Week that The Taliban are actually nice guys. Not terrorists, according to Imran Khan. This was another dreadful programme only enlivened by pop-opera diva Katherine Jenkins impressive political insights…,

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Attack as the best form of defence

By | |
35 Comments

The Beeb’s editor of political news, Steve Mawhinney, has posted on the Editor’s Blog to defend the coverage of Osborne. There has, as he puts it, been a particular accusation from some complainants [read “almost all”] that we did too much on the allegations against George Osborne and not enough on those against Lord Mandelson.

You won’t be surprised by what follows, which sticks closely to the Editors Blog template: “There have been some suggestions that the BBC [insert criticism or straw man here]. I disagree because [insert excuse here (optional)].”

What is remarkable, though, is how weak this excuse is, resting as it does on two entirely false propositions: First, that there was a specific allegation of wrongdoing – indeed possible law-breaking against Osborne. That’s not true. It was pretty clear from the get go that whatever his other failings, Osborne had not broken the law.

Also, as Casisus notes, he seems to invent an entirely new allegation – that Osborne talked about ways to secretly channel that donation to the party. At their worst the allegations never suggested this. It seems extraordinary that the Beeb’s political editor defends the corporation against accusations of over-egging the Osborne story by going further than any in doing the same thing himself. Needless to say, from the comments it doesn’t look like he’s winning many people over.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.