The Sundays bring another round of analysis of the story the Beeb would rather forget – Manuelgate. The Telegraph has two that are interesting: the story that the Tories are considering cutting its funding by £200 million – at least a step in the right direction; and this piece by Bruce Anderson, which makes entertaining reading.
One depressing aspect of it, though, is that he points out that the problem of bias has long been recognised, just never tackled:
When he was in charge, John Birt identified the problem. Many BBC employees socialised only with those who shared their views. They never met anyone who thought that Ronald Reagan was a good president.
He also encapsulates well the argument that may be keeping the Conservatives quiet:
[S]ome Tories see an electoral argument for caution, at least for the time being. The BBC is already hostile. How much more damage would it try to do if it decided that there was nothing to lose?
It seems to me, though, that many at the Beeb have already reached that conclusion.
The Beeb’s favourite paper, the Mail, though, has a more damaging piece, which may shock those relying on text messages to Radio One as a scientific sampling of youth attitudes: An overwhelming 71 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds believe it was unacceptable for Brand and Ross to leave sexually explicit messages for Mr Sachs and 82 per cent of them think it was wrong for Brand to say that Mr Sachs was ‘thinking about killing himself’, it reports. It also finds support for the license fee is lowest among this demographic.
Wow, the Tories are going to cut the Beeb’s allowance? It’ll be interesting to see if their treatment of Conservatives becomes even more rabid than usual in the run up to the next election.
It’ll also be interesting to see if the portly Scottish Cyclops voices the exact opposite intention in the hopes of ingratiating himself to an organization which, let’s face it, is his only hope for reelection.
Did I say “re”election? Whoops.
Well, I consider a poll in the Mail ‘proving’ what the Mail wants is about as much use as a poll in the BBC ‘proving’ what the BBC wants.
However, I look forward, with dread, to the rather desperate ‘supporters’ of Freedom of Speech (so long as it’s the speech we agree with) still using the yoof stat over and over a lot more yet.
I guess no one has imagined that when all the trendy 25-35-year old journos go clubbin’ and no one in the group sees what the fuss is about, it’s just 11-18 year olds who have managed to dodge the bouncers and are least only killing ’emselves with Bacardi Breezers rather than each other using kitchen knives (it’s OK Home Secretary, they didn’t get them from DIY shops so the box remains ticked).
No too sure where the male/female relationship thing is heading mind… ‘Oi, burleseque dancer chick! The way you dress suggests you are gaggin’ for it, and my mates in the BBC and Guardian chatterati endorse my notion that I can act like a boor as a consequence… and get off scot free by calling it a ‘prank”
“Running Away: Andrew SACHS” (15 min audio)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00f671m
Even the Labour MP, Geoffrey Robinson-owned, ‘New Statesman’:
“Should the BBC sack Jonathan Ross?
73% are saying yes
27% are saying no ”
http://www.newstatesman.com/polls/1243
Thompson and the rest of the BBC are still in denial.
“We take the business of not offending the public very seriously but we have duties of creativity as well,” he said.
What was creative about what Brand and Ross did? If it wasn’t creative, what is the relevance of this shite you’re spouting?
Mark Thompson says the BBC acted “quickly” following the row over lewd calls
As I said, in complete denial. The fucker didn’t even come back off his holiday for near a week after the event.
But it won’t stop the BBC going out onto the streets and get voxpops of ‘da youf vote’ to back up scum like Toss and Bland.
When the BBC is being severely criticised, it easy for the BBC DG to get a 15 minute PR soundbite with sole interviewer ‘Andy’ Marr, on the BBC’s own broadcasting organisation.
Without saying how much he gets paid (£800,000 plus a year) Thompson does say: ‘I should get paid less’. Surely that can be arranged.
Thompson, on whether he had been slow to respond: ‘It felt like a pretty active week to me’. It would do, by BBC standards, what with all the packing to leave his holiday in Sicily. And where was/is Deputy DG Byford (£500,000 plus £50,000 bonus)? On holiday too.
And if the pressure in not kept up on the BBC, nothing will change. Already, Thompson has decided to have Ross back, and return of Radio 2’s Douglas sounds likely.
Of course, ‘Andy’ did not raise the thorny issue of BBC political bias with DG Thompson. Thompson made a two-second pass with ‘BBC journalism – stronger than it’s ever been’. More politically biased than it’s ever been he means.
For those with access, it’s at 30mins-45 mins here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4230000/newsid_4236700/4236728.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
How can they both be on holiday. Is that true or just speculation?
The BBC will say whatever they need to say to make the public think they will change their ways.
But the BBC can’t change unless you replace the staff and get rid of the liberals that not just run it but work in it.
I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
In the past I’ve had to pay £1.40 a minute to listen to such sexually explicit calls on answer machines.
At the BBCs rate of £140 a year, listening to such calls only costs me 0.00266362 pence a minute.
Now THAT’S value for money!
Adam: 12:38 pm
‘Evening Standard’, Londoner’s Diary:
‘BBC’s Byford goes Awol too while flak flies’
[Extract]:
“WHERE was BBC Deputy Director General Mark Byford during the current crisis engulfing the BBC? As the public became increasingly outraged at the obscene answerphone messages Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand left for Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs, the BBC’s Director General, Mark Thompson, was on holiday in Sicily.
“As his deputy, you might think Byford would step up to the mark and take charge of the crisis. But he was nowhere to be seen. So can we assume he was on holiday, too? A BBC spokesman informs me that during Thompson’s absence, Chief Operating Officer Caroline Thomson was in charge. But what is Byford paid for if not to deputise for the boss when he’s away?
“‘Caroline Thomson is a very experienced executive and she does take charge at various periods throughout the year,’ says the BBC. ‘This is not an irregular occurrence.’
“Last year, Byford received an annual bonus of £41,000 on top of his £459,000 salary. He is also chair of the BBC’s Journalism Board, with overall responsibility for providing extensive news and current affairs services across radio and television for the UK and worldwide. As an overseer of the BBC’s journalistic output, Byford has not curbed some of the Beeb’s outspoken minions, such as blogging business editor Robert Peston and Palinbashing-North America editor Justin Webb. Now he has been noticeably silent on Sachsgate.
“There are grumbles from BBC employees that Byford has a knack of dodging tricky situations. At the time of the Hutton report Byford was still deputy DG – and directly in the firing line – but managed to emerge job intact.”
http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2008/10/bbcs-byford-goe.html
‘News of the World’ on BBC’s Deputy DG Byford:
‘Mr quiet pulls £513k’
“LITTLE-KNOWN Deputy Director General MARK BYFORD was last night in the spotlight over his massive £513,000 pay packet.
“For the 50-year-old executive is still under fire for a lack of quick action following the Russell Brand phone scandal. With his boss Mark Thompson in Sicily, many expected Mr Byford to step in as the crisis grew.
“But Byford remained nowhere to be seen, and the Beeb later confirmed that during the top man’s absence Chief Operating Officer CAROLINE THOMSON (£440,000 a year) was in charge.
“It’s led many to question what No 2 Byford is paid for if he’s not deputising for his boss. And it’s not the first silence from him over a breaking controversy. Just three weeks after being appointed in 2004 his boss Greg Dyke resigned following the controversial Hutton Report. Colleagues were shocked he failed to speak out in defence of Dyke and behind-the- scenes accusations flew that he was keeping quiet in a bid to secure the top job.”
For long list of some top BBC salaries:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/58998/BBCs-pound14m-fat-cats-scandal-50-BBC-executives-paid-more-than-PM.html
George, i plan to raise that with Mr Redwood if i get a chance.
Its not clear whether he was also on holiday but if he was i cannot think of anything more inditing.
The BBC wouldnt be nearly as bad if they just copied what Fox News does and have people with opposing views with their own shows on the air.
Imagine that, Al Beeb allowing both sides of a coin to be discussed!
Mailman
The BBC is on its way out. It’s going to be interesting to see just how it ends. Death by a thousand cuts probably, many of them self-inflicted.
And the move to Salford and the regions is one of those cuts.
It’s licenCe fee 😉
Mailman: I’m still waiting for the BBC Trust to get back to me on this matter. If you put a complaint into the BBC about political bias, you get a standard reply that basically says the BBC ensures balance across its networks, or words to that effect.
However, the issue I’ve taken up with the BBC Trust is how do they measure balance? It’s fine saying it, but if they don’t collect quantative evidence (such as say the numbers of Guardian journalists compared to those from the Dail Mail that get airtime) how can they even attempt to claim balance?
Same applies to airtime for political parties. Vince Cable is NEVER off the BBC, they even admit (in my most recent complaint) that he’s being used for his ‘professional view’.
Don’t they have a City full of economic experts then to call on?
The BBC is just full of lies and shit.
Pete: The only cut I want ot see on the BBC is one across its thoat and let it bleed out slowly in a halal way. Very appropriate way for the BBC to go.
Lets look at the options:
1. Tories to reduce bbc budget by £200 million – chickenfeed as the budget should be 60% of the current £3 to 4 billion.
bbc needs downsizing or rightsizing – Radio 1 to go commercial and offloaded, Radio 2 and 4 to be one unit. Unfortunately radio 3 is a victim of 20 years of poor UK education so could stay for now.
TV? I do not watch so leave it to the experts.
2. Byford is a twin of our less than courageous Stalinist “leader”, in that he disappears when the going gets tough, so he should be got rid of immediately.
3. £14 million on 50 bureaucrats salaries needs considerable cutting, as well as the need to remove the Mandy effect from HRM where sacked or resigned managers re-appear within a very short time. This is also copied from our politicians.
4 Last, but not least, identify and address the bountiful bbc bonus schemes based on non-achievement that our politicians are so envious about, and the gold-plated pensions that they both share.
On the Woss front – Thompson has the same poor decision making abilities as our dear leader Broon. Allowing Woss off with 3-months without pay only feeds into the lawyer’s hands since the punishment is now made, and the only way you can now get rid of him is to make a substantial out of court payment – like £8 to 10 million.
Who said there was a recession? – With decision-makers like Broon and Thompson the UK is in a death spiral.
BBC TV can simply go to a subscription based service. If the BBC thinks people love it they will all sign up to their £14 a month for Eastenders and other crap.
I for one WON’T
The dhimmi BBC uncritically reports Brown’s dhimmitude on his current visit to the Gulf States.
In Saudi Arabia, he is happy to meet Muslims who have been al Qaeda activists:
“PM visits Saudi ‘terror centre'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7704968.stm
Brown does not understand how Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of Islamic jihadism- not least in the person of Saudi, Bin Laden. Brown does not appreciate this:
‘A Second Look at the Saudis’
“Part 4. The Tangled Web
“Looking over the reports from major media outlets, international watchdog groups, and
government officials and agencies laid out in Parts 1 through 3, a disturbing picture emerges. Al
Qaeda appears to represent the business end of an essentially grassroots ideological movement
emanating from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the role played by the Saudi
government, it is clear that the people of Saudi Arabia have attacked the United States again and
again, and have now murdered American citizens by the thousands. Yet in order to assess how
best to defend ourselves against that threat, it is also necessary to determine the culpability of the
Saudi government.
On one level, it should already be apparent that the Saudi government bears direct
responsibility for the rise of Al Qaeda. They have ultimate control over the Kingdom’s basic
social institutions, such as the education system and mass media, which they have ceded to the
extremist Wahhabi religious authorities. Moreover, they have pumped billions in petrodollars
into the effort to spread Wahhabi Islam throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, it’s important to
remember that the Saudi royals are themselves the product of the very same education system.
And at times, Wahhabi enmity for the West has made itself known even amongst the most senior
members of the Saudi royal family.”
Click to access asecondlookatthesaudis-thetangledweb.pdf
And Brown is taken in by the sham ‘rehabilitation’ of Saudis jihadists returned from Guantanamo:
“Trusting the Saudis”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/11755
Martin says ‘BBC TV can simply go to a subscription based service. If the BBC thinks people love it they will all sign up to their £14 a month for Eastenders and other crap.’
The incredible thing about the BBC is that it argues it is because everyone who has a TV is forced to pay them which makes it possible for the BBC to produce high quality TV like Eastenders, Dale Winton’s Hole in the Wall and Ross’s chat show complete with masturbatory jokes about ex-PMs!
The BBC will continue to rally for the licence fee as long as they have their snouts in the public trough. The only way they can be persuaded to change will be if we insert a finger into our anuses and twirl them around in a gentle undulating manner.
Actually, I’m not sure if that WILL persuade the BBC to change, but I’m doing it anyway.
You told me you liked that!!
is it right for the DG (800grand plus) to earn so much less than hired hands like Ross? Top BBC executives are even worse paid only 5oo plus grand.
How can they look bankers in the eye let alone hedge fund managers.
Give them the money. You know they deserve it.
Cut out the Crap.
Let the bias BBC stand on it’s own without any taxpayers money. Then we will see how good it is.
We are abused by foul language by overpaid morons. How about Channel FO where they can all use the F word to their hearts content without decent people having to listen or more importantly pay for it.