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.
I don’t think there’ll ever be a better time politically to pin the Beeb’s ears back. Brand and Ross have kindly highlighted some of the mindless dross that passes for entertainment output these days, particularly on the pointless niche channels. The credit crunch has highlighted the need for tax cuts.
So you cut back the Beeb’s output to just news (better supervised for impartiality), intelligent and eductional programming of the type that the commercial sector is manifestly crap at, specifically British programming (history, culture, Brit films) and solemn coverage of events of national importance which really suffer from being deluged in ads (like royal occasions, rememberence day, the cup final etc etc).
I reckon that should mean a licence fee cut to £30ish which saves pretty much every family £80 a week. Additionally you get a massive cash inflow from the privatisation which, once you’ve paid off the redundancies, could be refunded to taxpayers as a “dividend” on the profits of IP which they’ve paid to generate.
Surely that couldn’t fail to be popular?
By privatisation obviously I mean auction off all the entertainment stuff to the highest bidder. How much would Eastenders be worth? Top Gear?
Perhaps not what you expect from an objective news broadcaster, but you expect it from the BBC, don’t you?
he tried to push her on this but did not have the time.
Roland Deschain | 19.11.08 – 8:54 am | #
I find ‘…that’s all we have time for’ one of the more frustrating (especially when a worthy debate is curtailed to make way for skateboarding turtles in a ‘news’ programme) and abused methods of editorial control over the topic: ‘But it was covered… just… we cut off the debate for reasons of time. Oddly, the views ‘we’ like were trotted out first, and without any chance for rebuttal, thus making them ‘fact’.’
It’s even better if no one present has a contrary view, as with the Andrew Marr show, where host either didn’t know, or care to correct the notion that the Palin Africa continent/country story was a hoax. Hence that ‘fact’ was left hanging.
The use of in theory professional, ‘objective’ (that word again) fronts to articulate and enhance the BBC’s shameless agenda pushing by frontline staff is also gaining ground, and equally shamelessly.
I am now noting more and more folk, hauled in to ‘discuss’ an area of ‘expertise’, and somehow managing a quick point, be it a politically-motivated personal stiletto (eg: a speech analyst raising the Corfu yacht, but oddly not referring at all to the deep, rich, trusted and confident baritone of one Lord M) or broader issues such as AGM being the reason for just about everything up, down or sideways in nature these days.
The ‘balance’ at best seems to be a snigger and coy ‘well I am not sure we can say that (but glad you did for us)’.
Cockney I know there are people who would willingly pay double the current license but £110 a week! What a generous chap you are.
On behalf of the DG and every overpaid fat cat at the beeb I salute you.
Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan responsible for 95% of the worlds Heroin… How could anybody possible even contemplate the religion of peace being involved in such atrocious acts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7737271.stm
Update on comment here 10:16 am:
BBC has revised its earlier report on migration/immigration, so that now the title of the piece has been changed from:
‘UK net migration rises to 237,000’
TO:
‘UK net immigration up to 237,000’
PLUS:
questioning comment by e.g. Dominic Grieve, MP and Sir Andrew Green now added.
Apparently we’ve got to pressure the Beeb on immigration reporting to get anything like a straight story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7737134.stm
Today’s most important question on (Don’t) Have Your Say:
Is John Sergeant right to quit Strictly?
Nice to see they’ve got their finger on the pulse of what really matters.
Some interesting pieces on the Daily Mail today regarding the sackings of Jon Gaunt(called a conservative councillor a Nazi who would not employ foster parents who smoked -apologised on air-sacked) and Rod Lucas (for being a BNP member-sacked). Not in the news today, but the same station sacked James Whale a few months ago(suggested voting Conservative in Mayor election-sacked)
But they still employ George Galloway.
(Who is this Moz Dee seems to be in charge at Talksport?)
Jason and your survey above which did not cost a penny :
That was very clever, please carry out some more surveys when you have time in the future to expose the bias from their own mouth
Ron Todd 6.26am
Yes, and Peter Allen on radio 5 yesterday afternoon stated that “the cost of living has come down”, and several times said that “prices were falling”. Not sure if he was being biased or just stupid. Sure the inflation figure had fallen, but all that means is that prices are going up less quickly than they were last month. But never mind, I’m sure Labour are quite happy for such nonsense to be broadcast. I’m sure that if a mistake was made the other way then their spin doctors would be onto the programme’s producer straightaway demanding an on air correction.
Islamic* Somali piracy continued:
-Contrasting titles to two reports on Indian warship in action with Somali pirate ship:
1.)BBC report (presumably a ‘politically correct’ version) –
“India ‘sinks Somali pirate ship'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7736885.stm
2.)’Times’ report of same event:
“Indian Navy sinks pirate mothership during bold stand-off in Gulf of Aden”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5186821.ece
( * The Somali pirates are termed ‘Islamic’ here because this relates to their motivation. In the on-going hijacking of the Saudi Arabian tanker [which Mr. Paxman termed ‘a boat’ on BBC ‘Newsnight’ last night], it is very relevant to note the role of Saudi Arabian interests in financing Somali Islamic groups involved in piracy):
[Extract, from ‘Terror Finance Blog’]:
“To some extent, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states remain the most significant
source of external funds flowing to Somalia’s Al-Shabaab Al-Mujahidin and other radical
Islamist movements in the Horn of Africa through Dubai. In most cases, ‘charitable
foundations’ linked to radical Islam in Somalia, as well as a careful examination of the radical
Islamic funding, indicate a continuing flow of funds directly from official Saudi organizations
to these Horn of Africa terror organisations. For example, The World Assembly for Muslim
Youth (WAMY) and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and Somali
businesses in the Gulf States, Europe and the United States as well as Australia and New Zealand and as far as Malaysia and Singapore are active financiers of radical Islamic movements in the Horn of Africa’s financial Jihad.”
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2008/10/somali-pirates.html
Of course, the BBC should follow up this Saudi Arabia-Somalia connection. After all, it probably has more reporters in Somalia than any other single broadcasting organisation in the world. True, the ‘BBC’ confuses us as to whether the ‘BBC’ reporters are BBC licencepayer funded, or BBC World Service, or Somali Service, UK taxpayer funded.
But you’d think that ‘BBC’ reporters in Somalia with names like Mohamed Mohamed and Yusuf Garaad(whose name appear only near the end of the ‘Somali pirates’ report, above) would be able to investigate the possible funding link between Saudi Arabia and Somali Islamic jihad groups, wouldn’t you?
bodo | 19.11.08 – 2:13 pm
Sure the inflation figure had fallen, but all that means is that prices are going up less quickly than they were last month.
You are about the third or fourth commenter to say this, but is it really true?
I filled my car up with petrol yesterday and the price at the pumps was lower.
It seems many other businesses are reacting to the economic situation by reducing their prices too.
A v. pricey restaurant down the road from me, which has been more or less empty since the banking crisis started, has introduced a cheapo prix fixe menu.
I may be imagining it, but the supermarkets seem to have a lot more special offers, twofers etc.
Apart from the BBC licence fee, the trend is definitely downward.
SJ – after further research I’ll have to amend that standing order 🙂
“I have never met a Mormon I did not hugely like.” – Justin Webb.
In the tradition of “some of my best friends are black/Jewish/Chinese/Indian/gay”, the rest of Webb’s blog is the defined by the magic (invisible) word “BUT”.
The simple fact is, in a democracy, a vote is a vote. Some votes are won and some are lost. “We the people”, remember? I’m afraid some gay activism displays the ugly face of intolerance and hatred it seek to fight against.
However, like many other left wing causes, this issue will be voted on again and again until the required result is obtained, and then never voted on again. And if a vote won’t do it, a judge will!
But rather than concentrate on the ins and outs of the issue, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention once again to the SOURCES quoted by Justin Webb in his blog. Always liberal. Never – except when he is being snide – conservative.
So there is no mention of the white powder sent to Mormons as a warning; no talk about the current wave of hate speak by gays on the net against blacks who voted against gay marriage (the “N” word is used constantly); no discussion that this is being used as an anti-Romney move – after all he (along with Palin) must be stopped from being the Republican standard bearer; no pointing to Harry Reid as a leading Democratic Mormon. Why doesn’t Webb understand his job is to EXPLAIN the USA?
I can hardly wait to see the BBC description of the battle over privacy issues related to union votes about to erupt in the USA. Has the BBC even hinted that Chicago thugs might be taking over the White House? Of course, I forgot – The Emperor Obama has ascended. One of his supporters even said the other day they were looking forward to his rule…”HIS RULE”???!!!
Where are you Justin Webb?
Sure the inflation figure had fallen, but all that means is that prices are going up less quickly than they were last month.
You are about the third or fourth commenter to say this, but is it really true?
Tom | 19.11.08 – 2:30 pm
Good question.
The rate of inflation for a given month is an expression of changes in prices over the previous twelve months.
If it is now 4.2% for October, that does not mean that prices have gone up 4.2% in October, nor does it predict a 4.2% rise for the future, what it means is that this October prices are 4.2% higher than last October.
Because prices have been rising fast in recent months, a sharply falling rate does indicate that prices are actually falling.
This Bank of England guide may helP:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/targettwopointzero/inflation/whatsInflation.htm
andrew sullivan is a conservative.
mikewineliberal | 19.11.08 – 11:58 am
The Bias Must End – Wrong:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7684669.stm
No, the story you linked to was from 22nd October with Phil Woolas “predicting” disestablishment , not the new story of Lord Desai actively calling for disestablishment.
mikewineliberal:
andrew sullivan is a conservative.
No he’s NOT.
He’s a nutcase.
I missed PMQs today but I caught the 1pm BBC1 news. No mention of it so would I be right in saying that David Cameron must have landed a few home truths this week?
Unlike last week of course where the BBC couldn’t resist showing the party political points Gordon scored over Dave when questions were asked about poor Baby P.
Trying to decode Labour’s policy on Somali piracy from this BBC report:
“Miliband warns of piracy danger”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7736675.stm
So, reading between the lines, is Miliband saying more than this?:
‘I’m worried about this piracy, but the Royal Navy ships (which the Labour government is reducing in number, in its budget plans) aren’t going to be allowed to do much about it’.
it’s OK cos Labour will buy a load of ships in their “great Cash Trolley Dash” –buy now pay later
Why is it that, just like their beloved masters of New Labour, the BBC refuse point blank, to give a simple message of thanks, to our brave and wonderful soldiers, giving their lives for us all, as seen in videos LIKE THIS ONE?
‘I’m worried about this piracy, but the Royal Navy ships (which the Labour government is reducing in number, in its budget plans) aren’t going to be allowed to do much about it’.
George R | 19.11.08 – 3:02 pm | #
Oh — I’m sure under the steady hand of the PM, the Jolly Bodger…
They’ll offer the Iranian Straits of Homuz Gambit: allow our “boys and girls” to be taken hostage.
“andrew sullivan is a conservative.
No he’s NOT.
He’s a nutcase.”
as far as i can see he favours liberal economics and was brave enough to acknowledge bush’s ineptitude having first supported him. someone willing to change their mind as new evidence presents itself has my vote over a saddo ideologist willing to contort themselves into ridiculous positions to avoid admitting they were wrong…
He is a conservative, and always has been, whether you disagree with him or not. cockney’s right. I don’t agree with much sullivan writes, but I respect his ability to think freely about issues.
Andrew Sullivan IS NOT a conservative. PERIOD.
Clearly you now include people who voted for Obama as being “conservative.” You are incorrect. And you can bloviate till you are red in the face, but it doesn’t change facts.
Sullivan was a some sort of self-proclaimed Republican/Conservative of some description, at some point way back.
But he not one now, any more than the former Maggie T-groupie Arianne (Statiswotsherface) Huffington is still a “conservative.” People do leave a movement, you know.
(Oh — and George Bush is not a conservative either. Never has been one. So I fail to see what that has to do with anything.)
Andrew Sullivan is now an unhinged homosexualist obsessed with all things of the queer persuasion, who’s possibly HIV addled brain is being eaten away.
Maybe that explains his disgusting, insane and repulsive attacks on Sarah Palin and her Downs’ Syndrome’s son Trig, being but one manifestation of this total shit’s mania.
I have no idea what he is — but he is certainly NO conservative.
I’m not too sure if this has already been mentioned here, but in the now infamous Ross/Brand broadcast, the following exchange took place about our glorious PM.
Brand: “He is a gorgeous, craggy hero.”
Ross: “I like him.”
Brand: “Do you like him?”
Ross: “If I could say where I was going to vote, I would say I was voting for them – but I’m not allowed to say where I’m voting because I’m forbidden by my BBC contract.”
Now personally I have no problem with Jonathan Ross endorsing Gordon Brown. They are no doubt, a match made in heaven. But wasn’t James Whale fired for endorsing Boris Johnson? As the blog http://devilskitchen.me.uk/ explains, this is part of wider pattern, where it is deemed OK for presenters/broadcasters to express left-wing or centrist views, but not right-wing sentiments.
So Beeboids – please explain?
Come off it, you can still vote for the most left-wing candidate in America’s history, and spend a lot of time and effort – even after the election – pushing the ‘z0mg tEh sAraH pAliNz lyd aBowT hUr baBie!!1!LOL’ and still be a conservative. Really.
Arthur – Agreed. Today had a woman from a prostitute lobby group arguing just this.
The Bias Must End – Wrong:
mikewineliberal If you had bothered to read my post you might have noticed that I did not suggest that the BBC report was biased. I was merely pointing out to Roland that the Government proposal was worse than he thought
Yessirrree Bob.
That’s a direct Sullivan quote isn’t it? Makes sense, channelling the Daily Kos there methinks.
He’s so conservative. Just like Hugo Chavez.
Jack – I sense it is you who are red in the face. Nice line about HIV. Hope you’re proud of that.
Sullivan’s a classical Oakeshottian conservative. Fiscally conservative, flat tax supporting, abortion opposing, Ron Paul drooling. He even shills for Charles Murray for christ’s sake! His anti-Palin stance was pretty hysterical I agree. But he sits well within the broad church that is conservatism.
Jonathan – because Whale presented a topical affairs programme and his comments were in the teeth of an election perhaps.
A classic BBC ‘Have Your Say’:
“Are you a member of the BNP party?
Were your details published online?
Contact us using the form below. Your contact details will not be published.
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7736794.stm
I see the (D)HYS on today’s PMQs has disappeared already. I’d say that’s a record.
It figures, though. Broon was in automaton mode and didn’t give an answer to anything. The (D)HYSers somehow noticed it.
Oakshott schmokeshott.
You may want to expand the American “conservative” tent to include Obama supporters but actual American conservatives do not. Funny that.
Which is why Sullivan is now reviled by actual conservatives. Any lingering sympathy as he descends into his homosexualist madness has long since dissipated by his revolting Palin derangement.
Guess what, you’re the one talking into your hat, and out your ass.
You should try reading some actual conservative blogs across the pond, before coming out with even more embarrassing ill-informed ass-hattery.
Even the NRO treats AS with contempt. It won’t be long before the Atlantic floats him out to sea.
Hi mikewineliberal,
The Ross/Brand show was pre-recorded, so these political endorsements could have been edited out. Instead the BBC chose to include them. Fair enough – but can you cite any examples of the Tories (or even the Lib-Dems) benefiting for a similar on-air endorsement by a BBC staff member?
I wasn’t aware that “small c” conservatism was a “movement” that you can “leave”. Surely its a set of principles through which you frame your view of events (with due recourse to pragmatism and common sense).
Anything else would be idiotic wouldn’t it?
‘Telegraph’
“Sack Jonathan Ross and save the licence fee” (Neil Midgley)
[Extract]:
“Firing Ross now would put the BBC’s house in order, would draw a big black line under this latest sorry story, and would be the only worthwhile signal that the BBC really does care what appears on its airwaves. It would also cost the BBC a lot of money. But, very possibly, nowhere near as much as Thompson’s alternatives.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/19/do1914.xml
Martin J Johnstone – did you see The Fallen?
‘Telegraph’ report:
“Al-Qaeda leader racially abuses Barack Obama”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3483479/Al-Qaeda-leader-racially-abuses-Barack-Obama.html
-Perhaps the BBC will consider suspending all mention of its ‘militant’, Zawahiri for three months?
”
I filled my car up with petrol yesterday and the price at the pumps was lower.
It seems many other businesses are reacting to the economic situation by reducing their prices too.
A v. pricey restaurant down the road from me, which has been more or less empty since the banking crisis started, has introduced a cheapo prix fixe menu.
I may be imagining it, but the supermarkets seem to have a lot more special offers, twofers etc.”
This isn’t inflation coming down,the is panic selling.M&S have just started a price war by slashing 20% off its goods.
Wonderful you might say,but come January there will be blood on the high streets.We can look forward to all those new charity shops,once a year firework sellers and everything for a quid.
I can tell you for a fact that retailers are selling what they have got,they are not reordering.Importers are canceling orders,and more to the point are chary of taking orders.
So yes ,prices are coming down,retailers are hoping to get through the next six months,many of them will not.
strange how the bbc had a good laug about the BNP using the Human Rights act to to and protect their members privacy when (ho ho) they don’t actually agree with the HRA.
ha fucking ha. my aching sides.
i can’t recall al beeb pointing out that quatada, bakri, quaradawi have all reached for the yuman righs lawyers despite the contradiction in that do not believe in “man made” law, let alone the HRA.
Nice the see the second more important story in the world according to the Six o’clock news was the departure of a BBC luvvie from a BBC show (another great example of the BBC promoting itself). The story on immigration had a very brief mention after this, without any report.
Isn’t it funny that since that opinion poll came out showing the fat one eyes jock only 3 points behind, the BBC haven’t stopped talking about it?
Funny that for months and months when fatty was 20+ points behind you’d have thought opinion polls had stopped being researched.
When you’ve finished laughing I suggest the following HYS – “Should all political parties publish personal details of all their members on the internet?” I mean its only fair. Give them all an equal chance of a brick through the window or death threat. Its only fair (if you think its that funny)
Here’s something you’ll never, ever hear from the BBC:
Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008
Thanks in part to a true ally, the UK. No thanks to the BBC.
Cue the barrage of criticism and gnashing of teeth.
jimbob | 19.11.08 – 6:22 pm |
Good point.
BBC Radio Scotland covered the story about the leak of the membership list of the BNP by a sycophantic interview with some journalist from Yorkshire, whom I very much suspect was a member of some extreme Socialist party. He made derogatory statements and claims about the BNP and at no time did the interviewer interrupt him to ask what was his evidence. No one from the BNP was interviewed. What happened to the requirement for balance?
I wasn’t aware that “small c” conservatism was a “movement” that you can “leave”. Surely its a set of principles through which you frame your view of events (with due recourse to pragmatism and common sense).
Anything else would be idiotic wouldn’t it?
Quite so.
IMO any thing that is not conservative is purposefully against the wishes of the people and therefore by definition therefore not at all democratic, and also therefore potentially EXTREMELY dangerous.
I unfortunately do not consider The Conservative Party or any other so called ‘modern’ democratic political party to be conservative. The Conservative Party has long since been only an establishment tool to deflect and corrupt conservatism, not to represent it.
We all generally want the same things, whether we live in Zimbabwe, China or South London.
What we have always had in spite of apparently living in a free democratic country, is ONLY what our establishment have allowed us to have. Just as long as they still want or require us to have it.
When they do not want or require us to have virtually anything including things such as freedom, our own national or effective local democracy, free will, or prosperity. They GIVE us things such as New Labour governments for long enough, to make perfectly sure we will soon not have these things, and never will again in the future.
The next statement is not my personal opinion, but is a well documented fact of our historical life.
Socialism is an invention of the establishment, financed by the establishment, promoted by the establishment, controlled by the establishment, working 100% of the time for the establishment.
Which is why, it is not socialism that now controls the BBC, but the people who control socialism, that ALWAYS have.
IMO If the above was not the case, we would not have a BBC or indeed any socialism currently infesting ANY part of the entire planet.
However we should not waste too much time trying to work out what the world would be like without the last 100 or so years of ‘socialism’ doing its most evil worst. The effort would be almost pointless.
We could however try to imagine a world without warmongering greedy, blood thirsty pathologically power crazed despotic rulers and other types of criminally dishonest psychopaths running the ENTIRE show for the last 10 thousand or so years, would be like.
Maybe, we would still be ‘swinging in the trees,’ or maybe ‘taking holidays on Mars’ by now. WHO KNOWS?
One things for absolute certain. The establishment are never ever, not even if this/THEIR civilization lasts a billion years, going to give us the people, a fair chance of properly finding out for ourselves. Not even that soon, if the BBC have anything to do with it.
AndrewSouthLondon: Yes, I’d love to see how many beeboids are members of the Labour party, the SWP or the Communist Party.
We know how many ‘comedians’ on Radio 4 are current or former members of the SWP. Hardy, Steele, the recently deceased female (can’t remeber her name but she was occasionally quite witty) et al.