Tuned into “Today” this morning and was immediately struck by the revolving door it provided to government apologists. We had the loathsome Denis McShane being interviewed about the Corus job losses. Naturally McShane used this bully pulpit to point out how bad things had been under the Conservatives, and Ken Clark! He also endlessly emphasised that this issue is global and nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Brown. No other political opinion was sought. Then, a few minutes later, we had the abomination that is Baroness Kennedy in the spotlight discussing those “newspaper allegations” that some Labour Peers are for sale. Kennedy was also allowed to wiggle on the line and allege that the problem here lies with the lobbyists! The Labour establishment plans to kick this into the long grass and you can sense the BBC is going with this line. Again, no contrary opinion was allowed. Herein lies the issue – these are all political matters but the BBC is very keen to allow just one side – Labour – to have its say on them. This skews the entire debate and presents the listening public with a very unbalanced view.
LABOUR BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Bookmark the permalink.
It was very prescient of Kennedy to mention that the Tories had a cash for questions problem. I’m sure she hasn’t forgotten that this affair was the final nail in the Major Govt coffin.
As for McShane, I think he sounded rattled, perhaps worried about his parties 15 point drop and his own job.
He also seemed to think he was talking to children, such was his patronising and simplistic attitude.
The BBC toady as usual nodded and agreed to all their points, without any of the interruptions suffered by the Tories asked to speak on Today.
Nothing new. We see the BBC trying to kill off any bad news for McFatty One eye.
I know this is off topic but I simply wanted to share with you how hypocritically “unbiased” the BBC considers itself to be over the Hamas/Israeli conflict.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090126/tuk-bbc-defends-refusal-to-air-gaza-ad-6323e80.html
Guess their largesse only extends to dishonest sensationalism…
Classic nulabeeboid disinformation / misinformation on two fronts.
Make a big issue about how clearly they must be impartial, because they aren’t broadcasting a Gaza appeal . ( They clearly felt they had done their bit, having been the main cheerleaders for hamas for weeks!)
They manage to refrain from mentioning that of the lords approached, only the nulab ones were on the take. Then generally muddy the whole picture by bringing up the issue of the HOL reforms only being half complete. blah, blah
David – Didn’t hear either of these interviews, so can’t comment,. But did you hear Humphries give the chap from UNWRA a hard time on the DEC issue; about 7:15 I think.
Mikewineliberal,
I did and fair play to him. I think he made UNWRA look like the shills for Hamas that they so patently are.
Re: Lords scandal….
Why haven’t we heard from the BBC’s chief political correspondant, Nick Robinson?
Contrast with the Oleg Deripaska or the Derek Conway affair? On both occassions Mr. Robinson was all over TV screens like a rash. Now he’s nowhere to be seen. Just a thought – has anyone reported him missing? I mean he hasn’t even written a blog entry about the Lords scandal.
David Vance | Homepage | 26.01.09 – 10:07 am | #
Quite possibly.
Sue picks up on this on another thread.
The Oleg Deripaska was different – it was a strange case where almost all of the media fell for Mandelson’s trickery, and jumped on an easy story (ie. Tory toff on yacht at time of economic crisis, look at how corrupt these old boy tories are). The BBC were far from alone in their lame approach to the story. it wasn’t bias – it was pathetic reporting. mandelson flogged them a story, they bought it without questioning it.
its the p**s poor standard of journalism that worries me about that affair, not any hint of pro-labour bias.
I’ve been beaten by it, I can’t do it on a Monday morning – it gets me too angry.
There was a film on yesterday called Good Night & Good Luck about McCarthy era American censorship and the similarities were scary.
Prescription from Dr Strangelove: avoid Toaday until Wednesday at earlies.
Is Brillo the best they have because he’s a Newsman? A hack, a guy to report the news not analyse it? To present the facts.
Perhaps senior presenters should have terms of office. I don’t think they’re corrupt but more esconced in the world of expense accts, routine, indolence and conceit that they know the actors involved.
If it takes 2 years to get good at a job, 3 to be brilliant and 4 to be coasting – what does 7 make or 10? Where’s the incentive?
Jonathan RE: missing Nick Robinson, I am sure i just saw him in a track suit down our local Tesco’s, If i was him he looked very glum, must be all the bad news that the LIEbour party are having at the moment.
Of course different media organizations have different philosophies about what’s news.
Here’s how the openly left-wing Independent trumpets the big news story of the day on its front page in full living colour:
The Conservative Party lead over Labour at the opinion polls has rocketed from five to 15 points in one month, with voters turning against Gordon Brown as the recession bites.
The ComRes survey for The Independent puts the Tories on 43 per cent (up four points on last month), Labour on 28 per cent (down six), the Liberal Democrats on 16 per cent (unchanged) and other parties on 13 per cent (up two). The research shows Labour at its lowest standing since September
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-lose-faith-in-bailouts-and-vat-cut-1515727.html
Here’s how the supposedly impartial BBC reports the same piece of news, smuggling it in at the end of an article about something else, and with no graphics:
A ComRes opinion poll for the Independent suggests the Conservatives have increased their lead over Labour to 15 points – from five points last month.
It puts the party on 43%, with Labour on 28% and the Liberal Democrats on 16%. ComRes telephoned 1,012 adults from 21 to 22 January.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7850649.stm
It’s as if they don’t really want us to notice.
Tom | 26.01.09 – 12:41 pm
have you noticed they only throw in the bit about “the survey is based on face to face interviews with two old ladies and a cat” when they want to rubbish the findings.
In this case, they have a problem – ComRes is the BBC’s own pollster… though the BBC makes it play by its own rules:
For the Daily Politics polls have one fundamental difference compared with the standard ComRes voting intention surveys – there’s no effort to ensure a politically balanced sample which almost inevitably means that its skewed towards Labour supporters.
In every single ComRes voting intention poll since they introduced past vote weighting the influence of Labour supporters has had to be scaled back when working out the final figures – yet the BBC allows its political surveys on matters a significant current political interest to be carried out without this adjustment
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/10/
Tom | 26.01.09 – 12:41 pm | #
I don’t see what the difference is, other than spin. And that’s because the Indie (whose poll it was; ie they paid for it) has an interest in getting as much as they can from it!
You have inadvertently rather counteracted the criticism that the BBC only publicises those polls of value to the Government.
PS – does anyone know if the Sunday Times approached other Peers as part of its story about the four peers? Genuine question.
mwl: as I posted several times yesterday, three Conservative peers and one LibDem refused the ST’s advances.
mikewineliberal | 26.01.09 – 1:09 pm
I don’t see what the difference is, other than spin.
Quite.
Mild top spin, in the case of the Indy.
Heavy back spin from the BBC.
GCooper | 26.01.09 – 1:14 pm |
thanks.
To be fair to Today the lobbyist they chose to use, Hugh Colver, worked for Mrs T and Lord Tebbit when they were in government and also for a time for the Conservative Party. Mind you, he’s led a very sheltered life or he’s got premature Alzheimer’s: Colver could not recall one incident in his entire career where anyone considered offering a politician (let alone, a politician accepting) a bribe. Obviously in ColverWorld there’s no fuzzy area where payment for “advice” and payment for “services rendered or to be rendered” . . er . . overlap.
OTOH Today, in selecting Colver and Kennedy to interview was being its ingenuous self. We had Kennedy – the Labour rentagob – more or less defending corrupt activites or these alleged corrupt activities anyway (“if you’re in office this kind of thing is bound to crop up – look at the Conservatives etc etc”) and Colver who was brought in, presumably, as the impartial “expert” on the relationship between those who attempt to influence legislators and the legislators themselves. Although Today can point to Colver’s Conservative associations if challenged, it’s the usual assymetric dog fight/discussion where – surprise surprise – Labour has an out-and-out attack hound and everybody else is represented by a chihuahua which can yap occasionally but actually has very little germane to say (or is allowed to say).
Furthermore, despite Kennedy fighting her corner more or less unchallenged, because this corruption issue is a big embarrassment for Labour the session was allowed to be sidetracked into a discussion on Lords reform. Predictably, at this point Colver had nothing to contribute and Kennedy suddenly turned into a disinterested academic and a simon-pure democrat.
it wasn’t bias – it was pathetic reporting. mandelson flogged them a story, they bought it without questioning it.
Sorry, that’s bias, however desperately this latest beeboid tries to shill for the BBC. Buying a story from this proven liar IS bias.
Gus Haynes:
“The Oleg Deripaska was different – it was a strange case where almost all of the media fell for Mandelson’s trickery, and jumped on an easy story.”
Yes, but who led the pack? It was the BBC and Nick Robinson in particular who pushed the story up the news agenda. And only days after he had purposely (by his own admision) ignored / downplayed a similar story about Lord Mandelson.
Fast forward to today. Where’s Robinson? I would say AWOL – but I’m sure his abscence and the lack of any probing questions, is just what his employers at the New labour (surely BBC – ed) want.
‘The loathsome Denis McShane …’
Steady on, David. Denis Mcshane is one of Israel’s few staunch and outspoken friends in the House of Commons – at considerable personal cost.
He and other members of the All Party Select Committee on Anti-semitism produced a sterling report this time last year for which they were rewarded with hate mail and abuse from the Jew haters in our midst. I don’t like Labour politics either, but I think ‘loathsome’ is a little harsh ….
Fran | 26.01.09 – 3:51 pm
But it was the BBC that made McShane McShane:
He was born as Denis Matyjaszek, to an Irish mother and her Polish husband who had fought in the Second World War and remained in exile after it. He was educated at St Benedict’s School in Ealing and read history at Merton College, Oxford. After graduating from Oxford with a 3rd class degree, he completed a PhD in international economics at the University of London, he worked for the BBC from 1969 to 1977. He changed his surname to his mother’s maiden name at the request of his employers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_MacShane
He was born Jeremy Arafat to a welsh mother and a Palestinian father. Educated at Cardiff High School, University College London (BA History) and the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC.
He joined the BBC in 1984. He changed his surname to his mother’s maiden name at the request of his employers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bowen
i reckon we stop paying the bloody tv license, thatll teach them for thier socialist propagand and pro muslim brainwashing
Radio 5 live’s Peter Allen is on holiday. Sounds like he’s gone somewhere hot and sunny. By plane I assume? So this is the man that preached to us about climate change then buggers off on a plane for a holiday.
Hmm. So just who is going ot have to stop flying to stop climate change then BBC?
Sky suggesting that the Lords for cash scandal is as big as the Tory cash for honours.
Meanwhile at the BBC………. tumbleweed.
Jonathan | 26.01.09 – 10:38 am |
Why haven’t we heard from the BBC’s chief political correspondant, Nick Robinson?
Robinson hasn’t posted anything since the day of the Obamessiah Coronation. He wrote about how bits of the speech had “uncanny echoes of Gordon Brown’s attacks on the ‘age of irresponsibility'”, and announced that he’ll be watching to see which Party leader tried to ride the Obamessiah wave.
I have to admit it was nice to see him show a little healthy skepticism towards Brown once again.
But he must have been so overwhelmed by the world finally being freed from tyranny that he needed some time off to recover. Has he even been on air since then? Maybe he’ll be back on Wednesday to interpret PMQs to the public.
David Preiser:
If the NYT ran an expose suggesting that four Democrat members of the U.S Senate had taken cash for legislation. Do you think Chuck Todd would go AWOL from MSNBC?
David: What I’m trying to ask – is this proof that the BBC is even more biased than MSNBC?
Actually, having watched some of MSNBC’s election coverage, I know the answer. But at least you don’t have to pay for MSNBC…
Although admittedly not an issue of BBC bias, I was appalled to read similarly in the Sunday Times that 339 BBC managers are on salaries exceeding £100,000. Considering the shocking standard of much of the BBC’s output, the clear ineptitude shown by management during “Woss-gate” and the difficulties many face in paying the exorbitant licence fee in a recession, cuts seem the only rational answer.
“it wasn’t bias – it was pathetic reporting. mandelson flogged them a story, they bought it without questioning it.”
Yes it isn’t as if Mandelson was a noted spin doctor for the Labour party.That he was booted out of government for being economical with the truth wouldn’t even enter the head of a BBC reporter.Even the fact that Mandelson was in the Labour party probably didn’t register,after all ,isn’t everybody ?
What an utter disgrace Nick ‘the prick’ Robinson was on the 6PM news.
Not a single mention of ‘Labour sleaze’.
Instead we got a full on attempt by Robinson to defend the 4 Peers. “We need to hear the unedited tape” claims Robinson. Why? You’ve seen the papers story.
I don’t remember the BBC waiting before putting the boot into Caroline Spelman.
So allegedly taking cash to change the law is within the rules is it? But Neil Hamilton got done for simply being paid to ask questions.
No attempt by Robinson to point out that people one see Labour as MORE sleazy than John Major’s Government. In fact you’d have had a hard job knowing they were from the Labour party.
Not a single Labour MP interviewed to ask about how this looks bad for McFatty One Eye.
ITV were scathing of the Labour Peers as was Sky.
Luckily the Peers have the BBC on their side so all is well.
Newsinght big story. DID CAROLINE SPELMAN BUY NAPPIES ON EXPENSES. MICHAEL PRICK INVESTIGATES!
“Mr Brown received some support for his attempts to brighten the gloom as Barclays Bank shares soared 60% after its chairman and chief executive wrote an open letter to investors saying its profits would be above £5.3bn. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7850649.stm
What? Isn’t it strange how the BBC puts Brown in a paragraph about some success even when he had nothing to do with it.
“Losing our jobs made us happier ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7826979.stm
There you go – and the thousands losing their jobs from Corus are moaning, can’t they see the benefits of being made redundant.
Martin:
You wrote:
“So allegedly taking cash to change the law is within the rules is it? But Neil Hamilton got done for simply being paid to ask questions.”
In my opinion Neil Hamilton was neither offered, nor did he accept any payment(s) for asking parliamentary questions. Jonathan Boyd Hunt has done a very thorough exposé of the whole affair and entirely exonerates Neil Hamilton of any wrong-doing. Take a look at Jonathan’s website at
http://www.guardianlies.com/
Regarding the current (alleged) “Labour Party sleaze” case, Lady Royall said, “We don’t have trial by media in this country.”
Really? Come off it. That was precisely what was done to Neil Hamilton.
Anonymous
‘But it was the BBC that made McShane McShane:’
And your point is …… ?
Jonathan | 26.01.09 – 5:35 pm |
If the NYT ran an expose suggesting that four Democrat members of the U.S Senate had taken cash for legislation. Do you think Chuck Todd would go AWOL from MSNBC?
I was only joking. As must you be about the NYT running an expose about Democrat Senators like that. In any event, Nick Robinson seems to be back and in good health, according to martin.
David: What I’m trying to ask – is this proof that the BBC is even more biased than MSNBC?
Actually, having watched some of MSNBC’s election coverage, I know the answer. But at least you don’t have to pay for MSNBC…
Not only do I not have to pay for MSNBC unless I buy the products or services of their advertisers, but they’re not my official state broadcaster, trusted by millions for generations, with a Charter and Agreement to violate.
All day this website has been full of posts about the BBC not making a big deal of the Labour peers, or the mysterious disappearance of Nick Robinson. Or how Spellman was first on the news whereas the Beeb are burying Labour sleaze.
And so, the 10pm news – whats the top story? Yes, the Labour Lords. And who lead the report? Yes, Nick Robinson. Did he or Rita Chakribarti (sic?) try to downplay it? No. Did they try and defend the lords, like many here claim? No.
Funny how these cases of supposed bias are ripped to shreds so easily.
Gus
I know you are trying to defend the indefensible, but just bear in mind this blog is so popular because the BBC is seen to be on the whole a biased, unbalanced and left wing organisation.
If you were to look through the BBCs record since 1997 and particularly under Dyke and his Labour buddies, you would find thousands of subjective and sub standard journalism.
A few good examples of objectivity don’t make up for the overall poor quality of what is supposed to be a national treasure.
Gus Haynes: Utter utter utter garbage. The BBC have been playing down this story by trying to make out that this is an issue about House of Lords reform and not dodgy dealings by grubby Labour politicians. I don’t even remember Prick Robinson mentioning the Lib Dems contacting the police either tonight. Did I miss that?
Compare the coverage of the BBC to ITV, C4 and Sky. The BBC have still been bigging up the “they’ve done nothing wrong” line.
Of course not. I must just have heard my imagination on the news tonight then?
Sometimes ‘Gus’ you and MWL just don’t get it do you? We’ve had idiot beeboids come on here before and try to defend the BBC at every point.
The mouthwash isn’t working Gus.
Gus Haynes | 26.01.09 – 10:28 pm
If you like the BBC that much and don’t ever see any bias in their reporting, well thats fine – you pay for it, why should I subsidise your viewing.
“they’ve done nothing wrong” technically Martin they haven’t – it has to be proven. In the BBCs case Labour are innocent until proven guilty – in other cases (ie Conservatives) its the other way around.
yes I don’t think Gus gets it.
Even if the BBC was the best broadcasting service in the world and I agreed with every one of it’s sage sayings, I still should be able to choose whether I want to pay for it or not!!
It’s called choice an the free market –which is the world which most of the other broadcasters operate in.
I agree
More arrant nonsense from Gus Haynes, who clings to the BBC’s revised version, after it has woken-up to the fact that its initial attempt to bury the story has failed.
Instead of trumpeting what the BBC is saying now let’s get back to the original complaint – that the early BBC versions of the story (as proved by Newssniffer, of which we must conclude Mr Haynes had never heard) sought to obliterate the main element, that it is ZaNuLabour’s pretend peers whose fingers are alleged to have been in the till?
36 hours later, the BBC bows to the inevitable and the BBC’s shills try to pretend it didn’t start out lying its corporate head off. As usual.
Sorry if mentioned elsewhere… but somewhere someone mentioned Mr. Crick, who is indeed on the case…
Spelman Decision Soon?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/01/spelman_decision_soon.html
Such speculation might indeed be news of sorts, but it does seem to represent an odd focus bearing in mind all else that’s going on in the vicinity.
It seems to form part of an odd ‘balance’ loop with this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/01/monday_26_january_2009.html
Peter | Homepage | 27.01.09 – 6:04 am | #
How very odd.
It seems to have vanished from the Newsnight Blog: at least as the latest/top story I saw earlier.
And the Web Team link now redirects to another, not very relevant older one.
Unless I was seeing things it must be a gremlin.
Or… if anyone who might know how this sniffer thing works, they might be able to figure out how it came… and went.
As to why… can’t imagine.
Peter | Homepage | 27.01.09 – 8:52 am | #
Also, oddly, it doesn’t seem to ‘exist’ on his own blog currently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/
(I have done a page capture or two just in case I was/am ‘seeing things’ and these all ‘vanish’, too)
It is there now.