Only the BBC could run an item on Nick Campbell’s “Big Question” entitled “Has the Daily Telegraph damaged democracy”? The angle being taken is that instead of us debating climate change and terrorism (although never Islamic terrorism, of course!) the DT has steered the debate away from these important issues into “tittle-tattle”. Remarkable. Here’s a question I would like to see Nicky debate…”Has the BBC damaged democracy”
HAS THE DAILY TELEGRAPH DAMAGED DEMOCRACY?
Bookmark the permalink.
That question is so loaded it bends spacetime. Typical Aunty. I've got a question for Mr. Campbell: 'How much do we pay you, princess?' Also, 'What's with the name Nicky? What are you, a teenage girl?'
Have you ever seen a better example than this for "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?
The last thing the BBC would want is a Daily Telegraph story headlined, "Has the BBC damaged democracy", accompanied by a poll in a tit for tat response.
If one comes up, will someone please inform this blog.
I want to vote
Shhh Nicky's not happy, follow the money…
I'm with deegee on that one.
If anything hs sapped 'democracy' (in so far as it has ever existed in this country) it has been the Gramscian subversion of the absolutely unelected BBC down the years.
Maybe Nickys concerned where all this accountability shenanigans could lead, if it is expected of politicians what about our public broadcaster?
Interesting article from Rod Liddle:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article6445961.ece
"We can't make BBC salaries public
If we knew what Auntie paid, it would kill her"
GBA (not anonymous)
The BBC understands 'democracy' in the same way that it understands 'free speech' i.e. the dictionary definition of the words is redefined within their own corridors and then broadcast to the public by BBC clone presenters. Any opinion falling outside their own institutional 'understanding' is either sidelined, sneered at, ridiculed or stifled. The bias is endemic through all departments – as has been illustrated by innumerable examples on this blog.
I experienced my 'road to Damascus' moment when I happened, by chance, to be watching a BBC children's programme some 4 or 5 years ago. I think the programme was 'Blue Peter' and a film clip collection of George Bush 'gaffes' was shown. The presenter was openly sarcastic and ended the presentation with a sneering 'What a clown!'. I was shocked that a blatant piece of political propaganda should be presented on a children's programme and that children were being encouraged by their BBC 'uncle' to despise the American President.
With regard to free speech (no inverted commas), I'm neither a Sun reader nor a committed Tory but have been listening to John Gaunt's talk show for the past 2 or 3 weeks – the contrast between his understanding of the term and the ruthlessly contrived bias of, for example, Derbyshire and Campbell is breathtaking. There is more free speech and democracy in an hour of Gaunt than you'll find in a year of the Bloated Broadcasting Corporation talk show output.
alook -there is only one way we can do anything about this organisation is to get Tory politicions to say publicly that they want to see the salaries of BBC presenters who are mostly to the Labour party -christ talk about an "eye catching initiative" -or maybe the telegraph could do it?
Or both
But how??
The order has been given to preempt any discussion of BBC salaries. Campbell's attack on the Daily Telegraph is only the first salvo…but a lot of information is out there: remember this story from 1993?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bbc-helps-its-chief-to-avoid-tax-exclusive-birts-salary-paid-to-his-private-company-1475816.html
If I remember right, during John Birt's regime BBC manager's salaries rose steeply. (funny how he then joined government as an 'adviser'. Is his salary as a Blair yes man known?)
However the real scandal is the way on-air performers and their agents rip off the system. As they used to say in Hollywood, a million dollars is what you pay a star you don't want. The thing that really hurts is that these self-righteous overpaid monkeys start preaching to the rest of us about the meaning of life.
Rod Liddle is right. If the public found out how much these jerks are paid – and what they also claim in expenses – the BBC would be dead in the water. Oh, for a mole in the contracts department!
Nicky Campbell is a pathetic presenter.
The discussion itself was interesting. He spoiled it.
He sneered (really sneered) at the "morally irreproachable" Telegraph journalists, twice mentioned an "agenda" (a hare the audience didn't run with), mentioned the "moat" and the "duck-house" (and laughed far too loudly when some-one did run with the 'duck-house'), pushed the it's just "gossip" line &, of course, brought in the BNP.
We know where his heart lies.
Next Campbell discussed "Is it ever right to take the law into our own hands?"
Again, this was not uninteresting, but preening prick Campbell spoiled it by being clearly on one side of the argument.
The only sustained badgering he did was of Shaun Bailey, who was defending people's rights to defend themselves in their own homes. Nicky said he was sending a "seriously mixed message".
And the eloquent representative
of the 'Free Tony Martin' campaign was challenged, unlike the ex-burglars and ex-gang members.
The idiot introduced a former detective (who was against have-a-go-heroism), Kirk Davies, as a "former copper". As Robert S. McNamara (lol) said above, the jerk acts as if he's a teenage girl (a student even). "Copper" indeed!!
Nicky-girl brought in Texas (Bush-country) as a bad example and laughed. Then he joked with Christian Socialist Andy Flannagan, saying "Your a Christian, socialist – ticking lots of boxes here!" (followed by his own laughter).
What an irritating man!
The corrupt, overpaid scum at the BBC fighting to prevent those of us who pay their wages and expenses finding out how much we pay them.
They really are rotten to the core.
The BBC's attitude to criticism of itself, parliament and 'official' organisations like the EU and the UN shows that it still thinks in terms of these bodies having authority over the people instead of being their servants.
The BBC is dreadfully old fashioned in this respect. Despite all the soap operas and other populist rubbish it is still, deep down, a very paternalistic and authoritarian organisation.
Wheel of fortune was about his level, he's no more qualified to host a debate than a fairground shill.
The programme opened with the question 'Has the Daily Telegraph damaged democracy"?'. I doubt David Vance actually watched the programme, it would be unusual for him to do so before actually making such accusations of bias.
It might be interesting however to hear the rest of the introduction and the first question put by Nicky Campbell: "Has the Daily Telegraph damaged democracy"? Prospective Lib Dem MP Matrin Turner, we should surely applaud, he should get a knighthood the Editor of the Daily Telegraph, we should applaud them, they've done a massive service to democracy, haven't they?"
It is a traditional practice during a debate to put forward a question and then debate it. This was a perfectly reasonable subject to discuss. Rather pathetic David.