When the BBC claim impartiality, it follows that they claim to be a timeless, apolitical entity reflective of truth. I couldn’t help thinking about that when I looked at the BBC website this morning and saw the lead stories on the World and UK webpages. On the former, France and Italy were being taken to task for falling off the Bono Africa charity bandwagon. On the latter, a young woman accused of child indecency was being paraded before the public eye.
It seems to me this is activist journalism and trial by media. I don’t know why a person simply accused of a crime is pictured, named, aged and specified in this way by our national broadcaster. I do not think it would have happened in the past. As for Bono’s media bonanza, the BBC loves to talk about aid but it is less keen to scrutinize trade, especially of agricultural produce. Protectionism is rife in Europe, and not absent in the US. “Naming and shaming” “guilty” aid reneging countries is in my view just a circus of smug sentiment. How about scrutinising the manifest inefficiencies and incapabilities of our bureaucratic EU in spreading and growing wealth?
The EU is the most anti free trade organisation around.
BBC radio 5 live spinning for McTwat. "The recession is over" claims Nicki Campbell the Queen of breakfast radio, a man who can mince for Scotland.
Tell that to the millions unemployed or who have lost their homes.
The BBC does not believe in trade. Aid recipients are suitably dependant and beholden to their "betters", a class which in this context comprises politicians, civil "servants" and "opinion formers" (ie the media, especially state media, unsullied by commercial considerations). People working and earning can take pride in their self sufficiency and even accrue wealth. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a rod & line and you (just about) feed him for life; but for God's sake don't give him the right to fish in quantity or to sell what he catches or he might stop being poor"
The point of aid is not to help the poor or disadvantaged (trade does that much better) but to allow the donor to feel good about themselves. If poverty could be eliminated the above groups would be bereft because they could neither display their virtue nor patronise groups they see as their inferiors.
MarkE 9:31
If the BBC espoused free trade, it would have to expain why the principle should not apply to the broadcasting media !
Re: "trial by media"
I watch a fair bit of French TV news and what strikes me is the absence of the "cult of the presenter" we have here. When someone is interviewed in the news in France you often don't see the presenter, you see the person questioned, who gets 100% attention to his answer, without being interrupted or debated with by the presenter.
In a crime case, they interview the defendants lawyer, then move to the prosecution lawyer. No presenter ego "look at me" malarky. Its a show of professional balance by State-run organisations which are similarly funded.
So the Bollox-BBC we get is nothing inevitable from its business model – we get the result of years of a cabal of leftists recruiting in their own image.
Bono is a multi-millionaire, drives a Maserati Quatreporte and flies in his own private jet.
He wants ME to give money? (I earn 20k)
HE wants ME to drive a smaller car? (I drive a fifteen year old Nissan Micra)
He wants ME to fly less? (I fly once a year, tops)
Bono also has a four-storey beachfront villa in the south of France. However he's earned it. No one has to buy U2 albums or go to this concerts. Good luck to that side of him
All his personal wealth however wont make a jot of difference to Africa's 900m population. Which is why he trys to use his fame to "shame" governments to spend MY taxes on Africa. In that respect he's just a street charity-mugger, and should be treated with the same respect – quickly cross the road and say "We already gave"
A superb article, as ever, from Mark Steyn:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/23/what-bono-says-and-what-he-does/
I suppose it has too much to do with the cult of celebrity. Bono wrote a few half decent songs that people wanted to buy and he made money from it. Fine and congratulations (although I think he lost it after Joshua tree others have kept buying).
Quite how that qualifies him to advise the world on economics or to lecture the rest of us on AGW though, beats the living Ratners out of me. Outside of music (and maybe inside music, per my above comment) his opinion is worth no more than mine. In my own feld of expertise it is probably worth less, but I think I know which will get greater publicity.
Word verification arehalo – since we are discussin Bono did someone miss an "S"?
Andrew 9:42
I know it sounds a little esoteric, but , in Africa, I have watched TV channels from Senegal, Gambia and Mauritius. No " cult of the presenter" at all, and , in the case of Senegal and Mauritius they have channels vastly superior to the BBC.
In fact even Gambia TV is better, in some respects, although very biased towards the President. Oh, what am I saying ? The BBC is not biased towards Brown ? ! At least Gambia TV have an excuse for not saying anything bad about the President. What is the BBC's excuse for supporting Brown ?
Free trade is OK if you don`t mind hanging around the job centre..How can British manufactures ever compete with those tin shack factories in China that have none of that expensive employment legislation and pay their workers with a hand full of rice?
Still not to worry as long as the Government just keeps printing money and mug investors keep buying Government debt gilt's then we can all continue the false economy good life.
I saw lots of proper factories in China in January, lots of gleaming office blocks, lots of relatively prosperous Chinese, lots of good clothes and lots of cars. Lots of motorways, super and cheap air services – and there are already over 200 million people using mobile phones.
We better lose the myth of starving Chinese factory workers if we are to compete. China is a civilisation older than ours, and as it starts to lose the Communist shackles it has become an awesome economic force.
Complacency on our part would be stupid. Starting with our broken education system. More and more Chinese kids are better educated than our kids – and many speak good English, the language of international commerce.
F***ing Bono – how much worse is this self-important channeller of flatulence going to get?
Retire, you desperate, dessicated old c***, retire!
You have nothing to say and increasingly fewer people to say it to!
I was amazed to read the BBC report on the woman charged with sexual assault particularly given the depth of detail. Name, city of residence, age, employer's address and business name and a clear photograph of her and another of tearful parents.
The article brushes against several BBC Editorial Guidelines.
Privacy
The BBC must not infringe privacy without good reason. In order to exercise our rights of freedom of expression and information, we must work within a framework which respects an individual's privacy and treats them fairly, while investigating and establishing matters which it is in the public interest to reveal.
Crime editorial principles
* We will seek to balance the public interest in freedom of expression with respect for a victim's privacy and dignity when reporting crime. Assuming the victims are the children, had the BBC come closer to identifying them it would have had to provide names and phone numbers.
Paedophiles & other sex offenders
The BBC will normally only consider publishing the names or pictures of paedophiles or sex offenders who have served their sentences and been released from prison where the police have made these details public. That is, giving full details is OK with an accused sex offender but not a convicted one.
Automatic restrictions apply to:
* reports of preliminary/committal proceedings in magistrates' courts in England. We can only report certain very basic details. This is a magistrate's court offence. it should be noted that the BBC does not name or identify in anything more than the most vague terms the man appearing in Trafford Magistrate's Court charged with possessing and distributing indecent images.
In Youth Court proceedings, there is an automatic ban on anything which might lead to the identification of a witness, defendant or other party in those proceedings who is under eighteen.
The restrictions include:
* the naming of schools and of addresses
I am not sure whether the BBC has offended the letter of its own guidelines but it seems clear it has offended the spirit.
On the other hand the BBC may have caused irreparable damage to the reputation of Miss George, in the event she is found not guilty.
Perhaps had the (innocent until proven guilty) young woman been named Yasmin al-Haq instead of Vanessa George the BBC would have been more reticent.
You are forgetting, deegee, that anyone accused of sexual misdemeanour (usually men) loses any right to anonymity as soon as the accusation is made. Just ask John Leslie.
Ed, isn't it normal when people are charged with sensational crimes that they're reported in this manner, BBC or elsewhere?
AndrewsouthLondon 9:42 AM, June 11, 2009
Spot on! Same here in Spain. I get the distinct impression that broadcast journalists here know that if they're as rude and preening as our journalists they'd get sacked. And a good job too. I once heard a Spanish radio satire piece on BBC journalists that consisted of the interviewee not being able to get a word in edgeways. The Spanish used to have great admiration for the civil way we conducted public debate, now they think we're a boorish, ignorant laughing stock. And we are!
As Andrew from south of the river says French TV is much less presenter orientated.
It's also markedly less 'éthnic' for a country with as many immigrants as the UK. BFM, the newschannel, has one very french sounding presenter with a North African name & that's about it. The reporters tend to be all white although I have spotted a pretty black girl on occasions.
I can't imagine what French listeners would make of that presenter on Radio 4 that sound's like he's shouting from the bottom of a bottle. Just switch stations I'd hazard.
Coming back closer to the topic in the post, french TV reports just as much on third world problems as the BBC. Maybe with a naturally francosphere slant because France has overseas Departments. Bit like having Barbados as a county. But they're much more inclined to be critical. You don't seem to get that breathless, look they're black/brown/yellow/polkadot aren't they wonderful just for existing tone intruding.
Stuck-record: Yep. just like Emma Thompson doesn't want airport expansions yet just after her spouting bollocks live on TV about Heathrow she was off to America to see her luvvie friends in Hollywood.
The rich left liberals don't intend to change their ways. They want the proles to be the ones who give up their flying or driving big cars.
I hardly ever fly, I hate it. None the less I don't see why I should be restricted or have to pay more just because some Hollywood twat says so.
The Slippery Slope:
It all began with John Birt. When he was the Director General the new vogue in BBC journalism became to "explain" the news, not simply report it. Two departments – news and current affairs – were merged. Editorialising in the news was now OK.
Here we are years later – and editorialising has become advocacy. The BBC now has a point of view (seen by everyone except the BBC). It goes from Obama adoration to Bono support. From fostering gay rights to hating Israel. This is not the job of a News Organisation…but there are not many of those left.
Perhaps the dangers of this style of coverage can best be seen by the practice of John Birt, when he was at Weekend World, writing the script BEFORE finding his interviewees. I asked a WW researcher once, "But what if the interviewee doesn't say what's in the script?". Her reply: "We'll just find someone who does."
And when John Birt introduced his "mission to explain" he was a card carrying member of the Labour Party right through his tenure. I couldn't help but believe at the time that his "mission to explain" was intended to institutionalise left-wing bias. The results speak for themselves. Margarat Thatcher thought his free market reforms at LWT made him 'one of us'. Unfortunately we have all discovered he was following the the Chinese Communist model of capitalism.
John Bosworth,
Well said.
comment above el mio
AndrewSouthLondon
I don't think these "celebrities" like Bono have earned their money . It is an affront to human decency that these "whores and comic turns" (as they used to be known) are able to amass such riches .
I , for one , am glad that their profiteering business model is collapsing .
Hippiepooter- One point I made was that I don't think it used to be normal to report so much about a person accused, rather than convicted, of a crime. The BBC play their part in changing the culture in which we live- they can set an example, or they can drive the herd mentality. Basically they're the only one we endorse by our cash whether we like them or not.
TYO
AFAIAC Bono can make as much money as he is able, and I would listen to him (were I interested) on how to make money from crap and the inner workings of the pop music business. What I resent is that, purely as a result of his celebrity, he has the ear of those who have the power to tax me and spend my money in the belief that some of Bono's popularity will rub off on them.
The BBC, which similarly has the power to tax and spend, also believes that some of Bono's popularity will rub off on it. Worse, the BBC's effective sponsorship of Bono cuts out better – or different – musicians and music and (much worse) gives credence to Bono's naive political beliefs and nostrums which happen to mirror those of his fans in the BBC.
Umbongo
You are correct on every level there .
It just sticks in my craw that those with so little merit , indeed those who debase our culture and society , are able to gain such wealth , power and influence .
That's as near to socialism as I'm getting , though .
Just too many great posts above to comment on ! Thank goodness there are some people who can see through the whole charade and I am not alone !!
Another BBC ruse of how to report politics in a biased way is apparent here:
"Brown defends bringing Malik back"
('Politics' page.)
In this BBC, pro-Labour report today, reference is made to the 'Daily Telegraph' criticisms yesterday, of Labour MP, and now Minister again, Shahid Malik.
The BBC reference to yesterday's 'Telegraph' are politically filtered through the BBC's support for Malik and Brown.
So, for the record, BBC, the 'Telegraph' article is here:
"Gordon Brown accused of expenses 'cover-up' over Shahid Malik's return to Government."
[Extract]:
"Gordon Brown has been accused of suppressing a report of an investigation into whether the minister Shahid Malik broke the rules over parliamentary expenses, despite a promise to bring in a new era of transparency in politics."
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, 'Telegraph'
10 Jun 2009.
And, more recently, from the 'Guardian' today:
"Shahid Malik admits claiming expenses for two offices."
[Extract}:
"Recently reinstated minister claimed more than £6,500 for second office on ground floor of constituency home."
Joanna Lumley's celebrity can be used to advocate for a political issue, but not Boner's? Granted, Lumley doesn't lead a hypocritical lifestyle like he does, but still….
The real problem here is that every time we find out that yet another African kleptocrat has stolen and wasted our cash, and the NGOs we fund have just shifted the starving masses around to a different refugee camp where they breed more of them far away from any means to sustain themselves, the friggin' celeb is never held to account. Yet the media still goes along with the game, and the BBC is always happy to use your license fee to help them advocate the next time one of them advocates for more cash to be poured down the hole.
If Bono really wanted to know why children are starving in Africa he is only one click away –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
Here you will discover why there are so many starving children in Africa. You would think someone of Bonio's intelligence might lead him to conclude its not the lack of aid, its the problem of men who can't keep it in their trousers for thirty minutes. Though a song "Zip it up, Umbongo, we already have enough mouths to feed" does't sound terribly "right on". Better accuse western leaders have failed in their duty to fund african's dysfunctional lifestyle.
One can tell that the BBC is not reporting on the BNP here:
BBC ('Middle East' page):
"Ahmadinejad courts a divided Iran"
[Extract]:
"It is a scene I have witnessed time and again. Mr Ahmadinejad, man of the people, with time for everyone.
"For the outside world, it is the fiery rhetoric that everyone hears.
"Mr Ahmadinejad's condemnation of the United States and Israel, his questioning of the Holocaust, and his championing of Iran's nuclear programme.
"Time and again those issues come up as Mr Ahmadinejad works the crowd – a true populist in action."
(BBC's Jon Leyne.)
David Prieser
Just because I happen to agree with Joanna Lumley concerning Gurkhas doesn't mean I consider her involvement should be a cause of celebration and a recommendation for celebrity involvement in politics. It's symptomatic of a society where it is increasingly put about through the MSM that if a celebrity – any celebrity – has a view on an issue, then that view must be given serious consideration rather than have the issue in question considered on its own merits.
As it happens, Joanna Lumley is just as much a political idiot as Bono. Witness her backing for the Greens in the EU elections. She is stupid, yes, but admittedly very easy on the eye.
Umbongo – I agree with everything you said. The cult of personality is dangerous – it is a danger to democracy. Policies which affect many people should be debated in parliament and not in a BBC studio by celebrities and if these policies are not in the public interest then the public can vote them out at an election.
All these so-called campaign groups love it when a misguided "celebrity" takes on their case – the celebrity gains by getting themselves all over the press and back in the limelight and the pressure group gets what it wants without ever having to put their "policies" to an electorate.
That is why it is very dangerous.
Nick Griffin is an odious person – but he has been elected. Joanna Lumley is a very nice looking woman who has been elected by no one. So whose voice should carry more weight. To the BBC the latter – to democrats the former.
Umbongo,
No argument from me.
Surely the distinction is that Jo Lumley had a deeply personal, and quite selfless, reason for supporting the Gurkhas, and it was a clear cut cause where all decent people would agree with her that the government position was a disgrace, whereas Bono's motive is purely self-promotion and self-guilt assuagement.
That is Jo's motives are clean, Bono's are dirty.
Labour's Brown, and BBC have to backtrack on their support for Labour MP/Minister, Malik:
'Telegraph (today)-
"Shahid Malik failed to tell whole truth on expenses."
[Extract]:
"Shahid Malik failed to disclose information about his use of Parliamentary expenses to the official inquiry that cleared him of breaking ministerial rules over his rental arrangements."
The BBC now moves away from its headline of yesterday:
"Brown defends bringing Malik back"
to new BBC backtrack version –
"Watchdog to probe Malik complaint"*
* Memo to BBC: rewrite needed; that euphemistic headline should at least read –
"Watchdog to probe complaints against Malik"
(BBC 'politics' page.)
Labour's Brown, and BBC have to backtrack on their support for Labour MP/Minister, Malik:
'Telegraph (today)-
"Shahid Malik failed to tell whole truth on expenses."
[Extract]:
"Shahid Malik failed to disclose information about his use of Parliamentary expenses to the official inquiry that cleared him of breaking ministerial rules over his rental arrangements."
The BBC now moves away from its headline of yesterday:
"Brown defends bringing Malik back"
to new BBC backtrack version –
"Watchdog to probe Malik complaint"*
* Memo to BBC: rewrite needed; that euphemistic headline should at least read –
"Watchdog to probe complaints against Malik"
(BBC 'politics' page.)
Labour's Brown, and BBC have to backtrack on their support for Labour MP/Minister, Malik:
'Telegraph (today)-
"Shahid Malik failed to tell whole truth on expenses."
[Extract]:
"Shahid Malik failed to disclose information about his use of Parliamentary expenses to the official inquiry that cleared him of breaking ministerial rules over his rental arrangements."
The BBC now moves away from its headline of yesterday:
"Brown defends bringing Malik back"
to new BBC backtrack version –
"Watchdog to probe Malik complaint"*
* Memo to BBC: rewrite needed; that euphemistic headline should at least read –
"Watchdog to probe complaints against Malik"
(BBC 'politics' page.)
Labour's Brown, and BBC have to backtrack on their support for Labour MP/Minister, Malik:
'Telegraph (today)-
"Shahid Malik failed to tell whole truth on expenses."
[Extract]:
"Shahid Malik failed to disclose information about his use of Parliamentary expenses to the official inquiry that cleared him of breaking ministerial rules over his rental arrangements."
The BBC now moves away from its headline of yesterday:
"Brown defends bringing Malik back"
to new BBC backtrack version –
"Watchdog to probe Malik complaint"*
* Memo to BBC: rewrite needed; that euphemistic headline should at least read –
"Watchdog to probe complaints against Malik"
(BBC 'politics' page.)
Labour's Brown, and BBC have to backtrack on their support for Labour MP/Minister, Malik:
'Telegraph (today)-
"Shahid Malik failed to tell whole truth on expenses."
[Extract]:
"Shahid Malik failed to disclose information about his use of Parliamentary expenses to the official inquiry that cleared him of breaking ministerial rules over his rental arrangements."
The BBC now moves away from its headline of yesterday:
"Brown defends bringing Malik back"
to new BBC backtrack version –
"Watchdog to probe Malik complaint"*
* Memo to BBC: rewrite needed; that euphemistic headline should at least read –
"Watchdog to probe complaints against Malik"
(BBC 'politics' page.)
Grant,
A fair point about Lumley.