The BBC and the Government are constantly on the look out for good news about the economy, while bad news is given the heave ho. For the BBC, this is big news, this, not so much. Then you have fatuous features like this one.
My point is that it doesn’t do any good to demean journalism for political purposes. Gordon Brown doesn’t do himself any good pretending that his actions aren’t dictated by his need to avoid responsibility for past mistakes. He’ll be far better off when he follows Susan to the Priory. The BBC does no good pretending that the crash isn’t a crash but merely a hiccup in domestic demand which is being overcome pronto. It’ll be far better off when it’s being looked after by someone who understands the media in society, like Simon Cowell. Denial is the way to turn a crisis into a greek drama.
Hmm. Contrary to the implications by ed, the BBC does seem to have covered the pressure that falling oil prices have made, not just on the FTSE but on financial markets worldwide.
And again, contrary to his suggestions, the current Economy section front is hardly full of optimistic reading: Asian markets continue big falls, Europe bank chief warns on debt, Jobs threat… production drops sharply… record slump…
It's not the first time Biased BBC has used highly selective linking to individual stories in an attempt to fabricate evidence for their own take on the world. And it won't be the last, I'm sure.
Scott- "not just on the FTSE but on financial markets worldwide."
That's half the trouble with BBC coverage right there, negatives are due to global factors, positives down to domestic policy or domestically driven. Negatives therefore are generalised, less prominent for the UK viewer, positives are specific, locally relevant and highlighted for the UK viewer. The same song has been played by Brown all the long.
You are the one pushing a narrative, since you never address the issues which lie at the base of coverage and balance. I did not imply that the BBC hadn't covered it (it's impossible to know as the BBC has no meaningful searchability), merely my impression that it had covered it less. It's an argument about accentuation which you think you refute by tit-for-tat linking and merely show that you underestimate and fail properly to understand the problem with the BBC.
"and merely show that you underestimate and fail properly to understand the problem with the BBC."
If by "understand properly", you mean "blindly agree with you", then you're right, I don't.
I fail to see how you can speak with authority on what constitutes "the base of coverage and balance" when you don't seem capable of applying the same principles to your own writing.
I don't try to apply such a notional principle of coverage and balance (which the BBC, not I, claims for itself) when writing on this blog- it's simply not relevant for a blog called "Biased BBC" which doesn't attempt global cover and operates from the safe and logically dmeonstrable assumption that a state-funded broadcaster is not going to keep undertakings to be balanced. It can't, by its very foundation.
I do consider from time to time saying something nice about the BBC, but usually find on reflection that the BBC doesn't deserve it and any commendation would be misconstrued by blinkered BBC sycophants like yourself as a sign of weakness to be exploited.
The FTSE report you quote attributes the drop in the index to a market correction on international oil and mineral companies, which has very little to do with Brown's handling of the UK economy.
Mortgage lending has a far greater relevance to the UK economy itself, and is likely to be of more direct intrest to most readers or viewers.
Your "impression that it had covered it (FTSE fluctuations) less" might win plaudits here, a highly self-selecting group of BBC haters, but hardly carries any authority elsewhere.
Anonymous (or Scott, until that can be cleared up), mortgage lending is a technical measure to be set alongside other measures. Even the BBC point that out in their article about it. However, it is nonetheless highlighted when there could be many other stories to give a more balanced perspective. If the UK market were sure of the UK's position- for example if the Government hadn't mired the country in historic debt that has intimidated investors, perhaps the UK market would have stayed robust in its rebound. London and the UK have tactical advantages and cards to play in order to take a leading role. The uncertainty of the market is a key signal that the so-called "green shoots" are being frosted out.
The public interest point here is that false expectations are more damaging for the UK than real modest ones- however, politically, false expectations are more easily managed and manipulated.
But all of Scott's (and anonymous's) points fail to mention the third link above, the one which I consider cements the analysis that the BBC is promoting "good news". That story, lingering over modest optimism in one area of the South, is what gives an idea of the tone I am criticising.
Scot,the fact you seem to have missed is the links you put up have to be sought out by interested parties !,where as the 'good stories'are put out actively by the full range of tv and radio.
Yes I noticed that Radio 5 were leading with the mortgage lending story then slipped in that lending was at its lowest for about 8 years.
But the BBC, under the benevolent guidance of Robert Peston, has been talking about how Mr. Brown's plan of "quantitative easing was going to "get the banks lending again". He kept hammering at that until the Narrative moved on to greener pastures.
In April, it was "too early to tell" (government policy talking point can be found here, helpfully related by the BBC).
It's certainly obvious that it's not working, so the BBC follows the Government's lead and goes back to pointing the finger elsewhere.
Bad things "started in America". Good things are the result of Our Gordon.
That'll be £140 from each of you, please.
"Anonymous (or Scott, until that can be cleared up), "
Yeah, yeah – if more than one person disagrees with you, they *must* actually be the same person.
I can only repeat – as I have done numerous times before – I have never posted anonymously on this site.
Neither have I
Scott- it was simply surprising how a person with the same tone and argument and omission came along instantly to join our little to and fro earlier, having the effect of doubling your voice. In an examination, one might suspect cheating… in this case I am sure just coincidence 😉