OPEN THREAD… By David Vance | September 28, 2009 - 9:10 pm |September 28, 2009 open thread Monday and a new open thread for you folks….! Take aim, and fire!! Click through to read and contribute comments on this post. Bookmark the permalink.
“BBC raps host for lesbian joke after one complaint”
-but for Christianity…
BBC New £150k pa Arts Editor Has Never Reported or Presented TV and Needs 3 Months Training
As you’ll read in the story, at the BBC it’s not what you know, it’s who you know. Especially if the money to pay for this top post comes out of the public purse, and does not have to be earned. Not only does the one who got this position have no jounalistic experience, he doesn’t even come close to the educational qualifications that the BBC advertised for.
“As you’ll read in the story, at the BBC it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”
…if, of course, you believe the Daily Mail, which has been completely devoid of patronage, favouritism and complete impartiality towards BBC appointments. Which, frankly, is as likely as David Vance allowing honest dissension in the new commenting system, which allows him to delete any posts that point out his dishonesty without him ever having to even acknowledge their existence. And if you believe he hasn’t done that, then quite frankly you deserve to be called stupid.
Do you really want the figurehead of Biased BBC to be a person who’s so afraid of dissension that he quietly deletes it and pretends it doesn’t exist? Do you not think that his actions harm the whole site’s reputation? If you want the BBC to be as impartial and unbiased as possible, do you not think that Biased BBC needs to demonstrate the same balance and tolerance that you wish in others? If so, rise up and force David Vance to hold himself to the same standard he claims to desire from others. Otherwise, admit that you’re happy for him to be a blatant hypocrite.
PS: David – if you delete this message as well, I have a screengrab. Everybody will know how you censor opinions that point out your own hypocrisy.
After reading Scott M’s post, I found my self shaking my head as if to clear it and wondering if he was on drugs.
No, “teddy”, I’m not on drugs. I am, however frustrated by David Vance’s increasingly inconsistent attitude to commenting. Upon my questioning of his apparent inability to be fair and equitable, he has apparently decided to delete any comment I make that suggests he is anything but the completely fair and upstanding he apprently believes himself to be.
Of course, that didn’t stop him actually <a href=”http://biasedbbc.tv/2009/09/just-waiting-for-end-of-world.html”>countering any claims</a> while simultaneously deleting them.
In the words of his famous female, I would suggest that his actions indicate that he is “frit”.
Scott no one cares what a little leftie turd like you thinks
Your ad hom attacks on DV are irritating,childish and just wasting our time, we are not interested in your petty vendetta against DV in the slightest.
If you have a point about BBC bias then make it BAM if you disagree with a poster then tell us why but please spare us the rants against someone you obviously dislke soley on his political beliefs.
You dont like DVs politics? so what! I may not like yours but that doesnt mean we cannot explore the issues together without resorting to attacks on each others character does it?
DV has every right to bin posts he finds beyond the pale, its happened to me and others before, it doesnt mean he is out to ‘get’ us.
I enjoy reading your posts when you stick to the issues and I hope you realise that is the way to influence people on this blog.
Scott M since you appear not to have understood my observation, I’ll explain it to you. Your response that connected to my post was this: …if, of course, you believe the Daily Mail, which has been completely devoid of patronage, favouritism and complete impartiality towards BBC appointments.
The Daily Mail printed facts regarding this BBC appointment. If they weren’t facts they would be sued for libel, and all the rest of the papers would be running a story about that. So the fact that this guy that has been hired for £150k per year to a post where he has no previous experience or even educational qualifications required in the ad run by the BBC IS JUST THAT – FACT!
That’s what should concern you. You prefer to dismiss it believing it’s a tissue of lies, and you wonder why most here think you are on drugs.
‘Brainwashing’ is not really apt for what is involved – ‘Braindirtying’ would fit better!
Crikey! Looks like the lefties are passing the drugs around to all their followers.
I agree the BBC are far too sensitive when it comes to sexuality, it’s horribly PC
But the christians don’t have a case just because they dislike something, criticising religion is not the same ball game as sexual stereotyping (ie calling someone gay…) – if anything they should be criticising more, and should be treating islam just the same – I think the soft aprroach they give to Islam is actually the valid area of complaint
The problem isnt religion being criticised because as we all know that happens already. The problem is homo’s cant be criticised because it might hurt someones feelings.
Surely, if Al Beeb is going to apply one standard to christianity…then it must apply that very same standard to homo’s.
Of course, in reality we know that will never happen because of the PC straight jacket al beeb has willingly put on. That and the fact that christianity is way down the list for importance.
Christians are rightly complaining about the BBC’s double standards; the BBC gives Christianity a relatively negative treatment, compared with the BBC treatment given to Muslims, and in this case, to lesbians. Christianity is an easy target for the BBC.
Yes absolutely…look at the way the BBC sneers at songs of praise, or the other religious talk show on BBC1 on a sunday morning (I forget the name). What about all the priests/vicars who are guests on R4? Oh yes, really negative treatment alright.
Compared to all those Islamic shows on BBC such as…..oh, yeah, there aren;t any.
you think the two are comparable?
criticising someone’s sexuality is akin to racism or sexism (although I think this case was over-zealous) – it shouldn’t be broadcast, criticising a belief system is perfecly valid – as long as it not personal, I agree muslims are given an easy time, and I dislike that, but I do not believe lesbians or other homosexuals have any relevance to this case
I think the BBC need to be stronger in exposing islam, like in a certain ‘Dispatches’ documentary – weakness is their problem, we all get to criticise christianity because it’s ‘ours’, we know it well, islam is foreign and to an extent we’re scared of cries of racism and intolerance – the establishment need a backbone
But as for the christian line that ‘if lesbianism can’t be criticised, neither can we’ – I find it foolish and lacking in weight, it’s apples and oranges
Absolute bollocks. Taking the p1ss out of someones sexuality IS NOT the same as racism simply because being a homo or a lesbo isnt a race!
However, you do have a very small point, you should be able to take the p1ss out of anyone as long as its not malicious, irrespecitve of their religion or sexuality or what not.
Your point Bob can also be used against you. Criticising someones religion is akin to racism or sexism, it shouldnt be broadcast. However right now, this only applies to Islam whereas for Christianity its open season.
Surely the standard should be “if I wont do it to Islam then I wont do it to Christianity”.
Quite simple really.
A matter of interpretation, I also said sexism and sexuality – sexuality is usually regarded as more than just a choice nowadays and is covered by the relevant legislation, religion is a belief system
I personally agree with you – I’m all for comedy taking the piss out of everything, but under current laws this is how it is, as long as religious criticism isn’t personal (as I said) then it’s fine
Personally I’ll do it to Islam and christianity
you seem to have missed the point.
This site is not ment to be unbiased. It is run by and for individuals who have a common grievance. This is not some court of law or arbitration service it is a forum of likeminded people (and a few trolls)
I do not fund this site I do not have to pay forthis site. Someone does that because they feel it fulfills an important counterbalancing roll.
Unfortunately I am compelled by law to pay for the vile nest of lefties neocoms and ecofascists.
My alternative is to live life in some self imposed tvless bubble.
Because I pay I feel that the service I recieve should be broadly fair and balanced. It is not and if you dont think so you’ve never lived in the real world.
The BBC are all about looking after minorities. Well the Tories are on of the biggest minorities in the UK> I’m not even one of them but feel the oppression/suppression of the views of 40% of the nation is a crime.
The beeb is doing you and the members of your community a disservice by making you some sacred cows who cannot be wrong ever or challenged. The blind worship of the gay and lesbian community is putting back years of hard work equality campaigners have striven for. It is making the majority start to resent gays not because of who they are or what they do but how we get their rights rammed down our throats so much.
Enough already. Can lesbians not take a joke. Some of Britains best comedians enjoy a bit of saphic lovin now and then.
Open house on the godbotherers but the carpet munchers need to be treated with kid gloves.
B+llocks. Comedy is about exploring taboos about saying the unspeakable and pricking pomposity.
Now the sisterhood are part of the topsy turvy establishment and they epect the same reverence the queen usd to get. Ironic really
‘This site is not ment to be unbiased’
Hence, why this site will fail to gain credibility in the real world. In order to poke the finger at bias, one must be unbiased in their approach. Attacking bias from an equally biased point of view, just on the other end of the spectrum, is insanity, and an incredible irony that a lot of people here don’t seem to get.
FFPS – In order to poke the finger at bias, one must be unbiased in their approach. Attacking bias from an equally biased point of view, just on the other end of the spectrum, is insanity, and an incredible irony that a lot of people here don’t seem to get.
I think the irony is truly lost on YOU – what a joke.
Hint: Pot, Kettle?
religion in the mind of beleivers is core to their identity and in some cases iforms and influences every aspect of their daily lives.
Sexuality is basically about where you want to put your willy or in whom. Important life defining yes but a race no.
Why should how someone gets off be held above how someone believes.
Discrimination alienation and prejudice against gays or lesbians is abhorrent but so is constantly belittling someones belief system.
because people are entitled to their beliefs – either for or against something, and are entitled to air those opinions – the article was about ‘Jerry Springer: the opera’ – somebody’s take on christianity (partially), were somebody sat in a studio calling a particular christian an idiot for his beliefs then we may have a case, what we have here is somebody disliking someoone else disagreeing with what they believe – it may be personal or important to someone, but so could eastenders for all we know
I admit the issue is somehwat murky – clearly religious types think they are above criticism, and that’s an issue for society – but I personally do not agree with the idea that all religion should be respected – you can’t have free speech without offending people, and if we do follow your line then I must logically conclude that religion be removed in its entirety from broadcasting, so as to avoid offence from the non-believers who will be denied a voice
On this site being biased, I have said this before and I’ll say it again – it can be as biased as it wants, it can support israel or whatever, nobody wants it to be an impartial news broadcaster. but it claims to be showing bbc bias – if it’s going to be biased in doing that then it has no case
e.g. there are two very pro-tory articles, and one very pro-labour article – this site then only notes the labour one and accuses it of labour bias – this is clearly not a valid claim, the site may do as it wishes and attack the beeb, but if it’s going to allege bias (to demonstrate that it is breaking its charter) then that should be held up to scrutiny
Finding bias should in fact be like a trial – the evidence should be properly weighed up, if it is not then how can it show bias? If this site wishes to be anti-BBC then it should be just that, it has an agenda, fine – but you can’t show bias with bias
re: earlier post
just randomly found this excellent piece in the times – it’s about islam, but same principle applies to paddy’s christian argument
Oliver Kamm: “The idea that people’s beliefs, merely by being deeply held, merit respect is grotesque. A constitutional society upholds freedom of speech and thought: it has no interest in its citizens’ feelings.”
Labour, BBC, Religion, Homosexuality and Free Speech:
“Bishops fighty for right to criticise homosexual lifestyle”
Interesting – but what’s labour’s attacks on free speech got to do with the BBC, they were the one’s broadcasting the ‘offences’ in the first place
According to the BBC, “exit Europe” and “repatriation” are elements of “hate speech”.How Kafkaesque.
The BBC have suddenly announced that Brown is the recipient of hate mail. The letter was sent to him in April, so why the five month delay? I suspect that the sympethy vote is bieng enacted to benifit browns conferance speech, BBC helping its masters yet again.
A letter… in April?
Where are the other 59,999,999?
Stuck in the sorting office?
Ain’t a single solitary shadow of a doubt that powerful elements within the BBC are deeply prejudiced against Christianity. I have seen examples myself that have taken my breath away. No time now to elucidate, perhaps later. Justin Webb was one of the worst offenders.
The latest piece of “Orwell speak by the beeboids” just read and have a laugh. The economy didn’t contract by as much as expected, oh and a mention that our competitors are out of recession.
Only in the world of the BBC could bad news be tarted up as good news, the headline says it all.
Martin, how on earth is that Orwellian? The economy didn’t contract as much as expected…that is a fact, not opinion. I’m not sure what else you would expect them to say? Same for the mention that Germany, Japan etc are exiting recession – what is wrong with that?
Because WE are still going into recession you tool where as everyone else is coming out of recession.
FFPS “that is a fact, not opinion”
Nobody predicted the contraction of the economy within the Govts echelons full stop. Please show me one link of a quote by anyone from within the treasury prior to last year predicting economic contraction. While the economy WAS contracting GB was still announcing record growth forecasts.
Its inherent in the Keynesian mindset and wrongly so, that the Govt has ANY real control over the economy. Hence predictions are “facts” and not merely sophisticated guesses.
Yeah…youve missed the boat on this one. I know the govt. never predicted the shrinking of the economy in the first place, everyone knows that. We’re talking about the BBC here, not what the govt get wrong (we don’t have enough time for that). Stop trying to change the subject like people do when they’ve been caught out. Martin claimed that the BBC are hyping up the story, and called it orwellian, which it clearly isn’t. Economists, ministers, experts, people in the media have all been saying for a while that the economy will keep on contracting until either later this year or next year. Hence, why todays figures were slightly better than expected. Hence the story. Hence my point, highlighting how pointless Martin’s point was. Do you follow yet?
Incidentally, this is a classic B-BBC trick you’re trying. First, theres a post about bias. Then, someone points out inconsistencies in the report, ie. highlights how its not realy bias. Then, thirdly, you pop up and change the subject into ‘but labour are crap/lefties are nuts’ type of thing. Yes we know Labour are hopeless, we don’t need a distraction to tell us that.
You really are a tool, no drugs today?
The fact is that the UK economy has slowed by 0.1% from the predicted 0.7% to 0.6%. This data was originally revised from the predicted 0.8% approximately a month ago.
This means that the UK economy is still mired in recession is still contracting and is actually down 5.5% of GDP from last year.
The very fact that this story is “sold” from the BBC as a good news story vis-a-vis Martins original post, shows the lack of objectivity and impartiality of the BBC’s reporting. The fact that this data is made public today, just in time for Alistair Darling to go before the Labour conference and predict that this means that the economy is about to start growing, tells you all you need to know about the relationship between the Govt and beeb.
I repeat again for the slowing in learning – the FACT is that the UK has contracted by 0.6%. That someone said the contraction would be 0.7%, is not a fact in of itself, other than the “fact” that someone said it. It was a prediction, a guess and so it was meaningless.
The only tangible fact is that the economy has shrunk 5.5% of GDP since last year, and 0.6% on the second qtr this year.
Hence thats the story. Nothing good about it. The prediction is only thrown in there so “someone”, like yourself, can sell it as good news.
Got it now?
Who can argue against those facts?
Those who try are just exposing their true pro regime/pro BBC bias beliefs, if the BBC were honest they would be reporting the facts as you have laid them down.
The point is that the BBC has not yet reported the state of the UK economy in full, the BBC has not yet brought all the actual figures together side by side with government predictions as they did with the Tory governments.
How different it is now, cherry picked figures to support a ‘greenshoots’ narrative, the wholesale hiding of the complete economic outlook and the highlighting of a narrow vision of reality.
When was the last time the BBC mentioned the GDP fall along side all the other figures to give a complete picture? In fact they have not yet done this, they prefer to show tiny bits of data at a time.
Why is the BBC being so coy about the state of the economy and why is the BBC less than keen to show all the figures so a direct comparison can be made between government claims and actual reality?
The BBC report about the 0.1% improvement on its own proves nothing whatsoever about the true state of the economy, this tiny diference is nearer to the statistical margin of error than it is to showing a sign of recovery, what is the margin of error in this isolated set of figures?
In fact 0.1% cannot really be measured with any accuracy due to the nature of the mechanics of the way the figures are computed.
GDP figures are calculated from a variety of sources and extrapolations of raw data have to be made, the figures are whats known as an educated guess and with such a guess comes a margin of error, the BBC does not state the margin of error because if it did the figures would actually show no improvement whatsover.
The government has a vested interest in releasing figures which show an improvement ANY improvement, its the job of the BBC to show the figures and their meaning in the greater context of the wider economy that cuts through any government spin, the BBC however seem to show immense sympathy with the government.
You have to admit that peddling a 0.1% difference on a statistical calculation as some kind of solid pointer to recovery is a little sad and desperate isnt it?
The government must be pretty desperate to try and promote such a tiny percentage point and the BBC must be either very trusting to believe this figure OR they are in on the act!
All the news that suits. The BBC bigs up a small positive revision to 2nd qtr GDP
“UK contraction less than thought
The rate of contraction of the UK economy in the second quarter is reduced, adding to suggestions of a tentative recovery.”
but fail to mention a similar negative adjustment to 1st qtr GDP & totally ignore today’s other economic data release, so getting the info from The Times –
The ONS also revealed that there had been a sharp widening in the UK current account deficit, which means Britain’s imports of goods and services is greater than its exports.
The second quarter current account balance showed a deficit of £11.4 billion, far deeper than consensus forecasts for a deficit of £7.8 billion, and a sharp widening in the £4.1 billion shortfall in the first quarter of the year.
this bodes ill for the Govt/BOE policy of weakening the currency.
A single indicator on its own means nothing, the way GDP is calculated means that there is a margin of error about which the BBC is silent.
A 0.1% = a tenth of a percent, how on earth can a variable calculation of differing inputs using statistical methods come up with a 0.1% figure with any certainty? moreover how can the BBC portray this tiny revision as an indicator of economic recovery when the margin of error must be at least equal to the given figure?
Why does the BBC insist on airing this isolated figure without airing its known uncertainty?
The viewer is led to believe that this recalculation of a calculation based on variable inputs and extrapolations of a wide range of figures is a concrete economic indicator, it simply isnt.
Does the BBC expect the average viewer to know how GDP is calculated? Does the BBC realise that the mechanics of GDP calculation is not an exact science in any sense, just a very general and arguably flawed general indicator of economic activity over the longer term? Over a full fiscal cycle GDP can give some insight into the general state of an economy but its a mistake to take take GDP calculations and revise them just over one quarter and it smacks of sheer desperation, it smacks of a government so desperate for any good news, the slightest good news whether real or a statistical margin of error can be peddled as an indicator of recovery.
We could expect the government to clutch at straws in its moment of need, the BBC however has a duty to look beyond the petty needs of a desperate regime and tell the full truth about the figures it receives from that government.
Wikipedia has a good piece about GDP and the alternatives, the BBC report could have come straight from labour HQ!
He has a scweenshot…. a scweenshot!
Female beeboid wetting her knickers at McCowards speech on Radio 5 (Anita Anand)
Liebour turd sniffer Toenails was in fine form on the 6PM news. “How are the Tories going to pay for their plans” spouts the camp 4 eyed git
So Toenails why don’t you ask the one eyed mong how he can keep spending on front lines services yet get our ever increasing national debt down?
The one eyed mong was hopeless today, still refusing to admit to severe cuts, when Darling and Balls have already said big cuts are needed.
Toenails has no credibility, nice to see ITV not running one eye as the top story, I was reading that ITV’s Tom Bradby is “frozen out” unlike the beeboids toenails and doesn’t get the tip off’s from Nu Liebour.
Also regarding the study that said the kids of working mums were less healthy why did the camp male beeboid newsreader call it “controversial?” who decides that? because it goes against what the beeboids see as the norm?
Most of the BBC’s report was attacking the study, rather than looking at why this may well be the case.
The BBC has just lost all credibility in its reporting.
Wow, ITV’s 6:30pm news leads with the unfortunate death of Natalie Morton, the cervical cancer jab reaction.
Gordon’s lifesaving comeback speech has been relegated to 2nd position.
I wonder what the BBC led with?… (I don’t watch BBC news anymore – can’t take the strain from not putting a boot through the screen)
Happy to have the free speech. Some obscure newsnight circle jerk over gilbert and george is not going to bring down the catholic church so I am happy if we are playing the gloves are off game. However why should the new religion of homosexuality have any greater protection. I am not saying individuals who shouldn’t have the respect and protection granted to any sector of the community, rather stonewall and their ilke. Why shouldnt comedians be allowed to prick the pomposity of PC Britain and its fawning worship of everything minority.
If its OK under your rules to offend one part of society why not another. Why are the Muslims and Gay/lesbians gifted a get out of jail free card.
I dont want christians/muslms/hindus/gays/hippies individually attacked but their life styles and actions should be held up to scrutiny.
I want the system to be fairer. Why hound Gary Glitter but defend Polanski? Why hound Archer for lieing and yet worship Clinton. Each lied directly to the public. OK one was in court but the other was talking directly to his populous.
Why are all the miners good and the police all bad? Why is every jew in Israel a murderer but somehow every Palestinian with a gun is a freedom fighter?
When 25% of the population are skeptical about global warming why only give voice to the ecowarriors.
Who voted for transport 2000 reclaim the streets greenpeace and what makes them experts who get more airtime than reputable scientists.
Why gleefully report every death of a British soldier in some obscene and childish point scoring way?
Why only have labour to give an opinion about labour and yet give the world a chance to stick their oar in about the tories?
Show me the pro tory articles. They are as rare as hens teeth.
Even when the rare event happens and the beeb do something pro tory they have to somehow apologise for it.
The tories havent been in power for over 10 yrs and yet they seem to be criticised daily. What for?
They may not have outlined any policies but neither did Tony Blairs new labour and i cannot remember auntie having a go then.
Post of the day and no error!
A mother and Daughter committed suicide because of our innefectual state system. Over 30 calls were made to the police but the police werent even allowed to soil their kid gloves incase they offended the vulnerable youths who made the ladies lives hell.
How does Nicky campbell start his phone in, …….. by discussng the event as a hate crime because the daughter was disabled.
Talk about wide of the mark. The hate was the hatefull system that did not protect them. The hate was that held for normal society by the luvvies in Islington.
Labour and their media friends have emasculated our Police force to such an extent that they were unable to help this unfortunate couple. True there was hate by the kids that drove them to despair but the attacks could just a easily have occured to anyone daring to stand up for themselves. I honestly dont believe things would have been any different if the daughter hadnt been disabled.
We dont allow police to go on patrol without risk assesments. We tie them up with so much paperwork that they cant be bothered to arrest anybody anymore. Its more than their jobs worth. They would rather being doing easy jobs like bothering telly tax dodgers.
Nobody of colour is allowed to be arrested without vast amounts of expense fighting bogus discrimination cases.
The ditherers and meddlers within new labour have softened our system to such an extent that thousands are camping on the far side of the channel for the chance to get to eassy life uk.
The state is now so huge so unweildy that the burden on the private sector is emmence and yet every business man is portrayed by the beeb as a thief and exploiter( apart of course from £1,000,000 labour supporter Alan ‘your fired’Sugar), every unon activist an angel, every communist spy was some starry eyed idealist, every manufacturing company a polluter, every hippy treehuggy outreach save the gay peruvian penguin group is unquestioned and infallible.
Did someone ring in and blame Thatcher? There is normally a mong from Scotland who is a Muslim convert that rants about Thatcher on every phone in.
Camp Cambell is just another pint sized Liebour loving turd who will get the chop once the Tories slaughter the BBC next year.
Auntie is the media arm of the intellectual left. They try too much to push their pet views without paying enough time to reflecting the views of the population.
Their view is middleclass white angst ridden post colonial champagne socialist.
They love the unions but wouldnt go for a drink with a member of the great unwashed.
Their view of the north is the stereotypical Billy elliot/ full monty patronising dogooding labour one.
Their view of religion is coloured by their frustration at the lifeless catholic lite services of the anglican church at their public school. They want to rebell against it because of its stodgy conformity.
Their view of business is informed by the aprentice and ‘Wall street’
Manufacuring by Erin Brokovich.
World views are from Glenda Jackson and the Dimblebys.
Their view of the forces is informed by Platoon and Full Meal Jacket.
They are suspicious of anyone who voluntarily wants to handle a gun.
They want sexual freedom but not for heterosexuals.
They want religious freedom but not for Christians.
They want us to be outward looking but only to the EU.
They want us to cut carbon but allow them all to visit Bali/nepal/Cuba.
Want us to cut down on wastefull car journeys but take 400 people to Glastonbury.
Oops sorry Started to rant again
anyway you get my drift
So why is it that toenails Robinson doesn’t mention how Brown is going to pay for all his pledges but Tom Bradby on ITV hammers the one eyed twat?
Bradby saw right through McCowards deficit reduction crap yet the 4 eyed twat on the BBC can’t see further than Brown’s rectum hole.
Channel 4 is also asking the right questions from the Dark Lord and can see through the bullshit.
Funny that Prick Robinson is the only one who can’t, YET states that “Cameron will have to show how he’s going to pay for all his promises next week”
Robinson is giving you the politics wonk view, the kind discussed by those within the bubble at the bar in Westminster. I still say he is not really a Labour luvvie, but he is too close to the people he covers. As you well know, they don’t care about the same things you do. Robinson has for some time been spouting more the stuff that they say to each other than what you, the intelligent voter, need to know. He leaves out the stuff you’re complaining about because he’s pretty useless outside the bubble, not necessarily totally biased, I think.
He is compromised (has been for some time, really), and there’s not much reason to pay attention to him outside of rumors and policy plot points. He’s just an insider luvvie these days, and it shows. I suppose having someone like that does benefit the sitting government more than the opposition, especially the way policies are announced and debated. More than anything, though, his need to be at the top of No. 10s rolodex keeps him from being an honest broker.
David, There’s an argument in politics for fixed term limits because incumbents tend to “go native”, even if they were elected on a radical outsider ticket. Not through their own fault, but because any closed shop is always going point a newcomer towards the comfy chairs and offer him a drink and a decent cigar.
Perhaps political correspondents should be shuffled more frequently? Newbies will hardly be short of politicians wanting to be their friend so the argument of “building up contacts over time” doesn’t apply, but becoming compromised could be less of a factor?
All Seeing Eye,
I have long been in favor of minimal term limits for politicians. But political correspondents should be like any other so-called journalist: spend their career learning and observing their specialized patch. I have no problem with political reporters getting as familiar with their charges any more than I would sports writers getting friendly with sports stars and team management over the years.
However, when sports writers take the side of the athletes they cover over the fans, it’s not such a big deal. When Nick Robinson takes the side of MPs when the public is screaming about them lining their pockets, it’s a different matter. Getting the inside info is one thing, but Robinson spends too much time talkng as if he was one of them, and not as a third-party observer, which is his actual job. You don’t see that from sports writers, and they’d be laughed out of a job if they tried it.
Nick Robinson has a much more important job than covering football games. If he gets frozen out of the locker room from time to time because he said something the home team didn’t like, so to speak, he should get a colleague in there for the story, and maintain his integrity. Instead, he backs off most of the time, and even acts like he thinks he’s a broker between the pols and the proles, instead of reporting and commenting on the proceedings.
I think a lot of that has to do with the unique situation of the BBC. He has to be “on” a lot more often than someone in print media, or with a more standard reporting gig. He’s in a position at the BBC where everyone turns to him, and him alone, for the daily explanation of what to think about what just happened. So when he gives the Westminster perspective, rather than an independent perspective on Westminster, it’s not doing anyone much good, except the politicians. It seems that too many people get confused between having insider info and overall knowledge of the scene with clear, straightforward, informative reporting and commentary. Robinson and his BBC colleagues are guilty of that, I think.
And whenever the going gets rough, he disappears for a few days or weeks, rather than keep at them. Hardly worthy of respect as a political correspondent, regardless of how much actual knowledge or experience he has of the scene, or how well he knows the players involved.
David, a thought-provoking well-argued response, and I’m grateful for it.
Thank you, ASE.
I should add that it was Martin’s comment that crystalized this for me. We have both been seeing pretty much the same thing in Robinson’s behavior for some time, but I believe I’ve been seeing a gradual shift away from covering for the Government and dutifully helping with press releases. Maybe it’s because I follow Robinson’s blog a bit more than Martin does. I was very amused and pleased when Robinson got so fed up with the cheerleading for Mr. Brown saving the world at various times that I could almost see his eyes rolling up past those thick glasses while reading one of his posts.
But it was what Martin said that made me realize what I was seeing: Robinson feels he must explain the government (small g) and it’s inner workings to the public (which is technically his job), but he often comes across as doing it on behalf of the government, instead of with the intent to provide what the many viewers actually need or want. Since the current government is a Labour Government, he ends up supporting Labour and Mr. Brown.
And before anyone thinks I’ve gone all soft, let me say that I most certainly have seen Robinson fib and spin and be on side with Labour plenty of times. He has displayed bias. I’m sure I’ve made more than a few comments about him doing it here in the past (Baby P and the PBR VAT spin come to mind). But even though I’ve seen a slight shift in his biases, he has been compromised by his very real attempts at spin control on behalf of the sitting Government. Even if it’s only to maintain that precious, innermost access.
Driving back from the shops I was treated to Radio 2’s ‘news’.
After a frankly emotional reference to Mrs Brown’s contribution, and not in a good way (unintended), I was informed that Mr. Brown gave a ‘rousing; speech.
Now, ignoring the opportunities presented by the other noun that ‘rousing’ is usually appended to, I’d say that was, at best, a matter of opinion.
And one our national broadcaster, at least, should not be making.
Robinson has been on rocking form all day.
There was a glimmer of neutrality earlier in the week but that is long gone.
The gong will be in the Christmas post Nick – well done.
Newsnight is way off message tonight.
Crick having a dig and Paxo being so hard on Milliband that he’ll be reading the weather by the end of the week.
But we are only half way through the programme so early days and time for a lazarus type comeback for the beeboid subconscious to find its way out.
Hey, BBC, it’s not only Lord Tebbitt who’s angered:
“McGuinness event angers Tebbitt”
Labour provides another reason for never voting Labour.
Mike Cunningham at ‘A Tangled Web’ has a suitable response:
Re Newnight off message – yes it took till Newsnight before any BBC reporter posed he question as to how Brown’s initiatives were to be paid for. But it is still only ITV who are pointing out that Brown’s much vaunted Deficit Reduction Commandment (which is binding on all future governments – he guffs) is just what it says – a “plan” to reduce the pace at which debt accumulates, not draconian enough to actually reduce the level of debt.
More pro-illegal immigrant propaganda from the BBC.
This time at Italy’s expense.
Note how the designation of these poeple keeps changing within a few lines. At first they are described as “illegal immigrants”, a few lines later as ‘immigrants’, and a few words later as ‘migrants’.
And then there’s the predictable BBC-Oxfam type voice of the mornful BBC Wendy Urquhet on the video clip.
Don’t talk numbers of illegal immigrants then, BBC. Don’t talk limits. Don’t put the views of ordinary poor Italians, just plead for more illegals and open-door muilticultural suicide.
“Immigrants struggle in Italy”
Incidentally, the BBC avoids the following report of an even greater illegal immigration threat to Britain, in Croydon in fact:
“‘Potential terrorists’ let into the UK by Croydon Home Office worker”
While the BBC propagandises for illegal immigrants in Italy, the ‘Daily Express’ follows up on the on-going Calais crisis:
DV’s comment at ‘ATW’ seems suitable:
Spotted on Iain Dale’s Diary:
“There’s a poster on the all of the BBC Regional Radio unit here at the Labour Party Conference with the following message…
How about a nice big cup of shut the **** up – think before saying something stupid.
I pointed it out to a journalist who retorted, “Yes, we’re going to show it to Andrew Marr if he shows his face.”
As one commenter remarked…
“So the BBC journalist is there to protect the PM from questions about his mental health.”
Yes many at the BBC do think it’s their job to protect Liebour.
Think I just heard a fun slip from the teleprompter moppets on Breakfast.
Referring to sending in Sian Phillips as the ‘A’ interviewing team post-Marrgate, one said we’d be getting to hear from a ‘live PM’.
If you say so, guys.
BBC HYS: “Does the media influence your political views?”
“The BBC are effectively the media arm of Labour so no, the media does not influence me but 11 years of Labour does and has. 11 years of pain and misery for the English middle classes, tax rises, corruption, the EU takeover, failing schools and hospitals, uncontrolled immigration, this list could go on for a long time.”
BBC dutifully reports Labour’s Harman giving great priority to demanding the US closure of US website on prostitutes, while UK government and BBC dutifully respect the operation of the Iran regime’s 24/7 ‘Press TV’ channel on the Sky satellite from London HQ, putting out its anti-West propaganda.
An excellent, comment on Harperson-hypocrisy by Andrew McCann at ‘A Tangled Web’:
“Here comes The Sun”
One rather wonders where this might be going:
<div>I doubt it is a welcome move to objective reporting and allowing the reader/viewer to make up their own minds on facts, mind.</div>
One that might not make it to Aunty’s pages:
<h1 style=”padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 2.8em; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.18em; color: #666666; margin: 0px;”>Farmer’s daughter disarms terrorist and shoots him dead with AK47</h1>
Well, unless it is to get a rabble together to call for her arrest.
You’re a little bore who merely trolls here. I have no interest in engaging with you, your presence is not required, run away and take your toys with you. Got it? As for deleting your posts, do you really think that you are that important? Your IP is banned, I know you dodge around that, smart boy. But not THAT smart – now go away and stay away.
Ian Fannon – TV Licensing. Just seen on Breakfast.
An interesting chap, from whom I suspect we will hear more.
Because he confirms has ways to find, and prosecute small businesses accessing live TV via broadband access to live TV. Policing and fining was a major concern for the presenter and this ‘fine’ chap.
Then it all went a bit confusing on when it came to the presence, or otherwise, of mains power.
I was left pondering the legalities of a SKY+, introducing a delay that is/was ‘not live’.
But mainly I was wondering when there will be a letter here at home demanding that I explain how I use my computer, that will go away if i pay up.
Drip, drip, drip…
Can we have a new open thread, please?