Charles Moore here expertly casts his eye over Andrew Marr’s BBC series The Making of Modern Britain. It pretty much sums up almost all that is wrong with the BBC today. In a nutshell, Marr ludicrously condemns anything to do with the political right and praises unreservedly the forces of “progress” – especially the trade unions. It’s goodies versus baddies and we know who the villains are in Marr’s universe.
Moore on Marr
Bookmark the permalink.
It was the same with his last series. The episode on how the drab, stiffling, conservative 1950s, dominated by that terrible Old Etonian Tory Harold MacMillan, was swept away by the progressive wonderland of Harold Wilson, David Frost and the swinging 60s was just like an hour-long party political broadcast on behalf of the Left Party.
Marr is an unashamed leftie and his history of britain is tripe, but Moore is equally as biased, I’d rather Marr’s view on Salisbury than Moore’s ‘equal to Gladstone and Disraeli’ rubbish
But what’s the relevance of this? His history series doesn’t need to be any more impartial than Boris Johnson’s
I disagree. It’s posited as fact rather than opinion, much moreso than if a Telegraph journalist had been drafted in to give his opinion.
to what are you referring? I only see opinions on history
Tarquin
Before you offer an opinion on Salisbury, maybe you’d do well to learn something about him. Maybe you could tell us, for instance, in what particular way he wasn’t the “equal of Disraeli and Gladstone”.
What makes you think I don’t? Moore made the claim without any justification, so I can question it in the same manner – it is just his opinion and my opinion, I only remarked on it because I felt such a comment undermined the article’s objectivity, and therefore weakened the critique
Moore makes the claim about Salisbury being the equal of Disraeli and Gladstone because – Marr’s apparent view aside – historians of the period would tend to agree. Not that the “science is in” of course but – if you did know anything about Salisbury – you wouldn’t have called the comparison “rubbish”. Your opinion (which you claim is as good as any other) prefers Marr’s assertions on the basis of what exactly? Distaste for aristocrats? Horror that Salisbury thought the voters were “vermin”? Conservatives are, by definition, loathsome?
I could’ve have said the exact opposite, but I refrained from making such a sweeping statement about historians – as I said, Moore didn’t base his claim on anything, and neither do you, so why should I feel the need – you clearly like Salisbury, but I have little time for him, and you are the one putting words in my mouth – if I thought conservatives were loathsome I wouldn’t have any admiration for Disraeli, would I?
You offer no justification for your own view other than historians apparently ‘tend to agree’ – as far as I’m aware historians generally neglected Salisbury until the 70s, and historically he is seen as reactionary and focused on foreign policy, and it is only recently that sympathetic works such as David Steeles’s have come out
You wrote “Moore’s ‘equal to Gladstone and Disraeli’ rubbish” – I didn’t invent that. Your view then is that Moore was writing rubbish by comparing Salisbury to G and D despite, as I wrote, historians generally favourable opinion concerning Salisbury. Of course historians can be as crappy as anyone even on history but, on balance, I’ll take their view as rather more informed than yours.
Marr has a petulant little response in todays Telegraph which boils down to “I am right & above any criticsm” just like his performance on the AM show.
I do believe one needs to bear in mind that all output needs to have ‘the narrative enhanced’, to ‘correctly’ ‘interpret events’ past, present and future. It is what makes some institutions, and those who work for them (if they know what’s good for others less blessed)… ‘unique’.
Marr’s rebuttal of Moore’s criticisms in this morning’s Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6498659/My-history-is-more-than-Leftist-prejudice.html
is unconvincing to say the least. For instance, his quote from Salisbury that “all voters are vermin” is a journalistic device to damn Salisbury and all his works. Salisbury was a High Tory, an aristocrat, a substantial landowner, the last member of the Lords to be PM – what better person to be vilified by selective quotation. OTOH, I would bet real money that the dalliance of Lloyd George (“that rather brave young radical”) with Hitler will not feature in Marr’s “history”.
Marr’s programme is exactly the lazy, formulaic, biased, cliched rubbish we expect of the BBC but I disagree that ‘It pretty much sums up almost all that is wrong with the BBC today.’
The main thing wrong with the BBC today is that it serves up huge amounts of trash like Casualty, Eastenders, Top Gear and Flog It when it should be spending its vast guaranteed income on producing quality programmes. Using nearly all the licence fee cash to make exactly the kind of rubbish as the commercial TV companies is a disgrace.
everything on the a to z list right hand column just sums up the b.b.c a left wing propoganda machine . that pays brighton bomber patrick magee and his stockholm syndrome sidekick jo berry [ whoes father he murdred ] you could’t make it up . these two have now appeared on 2 or three b.b.c 2 doc’s . the b.b.c’s anti monarchist views like buck teeth miranda hart made . the list is endless . SO WHY IS A CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT GOING TO CONTINUE THE COMPULSARY 3 BILLION POUND TV POLL TAX THAT GIVES THIS HARD LEFT MACHINE OXYGEN ?
Marr is the end product of 1000 years of civilisation. He is infallible. His wisdom is boundless. He possesses the truth. He is beyond all criticism. I wish I was like him. His words are as gold. Truly such a man is a pearl beyond price. The BBC is blessed with his presence. And so on and so on and on……
The difference is that tool Marr is paid by people like me who hate his frigging guts.
People can give what opinions they like, I just don’t want to be forced to pay the turds at the BBC.
is it true jonathon ross recieves the highest public sector pay in the uk of six million pounds per year ?
I saw Andrew Marr’s programme last night. Does he fancy himself as Mike Yarwood, with all these impressions of Churchill, Lloyd George etc?
Marr is a mere journalist, a disreputable trade at the best of times. He is not a historian. As an antidote to Marr’s left-wing version, and, in the interests of balance, will the BBC commission a follow-up series presented by , say, Jeremy Clarkson ?
Not sure with which station, but he did one on VC winners, and it was very good.
Can’t recall any overt personal agenda creeping in either.. ‘to enhance the narrative’.
Facts, well told. Used to be enough. Why no longer?