The Telegraph is almost as interested in the foibles of the BBC as we are here.
Today for example there’s Michael Deacon’s notebook.
He went to the launch event for a set of BBC history documentaries, one of which is about Pompeii, to be presented by Cambridge classics don Mary Beard, one of the Beeb’s faves. She’s known for causing outrage by saying, less than a month after 9/11, that “the US had it coming”. Mr. Deacon asked the publicist if he could interview prof Beard to ask if she thought Pompeii ‘had it coming’, whereupon the publicist moved swiftly on.
On page 11 is an item by Neil Midgley headed “Bonus time at BBC Worldwide.” People at BBC Worldwide will be getting bonuses if they’ve “performed according to the profit targets.”
Nice.
Online, Janet Daley has this: “Has the BBC noticed the change in government?”
Is the Telegraph trying to make B-BBC redundant?
Can we have a thread for the Budget? The BBC have been a joke. Radio 5 should be renamed Radio fat idle benefit scum radio, as all I’ve heard is idle twats from the north (mostly) moaning about ‘Tory cuts’
Then some mong just now on News 24 was going on about private pensions and how we need to save more. Why? Why didn’t the BBC point out the one eyed jock gay boy robbed them blind last time around and Liebour will do the same again if they ever get back into power.
Martin, I know it’s been said before, but don’t you think for your blood pressure’s sake you should listen to something else?! We wouldn’t want to lose you.
Is the Telegraph trying to make B-BBC redundant?
Many hands..
During the election Damian Thompson contacted us with a view to incorporating B-BBC as a Telegraph blog. He never responded though to the follow-up call to his mobile.
It’s great to see the Telegraph highlighting the blatant bias at the BBC. It will be better when they highlight what a threat to democracy it poses and demand Parliamentary action to purge the BBC of its subversives so that it serves democracy once more, not left-wing propaganda.
I’m sure they’ll be a one party state somewhere more than happy to avail themselves of the propaganda services of Paxman, Humphrys, Naughtie, Bowen et al. Although of course their evil garbage would get short shrift at an impartial BBC.
As well as…
“Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists”
…
“But guess how BBC Radio 4 reported the story this morning? Yep. “98 per cent of scientists support global warming theory.” (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100044445/climate-change-sceptics-have-smaller-members-uglier-wives-dumber-kids-says-new-study-made-up-by-warmists/
Its what the BBC is good at – “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”
The BBC is biased for having the Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge present a programme about Pompeii? And when you say ‘one of the Beeb’s faves’ what do you mean? I can’t say I’ve seen her on the BBC often.
BBC Worldwide is not funded by the licence fee. It’s a very profitable company.
I note Mr Morales you have nothing to say on what this thread is about that the BBC are in denial about their Labour Party having lost the election.
When was the last time a “right-wing” historian had a programme let alone an interview on the BBC ?
Beard is just one of the endless stable of bog standard left-wing historians , the odious Schama being the favourite, who the BBC can rely on to toe the Party line.
Erik Morales:
BBC Worldwide is much more than a very profitable company. It is directly subsidised by the Commonwealth and Foreign Office. That is, at least part of its operating expenses come from taxation if not specifically the license fee. Whether in view of the anti British propaganda coming from the BBC the CFO is getting bang for its buck is yet another question.
The borderline between the license fee supported BBC and the CFO subsidised yet operating for profit BBC Worldwide is considerably murky. BBC Worldwide broadcasts a great amount of material produced by the BBC and vice versa.
Does BBC Worldwide pay market rates for BBC programmes or does it pay anything? Even if it does have some sort of book transaction system going, the advantage of having first bite of the BBC cherry and the ability to pick and choose programmes after what is effectively UK market testing adds considerably and unfairly to its profits.
Deegee,
Well said !
BBC Worldwide does pay the BBC for content. It’s a Byzantine process, but in the end they know it’s all money under the same roof. I don’t know if it’s market rate these days. However, I’m fairly certain that the News is different, and that they freely share content. But they keep certain Beeboids on different ledgers.
For example, one time I wrote a complaint to the BBC about Justin Webb, and was told to go complain to BBC Worldwide instead, as they were his bosses at the time. Even though his segements were shown on News 24 and on Today. It’s the same for Mark Mardell today. It’s all one big corporation, really, separated only thinly on paper.
But the BBC Mothership does make a huge amount of cash off not only Worldwide properties and advertizing revenus, but by licensing Top Gear and Dr. Who all over creation. It’s a good setup.
Too bad BBC America isn’t doing so well, though. They’ve taken to showing 20-year old Star Trek episodes every weeknight at 8pm, right after Matt Frei’s BBC World News America.
Erik,
“I can’t say I’ve seen her on the BBC often.”
Maybe, but I’ve heard her on t’wireless. Actually she seems like a nice lady; but oh, such a lefty.
From Mary Beard’s blog. A bit too much information:
“I shall be doing my own bit in front of the camera over the next few weeks, which I’m quite looking forward to. But radio still has a lot going for it.
For a start, you don’t have to bother about what you wear on the radio. There is no need for nice frocks. You can even pick your nose, so long as you have something to say.”