As an experiment, I thought I’d pick a single story from yesterday’s news and follow it throughout the course of the day on the BBC News Channel. I thought I’d choose whatever was the BBC’s ‘Cuts Story of the Day’. Yesterday it was the government’s proposal in a consultation paper to cut the benefits of any drug addict who refuses treatment. A sensible-sounding idea you might think. Well, I’m not so sure now. Why? Because I watched every interview on the subject on the News Channel between 7.00am and 11.00pm and, with just one exception, they all said it was a big mistake.
Breakfast set the agenda:
“Drug addicts on benefits must seek treatment or they could have their
welfare taken away. That’s the hard line being considered by ministers trying to
cut government spending. A similar policy was dropped by the previous Labour
government because of fears that addicts could be driven to crime to support
their habit.”
In that single statement, there’s a subjective judgement that this is a “hard-line” policy, as well as a presumption that the reason for any such policy is purely “to cut government spending” – not also to help tackle a major social ill.
First to be interviewed was Martin Barnes of the charity DrugsScope. He was critical of the proposal. Clearly a decent chap, he resisted the bait in Kate Silverton‘s loaded question: “Do you think this is about dealing with drug addiction or saving money?” He said it was the former. Oh well, a beeboid can but try!!
As the News Channel-proper began rolling at 8.30 Tim Willcox interviewed…Martin Barnes of DrugsScope, who made the same criticisms again. To his credit, Tim did put several good questions to him (unlike Kate).
The same interview was reprised in full at 9.45.
So nothing but criticism of the government’s ‘hard-line’ proposal so far.
At 11.45 Richard Tilt, from “the independent Social Security Advisory Committee” was interviewed. He too was also critical of the government. He went on to regret its decision not to bring up the issue of the de-criminalisation of drugs.
At 12.15 the criticism was ratcheted up, with Kirsty Douse, a young woman from the drugs agency Release, being highly critical of the proposal.
At 12.35 the one and only supporter of the proposal appeared – the Labour MP and former home office minister Alan Campbell (who I’d never heard of). Mr Campbell came across very well, refusing to play party politics. The nearest he came was to express, in passing, a hope that the government was doing it for the right reasons. This comment took up about 5 seconds in a 4 minute interview.
The interview with Mr Campbell was reprised at 1.40, though the most supportive first minute was cut! Worse, beeboid Julian Worricker introduced the truncated clip like this: “Well, earlier I spoke to Alan Campbell…and he told me the scheme would only be successful if it was done for the right reasons”. Trust the BBC to pluck out of context a passing comment! Pure narrative-spinning!
The report by beebette Jude Kelly on the One O’clock News featured a reprise of some of the earlier criticisms. In a sop to impartiality it featured a tiny excerpt from an interview with Tory minister James Brokenshire. This interview was never broadcast on the News Channel & must have been done just for the One O’clock News. Why was the full interview never broadcast on the News Channel (or anywhere else?). What else did Mr Brokenshire say? We’ll never know.
The criticism was ratcheted up even more at 2.10 as Mark Linnell from the drugs charity Lifeline denounced the government’s proposal as “a terrible idea” and a “policy written on the back of a fag packet” (a phrase beloved of Labour, coincidentally).
At 3.10, Howard Garrick, a recovering addict, and Savvas Panas (Howard’s helper) from the Pillion Trust appeared. Howard said that if his benefits had been cut he’d have resorted to crime to get the money to feed his habit. Mr Panas was very critical of the government’s proposal too, saying “this new policy is going to push those people further underground”.
On the Six O’Clock News (seen by millions. Shame on them when The Simpsons is on Channel 4!!), Jude Kelly‘s report dropped Mr Brokenshire and any pretence of impartiality. Her report was prefaced by this: “Charities have warned that addicts will increasingly turn to crime and prostitution to feed their habit without proper support.” Jude’s report featured Barry Woodward, a former drug addict & dealer, who said the government’s proposal wouldn’t work. She went on, “Some who are familiar with the drugs world condemn what they call the blunt stick approach of benefits cuts”. For ‘proof’ she turned to Ettan, a former addict, who condemned the proposal, saying it will lead to more homelessness & crime. No-one else was featured, no defence given.
The only new interviewee to appear on the News channel after that came at 8.15, and it was someone from the organisation I was expecting to appear all along – Steve Rolles of the pro-legalisation campaign group Transform. He, in conversation with the very fragrant Sangita Myska, also strongly attacked the government’s proposal. (Sangita didn’t fail to mention “swingeing cuts“).
There are two different conclusions a News Channel watcher might draw from this. On the one hand it could be the case that only politicians support this proposal. Everyone else, including all drugs charities, thinks its a very bad idea. So it is a very bad idea. Or you might instead suspect that the BBC has deliberately ignored all other supporters of the proposal in order to pump out nothing but anti-government propaganda all day long and that there might be a valid case for doing as the government proposes after all, even though we haven’t heard it on the BBC. (I’ll leave Martin to suggest another possible reason why the BBC might be resistant to the idea of a cutting the benefits of drug addicts!!)
Superb post, Craig !
Hi Craig, you did great research on this.
The BBC are dolts. I’d rather watch the Simpson’s too.
Good spots Craig, as I’ve pointed out before the BBC often take a story and then they decide on the narrative and use the full power of beeboid outlets (normally stating with Newsnight the evening before) and then they let fly with Radio 5, the Toady show, News 24 and finally finishing off with the BBC tea and late news.
The whole BBC outlet peddles the same party line, often with the same people being interviewed, the same anti Tory line (when it’s a political story for example) or pro climate change, anti Bush etc.
What gets me is despite the full might of 20,00 twats the BBC still can’t get people to follow its wet liberal party line.
Today for example, the BBC has been spinning the Charlie Kennedy is off to Liebour story, this has been relentless as is the BBC’s one sided reporting of the Mosque story and of course the BBC are getting very angry that despite their relentless coverage most of us don’t give a toss about a load of Muslims ‘suffering’ in Pakistan when those same people are usually on the streets calling for the death of westerners.
I’ve often wondered if the BBC use Newsnight as the starting point for a story simply because it’s like being able to hand out orders to all the beeboids waiting to come into work the following day, basically they know the story and the line to take without the BBC having to issue emails etc that could get leaked to the press.
Nice one, Craig. Nobody from the Government at all? Are they boycotting the BBC?
It’s funny that when Liebour were in power the BBC made sure they got someone to speak from the left, if no Government Minister then someone from the left.
We know that the BBC will often only want someone from the right on when they think they might want to drop the Government in it.
A drug addict would turn to crime if he/she was forced to submit to treatment?
Er…maybe its just me but dont the vast majority of non functional addicts fund their addictions by the proceeds of crime already? Yes a minority of fuctional addicts hold jobs and fund their addictions and manage to exist within the norms of society but the vast majority of non fuctioning addicts are a major cause of petty crime such as burglary and shoplifting.
Is the BBC trying to say that addicts already engaging in crime to serve their habit will somehow engage in more crime just to spite a government that desires only to help addicts? There are addicts who do need to be offered an ultimatum and this is going to have results, why the BBC feel the need to misrepresent the issue and deny supporters of the innitiative airtime is beyond me.
It doesnt take a mathamatical genius to work out that the benefits due to an addict would never cover an addicts drug bill does it?
Excellent post, Craig.
Fantastic post Craig, keep up the good work.
Miss your blog though 😉
Slightly O/T, but it does concern BBC News – I have just sent this to Radio Solent:
I have had a chance to listen again to the news bulletin broadcast on Radio Solent at 2 p.m. on 17th August, read (and I used the term loosely) by Louise Champ. I wanted to have another listen, because I first heard it in my tractor, so assumed that I must have mis-heard what sounded like terrible mistakes. But I was wrong: she really did read ‘Stanstead’ as ‘Stamford’, ‘negotiators’ as ‘negators’, ‘boycott’ as ‘buycott’, and – most hilariously – ‘Nicolas Anelka’ became ‘Nicolas Annikel’. Am I being old-fashioned in thinking that a news reader (especially one paid for by a compulsory tax on every television-owning household) should be able to read aloud? Yours sincerely,
Good stuff Craig.
Thanks for your time and effort. Well done, Craig.
Thanks for the great info Craig – and I too miss your blog.
As in my last post, for anyone reading this: please cancel your TV licence direct debit. You only need to put a “withdraw the right of implied access to Capita/TV Licensing” notice outside your door and you will be ok. Plenty of info out there – please check.
Unbebloodylievable.
This is an excellent approach to revealing the imlacable lefty bias of the BBC.
I saw the odd BBC news broadcast and radio news bulletin during the day and on every one there appeared to be a different drugs “charity” or “agency”. It does make me wonder if the anti drugs business is in fact far bigger than the drugs trade itself.
Excellent post, Craig.
I just hope you’re still finding time to have a life.
ha ha, I read the story before I looked to see who the author was. I was confused at first , wondering why DV was posting in the style of Craig, then I got to the end and all became clear.