Monthly Archives: September 2010

RED LETTER DAY!

By | |
16 Comments

The BBC will go to any lengths to say it is not biased, as Mark Thompson has graphically shown this week with his faux confession that the corporation was guilty of bias in the past but not now. The Leviathan wriggles, it bends, it contorts, it grimaces in pursuit of that central tenet. We on this site know that such defensiveness is a load of hogwash, but it’s nevertheless very rare for anyone who has held a senior position to break ranks and come clean on the record.

September 5 is therefore a red letter day, because former Today editor Rod Liddle, writing in the Sunday Times (frustratingly, I can’t link to the article because of the site paywall),lays bare the pressures he was under in the early noughties. He tells how every week, he was summoned to the office of his boss to be lectured on the need for impartiality on topics such as the US election – by a man who had posters on his wall supporting the Democrats. He also relates a story about something I know something about, having been to some extent involved.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch – back in 2001, a Conservative peer, now of course, soon-to-be ex-leader of UKIP – commissioned a series of independent reports into the BBC’s coverage of the EU. This work, stretching back to 1999, is very detailed, systematic analysis of a range of BBC programmes, and has found – as readers of this site will know – that the BBC’s coverage of the EU seriously under-represents the eurosceptic perspective (to put it mildly).

Mr Liddle recounts how he was persuaded that what the reports said had substance, and he raised this at his weekly meeting with his Democrat-supporting boss. The response? He was told that Lord Pearson and “these people” (behind the report) were “mad”.

Adds Mr Liddle:

“Ah, that’s the BBC. Desperate to be fair, according to its charter, but never truly fair. its editorial staff are convinced that they are not remotely biased, just rational and civil and decent, and that those who oppose their congenial, educated, middle-class poiint of view are not merely right-wing, but deranged. They will not for a second accept that they are in fact biased at all…”

What Mr Liddle does not say is that when he was editor of Today, he was just as guilty of stonewalling complaints as his colleagues. He met Lord Pearson to discuss the issues raised by the reports about the EU back in 2001. Then, exactly like his boss, he resolutely defended his programme’s output and accused Lord Pearson in print of trying to define bias by stopwatch. This was a classic BBC diversionary riposte that conveniently glossed over that the reports were far more than measurement of the time devoted to the eurosceptic perspective. But at least our Roger has at last seen the light.

Peter Hitchens also looks today at BBC bias in the wake of Mark Thompson’s remarks this week. Relevant to what Rod Liddle says, he notes the recent admission by BBC reporter Jonathan Charles about the blind new-era excitement he and his colleagues felt when the euro was launched almost a decade ago. Lord Pearson also complained about that, and he backed it up with solid analysis of how biased the coverage had been. Like everything else, the document was pooh-poohed by BBC top brass as xenophobic fanatasy.

Update: I have been told that one of Rod Liddle’s bosses resorted to libelling the author of the Lord Pearson-commissioned EU reports as part of the BBC anything-goes approach to attacking its enemies. The then chief political advisor told Lord Pearson that the report writer was not to be trusted because he had been sacked by the BBC. This was an outright untruth which she was forced to retract following a lawyer’s letter.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

HORRIBLE HISTORY…

By | |
14 Comments

The BBC Thompson unbiased mindset is made up of a complete set of nanny-state values that is based, in turn, on fantasy views of science and human development. One of the central axioms is that life in nature and the past was idyllic. People grew their own food, didn’t produce any carbon dioixide, didn’t burn nasty fossil fuels and lived in constant orgasmic stasis (or whatever tendy word is in vogue). Anyone who advocates such ideas is instantly elevated to sainthood, or at the very least, front page status on the BBC website. So it is today for this piece of moonshine, carefully crafted by BBC health zealot Jane Elliot. She talks admiringly of a group of behaviour police in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, who are touring schools telling long-suffering youngsters that if they eat like peasants (peasants, note, not the villanous landowners because they crammed themselves with expensive nasties) did in medieval times, they will not get fat and not taint their bodies with vile salt or – shock, horror – food from abroad.

That will be the medieval diet that meant in reality that there was a life expectancy of around 30-35, diseases were rampant and there was a dependence on local food that meant every period of bad weather or low rainfall spelled starvation for our ancestors. Not to mention the back-breaking labour involved. There’s an excellent critique of the food problems of the past here; the writer also brilliantly shows how the greenie obsession with localism and organic food is dangerous, self-indulgent nonsense. For the thought police of Mr Thompson’s unbiased BBC, of course, the brilliant analysis of Mr Budiansky is heresy against the green creed and will never see the light of day.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Plain Mardelled

By | |
29 Comments

Craig in the comments has already noted how Mark Mardell has posted a BBC online diary entry which is biased against Sarah Palin.

I am having a go at analysing why it’s so unfair, because it has some elements of straight reporting combined with deeply suggestive comments which slant the whole thing. No one could accuse Mardell of being stupid, so let’s look at what he does. It’s the kind of sly character assassination and snide socio-political bias which telly taxpayers pay for, after all. Let’s look at what they get for their money…

 

First Mardell sets up his supposed „angle“, that Sarah Palin is on the rise and may be a Republican Presidential candidate. He immediately then states that Palin dismissed as „idiot reporters“ journalists who suggested that she had sought to speak at a function in key swing and early primary state Iowa. Maybe, Mark, that’s because she stated clearly that she’d had previous invites and hadn’t had time to respond to them (and this is blatantly likely to be the case). The journalists ignored the facts, as usual, and in this case especially obvious ones. However it’s a useful introduction to Mardell’s underlying theme: the appallingness of Palin.

It frames the news that Mardell heralds of a „long, hostile“ Vanity Fair piece which paints her as „extravagant, vindictive, and rather more bad tempered in private than in public“. Mardell finds this thrust „unsurprising“, but, contra-appearances, this adjective suggests agreement with Vanity Fair rather than cynicism about the source. Why? Don’t forget that this is a „Palin on the rise, seeking power“ piece, rather than a „journos out to get Palin“ piece. The previous factoid about Palin dismissing „idiot journalists“ attempts to present as hors d’ oeuvre a character of prickly nastiness to which the Vanity Fair article will be a plat principal. There are certainly journos out to get Palin, and Mardell is one of them.

Lest we be confused (between grammar and context) about Mardell’s real position, consider Mardell’s own snark comments on Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin that „The dynamic duo are becoming something of an item. Talk about a balanced ticket.“ The „dynamic duo“ is a phrase straight from comic book America- something tells me we aren’t supposed to find it respectful. As for the „balanced ticket“, Mardell clearly shows his political balance in determining for the reader what balance is with his intentioned irony.

According to Mardell, whose tone is completely consistent with the Vanity Fair hit piece, Palin „drips political ambition“. Furthermore according to Marr, she generates „fascinated revulsion or slavering worship“ ie. She’s a kook.

In the end, Mardell would doubtless claim the theme was favourable to Palin- except that he never for a second examines the reasons why Palin is rising: successful interventions from Facebook over Obamacare (the masterstroke of the „death panels“ comment), successful nomination of candidates, the endorsement (mutual) of the Tea Party, the judicious selections of who to support- Mccain and Fiorina for instance illustrating pragmatism, her skilful use of Fox News… etc.

Helloooo Mardell- you overpaid tax-funded smarmbucket- I may not be a Palin fan but I certainly recognise that positive qualities are necessary for an outsider like Palin to make the impact she’s had. Time BBC journalists as well as MSM Journolisterswoke up and smelt the license payers’ coffee.

RE-ASSURANCE REQUIRED

By | |
39 Comments

Best laugh of the day.

Labour called for ”clarity and reassurance” from the BBC after the director general of the corporation was photographed going into a meeting in Downing Street to apparently discuss coverage of government spending cuts.

Cue four years of the BBC going out its poisonous way to attack the Coalition in order to prove how unbiased it is. Everybody….”Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,We’ll keep the red flag flying here.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC V Israel

By | |
18 Comments

First of all we had the headlines about Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s pledge to kill more Israelis, but they used the phrase “Israeli targets” which subtly lends legitimacy to their murderous intentions.
Of course the real threat is to Israeli civilians, but the BBC would rather we didn’t realise this.

Then they announced that right-wing Israelis were angry with the prime minister for stating that Mahmoud Abbas was a partner for peace.

Was that by way of some sort of crazy counterbalance? Pitting proposed genocide against a run of the mill thumbs down?

The next bulletin promoted the angry Israeli story to the top spot; death threats relegated to second place. I said this somewhere else. They’re spending some of the anti-Israel venom saved up and banked from the even-handed Panorama.

Jeremy Bowen was still on about the grafted on nonsense. He thinks the conflict is over land, or stolen land, “occupied land, Palestinian land, holy land” as yesterday’s Hamas expert Beverley Milton-Edwards would have us believe.

They have managed to filter out the fundamentally antisemitic nature of the religion of peace which has been driving the Islamic resistance to Israel’s existence since before it existed.
Jeremy Bowen thinks it’s something that’s only just been “grafted on”.

They guy they interviewed this morning, he was from the electronic intefada. Sarah Montague said so in her introduction. What she didn’t say was what the electronic intefada is. It’s an intefada. Uprising. (against the existence of Israel)
Some people may not realise that. Others may know what it is, but think it’s a perfectly respectable outfit, seeing that the BBC turns to it for advice.
So it’s official. It’s not only the Israel/Palestine conflict but also the Israel/BBC conflict.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC’S LOVE OF ISLAM

By | |
9 Comments

Interesting to read Andrew Gilligan’s critiques of the BBC’s love-in with radical Islam. 

‘Why does the BBC air Islamist propaganda?’

Andrew Gilligan
13 March 2010
The Islamic Forum of Europe is decried by most Muslims as vicious and unrepresentative, says Andrew Gilligan. So why did Any Questions air its views?

‘The BBC’s propaganda for fundamentalist Islam ‘

One of the main conclusions I drew from my Telegraph/Channel 4 Dispatches investigation of the East London Mosque was quite how gullible some parts of the white establishment were in the face of a persuasive PR machine telling them what they wanted to hear.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BIASED FRIDAY

By | | ,
86 Comments


I’ll post a new Open thread shortly but the BBC has been biased beyond belief on Today his morning and I wanted to cover a handful of these items.

It all kicks off with the news that BBC DG Mark Thompson had been spotted going into Downing Street and photographers had been able to take images of the papers he was carrying. The suggestion was that Thompson could be trying to collude with the Coalition over the coming cuts. Oh no! As if to make up for that horrible thought, Today went into pro-Labour overdrive….

Ed Balls was given a slot just leading up to the prime-time 8am news slot to rant and rave about how he would save the economy. (Ignoring how he had been there as it ran into the bumpers. Remember Year Zero – all troubles started when the Coalition came to power)  He was allowed to serially criticise and misrepresent George Osborne and then talk economic gibberish. No Coalition come-back, naturally.

Then, straight after the 8am news, we have Lord Prescott on to attack the evil  “Murdoch Press”, quoting favourable from those organs of reason, The Guardian and the New York Times. There was a distinct air of bonhomie between Humphyrs and the fat oaf who was our Deputy PM.  No opposing voice allowed, naturally.

Just when I thought this was going to a Conservative-free zone, up pops Bercow to pontificate on the Hague sideshow. Ah, but it’s SALLY Bercow, that well known Labour enthusiast. Given the BBC’s embrace of the gay agenda in almost every other walk of life, I find their sniping at the Foreign Secretary revolting.

Then, to finish, in all fairness the BBC moved away from Labour for a minute. Time to talk about Hamas. There was yet ANOTHER apologist for Hamas being given free rein. Yet again he was allowed to get away with spouting the most obnoxious pro-Islamic terror propaganda with no voice of opposition. Why does the BBC have SUCH a love-in a for the vicious Islamic killers from Hamas?

This was a thoroughly disgraceful programme from start to finish, an example of why the BBC needs axed. They must not be allowed to broadcast their bias at OUR expense. Maybe when they are stripped of our License taxes, they can turn to the Trade Unions for funding, like their pals in Labour. That way we can see them as the bought and paid for whores they so transparently have become.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THOMPSON UNBIAS…

By | |
26 Comments

If anyone is tempted to believe Mark Thompson’s ludicrous assertion that BBC bias was in the past, take a look at Roger Harrabin’s attempt to discuss dispassionately the recent attack by Inter Academy Council (IAC) on the snake oil salesmen techniques of the IPCC. BBC reports about the IAC such as this one have already done their best to minimise the importance of the damning IAC verdict. Our Roger pretends in his opinion piece that he is carefully weighing up the pros and cons of how the IPCC has behaved. And to be fair, he even admits that he himself got it wrong in being so uncritical. But – try as he might to be “fair” – his true colours show at the end. He states:

When the right-wing American critics who are likely to welcome much of this report raise a glass in celebration whenever Dr Pachauri does go, they should remember who put the chairman in his current place.

It was George W Bush. This was seen by some as a move to install a compliant developing country economist who wouldn’t stand in the way of industrial growth. He arranged the appointment of a former railway engineer who proceeded to drive right over his toes.

So that’s it, then – Mr Thompson’s (now) unbiased BBC in action. Let’s spell it out: according to Mr Harrabin, critics of the IPCC are right-wing Americans, and George W.Bush was the stupid b*** who is the cause of this whole car crash.

They can’t help themselves. It’s what they do.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WAS, NOT IS?

By | |
62 Comments


Pleased to read that BBC DG Mark Thompson shares our view that the BBC is biased towards the left. Read what he says here. Of course he is quick to point out that this confirmed BIAS was in the past, not the present and the BBC now proudly has an “honourable tradition of journalists from the right” working for the corporation. How fascinating, who are they? He confesses to that bastion of the Left the New Statesman! Wonder does Mark “do” irony?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.