19 Responses to "NOT A GOOD RESULT"

  1. Martin says:
    November 5, 2010 at 12:26 am

    Richard Bacon, Rhod Sharp and Nikki Campbell are just as bad.

       0 likes

  2. Demon1001 says:
    November 5, 2010 at 12:49 am

    Shocking.

       0 likes

  3. JohnW says:
    November 5, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Is there not one Tory-in-name-only sufficiently enraged to join up the dots here? How much more blatant does the BBC have to get before someone working for Cameron gets the message and does something about this gross bias?

    I despair.

       0 likes

  4. hippiepooter says:
    November 5, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Initial reaction outrageous and blatant bias, followed up with the thought, was there anything preceding the clip that might put Peter Allen’s comments in an impartial context?

       0 likes

    • NotaSheep says:
      November 5, 2010 at 7:15 am

      No I heard this as well and blogged about it – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/11/not-good-result-more-bbc-bias.html – on Wednesday. It followed the news and was very striking.

      Peter Allen did not say “not a good result for the Democrats” or “Not a good result for President Obama”, both of which would have been acceptable, just “Not a good result”.

      Surely it was a very good result for the Republicans so why “Not a good result”? Is the BBC so tied in with the Democratic party in the USA that “Not a good result” is acceptable language? Is the BBC officially allied with the Democrats in the USA as they are with the Labour party in the UK?

      “Impartiality is in our genes”; really?

         0 likes

      • Martin says:
        November 5, 2010 at 8:24 am

        Agreed, Allen made no attempt to qualify his comment. He meant what he said, it was a bad result for the BBC.

           0 likes

      • hippiepooter says:
        November 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm

        Thanks notasheep.  In that case the bias is utterly blatant and outrageous.  It proves what stands out as clear as day to us and anyone semi politically literate, that the BBC’s US output is campaign material for the Democrats.  Their anti-conservative bias here is equally appalling, another great peg for the Conservative Party to hang an attack on, and resounding silence on the issue.

        Is a new political formation in our country that unfeasible?

           0 likes

  5. D B says:
    November 5, 2010 at 7:50 am

    The clip follows the sports bulletin and a brief discussion between Allen and the sports reporter about how well Spurs did the night before. I haven’t cut out any preceding context. You can check for yourself (03/11/2010, approx 5.30 in). Aasmah Mir goes on to say: “You are right, not a good result for President Obama” which would be OK if that’s what Allen actually said but he didn’t..

    Sorry for not spotting that once again you got there first, Notasheep!

       0 likes

  6. Guest Who says:
    November 5, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Could be worse, could be an ‘internet propaganda service’ too.

    Oh.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/11/tories_and_lib_dems_offer_jobs.html

       0 likes

  7. TrueToo says:
    November 5, 2010 at 10:06 am

    You coulda knocked me down with a feather. The World Service was quite even-handed in its coverage of Obama’s comprehensive defeat. I expected them to spend most of the time commiserating with the Democrats while minimising the Republican gains, but they did nothing of the kind, pretty much calling it as it was.  
     
    A memo must have gone out across the BBC.

    If it did, Peter Allen didn’t get it.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:
      November 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm

      If there was a memo, they didn’t get it at the BBC America studio where Matty and Katty co-hosted the election night coverage.  It was pretty disgraceful.  Katty Kay was openly adovcating for the Democrats, and Matt Frei was little better.

         0 likes

      • TrueToo says:
        November 6, 2010 at 7:48 am

        Yes, I see that from your main post. There is no doubt that the vast majority of the BBC’s political journalists pin their lefty rosettes on and admire them in the mirror before going forth to do their political reporting, and the editors stay alert to catch any abberant straying towards the centre or, shock, horror, the right of the spectrum. That’s why it was such a weird experience listening to the World Service. It resembled responsible and balanced journalism.

           0 likes

  8. Tony_E says:
    November 5, 2010 at 10:29 am

    I don’t think this is entirely indicative of Allen as a journalist. He tends to be the only voice on radio 5 to ask the hard questions of both sides evenly.

    I had always taken him to be quite centrist, certainy not a lefty in the Campbell of Derbyshire mould.

       0 likes

    • Martin says:
      November 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm

      Can’t agree there Tony, I’ve found him as bad as Bacon and Dame Nikki.

         0 likes

      • David Jones says:
        November 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm

        I once heard Allen give G Adams a hard time when interviewing him. The only person to do so.

        But …… this is disgraceful.

           0 likes

    • hippiepooter says:
      November 6, 2010 at 9:45 pm

      Before I left Blighty 8 years ago I was a big fan of Peter Allen and his co-host in the afternoons Jane Garvey.  Just before I left he read out an email of mine staunchly defending the Monarchy.  The bias was outrageous!  Jane Garvey had an intake of breath and said: “I have to say, I agree with that”.  Peter Allen said he did too.  Somehow, I decided that was partisanship I could live with! 
       
      I think Allen has picked up the BBC left-wing bias by osmosis due to it being so endemic.

         0 likes

  9. Guest Who says:
    November 5, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Depends where you stand.

    Upwind recommended, as a rule.

       0 likes

  10. Dr A says:
    November 5, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Case proven. YOu just can’t get more overt than that, can you?

    The stinking Beeboid should be sacked.

       0 likes