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?
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?
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case proven. YOu just can’t get more overt than that, can you?
The stinking Beeboid should be sacked.
0 likes
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
JohnCApr 25, 04:04 Midweek 23rd April 2025 Quite right Scrobs : that story is pure left-wing activism. It is simply ridiculous and absolutely unethical to use singular…
JohnCApr 25, 01:10 Midweek 23rd April 2025 Why Zelensky can’t and won’t give up Crimea https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2x58m46e1o Lots and lots of bluster here from the BBC’s EU editor…
taffmanApr 25, 00:00 Midweek 23rd April 2025 Defend our borders! Give the Royal Navy & Royal Marines the job . Simples . ‘The Border Farce’ are a…
JonathanRApr 24, 23:59 Midweek 23rd April 2025 Just as a matter of interest but does anyone else think that GB News is now unwatchable? When its youtube…
JonathanRApr 24, 23:50 Midweek 23rd April 2025 The only way anything different will get done in this country is not just a change of government but a…
Philip_2Apr 24, 21:50 Midweek 23rd April 2025 “But this is not the first time Ofcom has acted as State censor. In recent years we have been progressively…
Lefty WrightApr 24, 21:26 Midweek 23rd April 2025 Manny Prevention is better than cure. However I think it is time to reverse the illness
Emmanuel GoldsteinApr 24, 21:02 Midweek 23rd April 2025 Farage is going to have a Minister for Deportation. The Tories, with a big majority, were voted out, in my…
Fedup2Apr 24, 21:02 Midweek 23rd April 2025 Just on the papal thing again – interesting that the head of the Anglican Church chooses not to go to…
Richard Bacon, Rhod Sharp and Nikki Campbell are just as bad.
Shocking.
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.
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?
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?
Agreed, Allen made no attempt to qualify his comment. He meant what he said, it was a bad result for the BBC.
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?
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!
No problem, but isn’t listening to Radio 4 a pleasure this morning? http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/11/bbc-journalists-strike-long-may-it.html
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can’t agree there Tony, I’ve found him as bad as Bacon and Dame Nikki.
I once heard Allen give G Adams a hard time when interviewing him. The only person to do so.
But …… this is disgraceful.
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.
Depends where you stand.
Upwind recommended, as a rule.
Case proven. YOu just can’t get more overt than that, can you?
The stinking Beeboid should be sacked.