Reviewing a day’s output (6.00am-10.00pm) of the BBC News Channel might perhaps give another perspective on the endemic problem of BBC bias. In the comments field below you will find a detailed run-through of the channel’s coverage of one particular story on Monday of this week and how that compares to their treatment of a seemingly similar story on the following day. Then a number of other stories featured as part of Monday’s rolling news coverage will be examined more briefly. Does it all add up to a damning indictment?
A DAY IN THE LIFE
Bookmark the permalink.
BIG SOCIETY, BIG CUTS
As DV pointed out on Monday, Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, outgoing chief executive of Community Service Volunteers, was the star turn on Today. She was also the star turn on the BBC News Channel.
The message with which Breakfast opened summed up what was to come: “David Cameron’s Big Society is under attack again. One of the project’s biggest backers says it will be scuppered by spending cuts.”
Dame Elisabeth herself was a guest on Breakfast at 8.12am (4 minutes), attacking those “draconian cuts“. She was back as the News Channel proper began rolling at 8.28am, this time for 6 more minutes, expanding on her criticisms with a new interviewer. Clips (of varying lengths) from her interviews ran throughout the day.
At 10.32 Justin Davies-Smith, chief executive of another registered charity Volunteering England was invited into the studio (for over 3 minutes) to agree with Dame Elisabeth. “I very much agree with Elisabeth”, he said. Mr Davies-Smith talked of the “disconnect” in government thinking as well as about “the cuts” and “slashed” budgets.
At 11.45 Amanda McLean, chief executive of another charity The Institute of Fundraising, was interviewed by Jane Hill. This could well be one of the most biased interviews I’ve ever heard. Like the two preceding guests, Amanda likes the Big Society idea in principle. Unfortunately (for the BBC) she wasn’t a particularly passionate critic of the government, saying that she understands that funding needs “diversifying”. So she got interrupted by Jane Hill. And as she wasn’t saying quite what the BBC wanted her to say, Jane decided to say it for her. And, as you’ll see, she knew what she was doing when she asked this jaw-dropping question:
“So when Dame Elisabeth talks about one hand not really knowing what the other hand is doing that…you know, I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but that does seem to echo what you’re saying because you’re saying the will might be there, the determination might be there but we’re in such a tricky time economically, with cutbacks that are just going to get worse and worse over the next few years, you can’t really do both things at once.””
I want to emphasize that Amanda McLean had said nothing whatsoever about cuts, never mind cuts “that are just going to get worse and worse”. Nor had she argued that “you can’t really do both things at once.” She had, in fact, said nothing that could be compared to what Dame Elisabeth had said. So Jane Hill was putting words in her mouth, lots of words.
Well it worked. Mrs McLean called for bit more time, a transition, and said “the government needs to look about about any tensions that might exist in the short term.” So Jane got her criticism. It was still not very strongly-worded though, so, after just two minutes, the interview was brought to a close after a slightly awkward pause and a holding “OK” from Jane after Amanda’s answer (which I suspect was Jane Hill listening to her producer through her ear-piece telling her to stop interviewing this disappointing interviewee!!)
Finally a government minister appeared at 12.13. Having had lengthy criticisms made against his policy all morning, you might have though that Francis Maude would have been allowed to defend his position at some length without being excessively challenged. In fact, he got just under five minutes and was interrupted five times. The interview by Matthew Amroliwala began, “It’s pretty devastating criticism we were just hearing. The cuts are destroying volunteer armies. David Cameron is overestimating the amount volunteers actually want to do and there’s no strategic planning in her view.”
Thereafter the parade of critics rolled on….
There were no interruptions whatsoever at 12.35 when a double-whammy of government critics appeared (for five minutes). Toby Bloom of registered charity Urban Forum and Matt Dykes, policy officer of the TUC , were jointly interviewed. Mr Bloom said (of Dame Elisabeth) “there’s a lot of sense in what she’s saying,” “The cuts are coming so quickly”, services are “being decimated”, “the extent of the cuts is so fast and so vast” etc. Mr Dykes said, “the Big Society is basically a cover for cuts and privatisation”, “our worst fear have been confirmed”.
At 14.12, we heard from John Bird, founder of the Big Issue. “He’s also advised the government on their Big Society idea,” said Emily Maitlis, whose first question was “I guess this is a very powerful argument that’s being made by Dame Elisabeth…”.
Mr Bird is, indeed, supportive of the Big Society in principle, though he also wants society “reformulated” because there are too many inequalities. Of the Big Society he said, “we invented the concept..20 years ago”. Mr Bird was carefully trying to avoid getting lured into party politics but agreed with the Dame about the cuts, as lots of the cuts “aren’t being done very astutely”. “They haven’t stepped back and looked at the whole thing. That’s where I’m in disagreement with the government.”
Emily Maitlis, perhaps sensing that Mr Bird wasn’t being critical enough, then asked, “You know, they get somebody like you in, who’s clearly got the Big Issue, you know, sort of tag around you and essentially by working with them on the Big Society and all the rest of it you are endorsing the cuts they are making”.
“I’m not endorsing any of the cuts,” said Mr Bird. “I’ve been having a go at the libraries. I’ve been having a go at the local authorities. I’m one of those persons who stands outside the party political apparatus. They’ve all tried to draw me in.”
John Bird got four minutes. As did Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of Acevo, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations. He appeared at 14.33. (On a similar theme as David’s post on Monday, Sir Stephen was a Labour councillor in Lambeth in the 198os. (Yes that Lambeth council!))
“Is she right?” asked Emily. “Oh, she’s absolutely right”, replied Sir Stephen, “and I don’t think the government completely realise the full extent of the rising storm that faces charities and voluntary organisations” as a result of those “major cuts”. Emily Maitlis then asked a question that began “But is she right to connect the two things? I mean obviously the cuts are one thing that everyone is having to deal with and there’s a lot of unhappiness in many quarters about that…” Including Sir Stephen Bubb, who said “I’m worried about the cuts”, “We should be protected from cuts” and “Put a moratorium on these cuts”.
A few hours passed before the ball got rolling again with another double whammy of government critics at 19.43 (six minutes jointly): Sue Davis, “chief executive of Sutton in Ashfield’s citizens’ advice bureau” and Ben Kernighan of the third sector National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Opening question to Mr Kernighan from Ben Brown: “The Big Society. How do you view that? Because it was trumpeted by the Conservatives during the election campaign. A lot of people said they didn’t quite understand what it meant. And now that David Cameron is in government people are saying that actually it’s just a cover for spending cuts.”
Like everyone else (including the Labour Party) Mr Kernighan likes the idea in principle, but “we are worried at the moment. We’re hearing everyday from across the country about how services for some of the most vulnerable people are being cut. So it is a big worry in terms on the scale of the cuts.”
Sarah Davis said “it’s nothing new to us. We’ve been embracing this for 70 years.” “What is being effected by the cuts..is that I’m having to lay off the infrastructure, the staff..” “I’m really concerned.” “I am really, really concerned that what’s happening with all the cuts is it could destroy what’s already there.”
Ben Brown then asked Mr Kernighan, despite now knowing that he was a critic (if he didn’t already), asked him another question from a critical stance – and without mentioning that the council in question is a Labour one: “Liverpool City Council, for example, pulled out of the Big Society. They were one of the pioneers for experimenting with this in a way…but now they’ve pulled out saying they fear it’s just a cover for spending cuts.”
“Well, the government has GOT to do more,” replied Mr Kernighan. “The problem is now and the problem is urgent”.
Ben went to ask Ms Davis if creating the Big Society “as a policy idea in the election was a mistake”.
Sarah or Sue?
Whoops, yes Sue not Sarah!
Sarah ? Sue ? What difference does it make ? They are all Leftie clones anyway.
And talking of neglecting to mention the party who runs Liverpool City Council…
The final interview before 10 o’clock (and bedtime) was an interview with a man variously described by interviewer Fiona Armstrong (and the BBC caption writer) as
– “Paul Brant, deputy leader Liverpool City Council”
– “the deputy leader of the city council”
– “Paul Brant, deputy leader, cabinet member for finance at Liverpool City Council.”
Not one single mention of his being a Labour Party council deputy leader.
That was pretty bad but Fiona Armstrong’s first question was worse:
“Mr Brant, your council opted out of the Big Society. You were due to play a very major part in it. You must have been listening to the criticism today – from all sides – and saying ‘Well, I told you so! We were right.'”
What a gift for a Labour politician! Mr Brant said, yes, though it gave him no pleasure to say so, before launching a series of strong attacks on the government and on the “cuts that are going to savage that sector”. Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts. “Is this just a big con?” he wondered.
“So it’s not looking very hopeful at the moment”, said Fiona in conclusion, summarising his view for him, before thanking him for “joining us“.
So that’s –
8 critics of the government
2 milder critics of the government
1 supporter of the government (namely the government minister)
Regardless of your view on the issues involved, surely no-one can call this impartial coverage on the part of the BBC.
The BBC will still claim that this was unbiased, they always do.
NHS REFORMS
The following day looked as if it was going to follow a very similar path. Breakfast opened with the words, “Hello this is Breakfast with Bill Turnbull and Sian Williams. More criticism of the plans to overhaul the NHS in England. Eight leading health charities warn patients will have less say under the government’s proposals.”
What became clear, however, during the interviews that followed is that these charities were actually not against the changes per se, merely concerned about whether patients are going to be sidelined by aspects of the new bill.
At 9.42 appeared Chris Askew, chief executive of Breakthrough Breast Cancer. He talked of the “rhetoric around the bill” and the “lack of detail in the bill”, and said, “yes we have a big concern at this stage.” However, he also emphasized that he is “open-minded” about the reforms as a whole, and is in favour of some of them.
At 10.14 it was the turn of Joe Korner of the Stroke Association. He also had some concerns about one aspect of the bills but said he was not against the reforms in general, in fact was supportive of many of the reforms. He ignored Simon McCoy’s invitation to strongly attack the government (SM: “So if it goes as you fear it might how will stroke patients actually suffer?”, JK: “I don’t think they necessarily will suffer.”)
So, this latest line of attack wasn’t going too well (if you assume that the BBC wanted it to go well.) So much so that, with one exception, that was the last interview on the subject that had launched the BBC’s news day. After 1 o’clock, it simply disappeared.
That one exception was an interview (at 12.41) with Labour’s John Healey. This was the longest of the three interviews (nearly five minutes) and began gently:
Matthew Amroliwala: “Do you share these concerns?”
John Healey: “I do.”
It also ended gently:
Matthew Amroliwala: “Just elaborate on that point because..er..say these gaps are not closed in the legislation as it goes through what are you concerns in terms of the effect say it would have on anyone out there with heart disease, diabetes, any of those conditions, what it would mean for them.”
John Healey’s long answer (attacking the government, like most of his other answers) went uninterrupted – as did all his other answers.
No government minister (or any MP from either of the governing parties) was interviewed to respond to all of this.
If the charity spokesmen had been harsher in their criticism, would this story have continued until well into the evening, as happened the previous day?
Back though to Monday. Other ‘highlights’ of the day?
EGYPT
Jane Hill’s easy-going interview with Kemal Helbawy of the Muslim Brotherhood (discussed on DB’s ‘Muslim Brotherhood largely secular’ thread). Later came an interview with the unfortunately named Dr Ghayth Armanazi, former director of the Arab League Office London who accused people of “scaremongering” about the Muslim Brotherhood. Nowhere was it mentioned that he is regarded as a mouthpiece for the Syrian dictatorship.
FREE SCHOOLS
A reprise of the Sanchia Berg attack on the government over free schools (which DV discussed here that morning), complete with the obligatory use of the word ‘controversial’:
Rachel Schofield: “And this just another rung perhaps on a controversial ladder towards free schools?”
RENEWABLE ENERGY
The usual piece of environmental activism dressed up as reporting, this time a recurring report from Chris Morris discussing Europe’s “need to meet its 2020 carbon reduction targets”, oh and its energy needs too. Guess what it looked to as the hope for the future? Yes, wind farms. So it was off to North Germany and Grunde Pietsch of ARGE Netz wind farms to extol their virtues. Chris Morris also talked of the need for “a new smart grid right across the continent to transfer solar power from the South and wind power from the North to wherever it’s needed.” Tom Brookes of ECF Energy Strategy Centre was on hand to say that governments and industry have to take the lead over renewables and “large public infrastructure” such as the grid requires “a big investment” from the government. Inevitably.
THE INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS ‘CONTROVERSY’
Business correspondent Sam Washington and Bill Turnbull’s controversial overuse of the word ‘controversial‘ to describe some pro-business proposals by the Institute of Directors, followed by a cheeky interview with Miles Templeman of the IOD and a much more friendly interview with “Gail”, namely Gail Cartmel of the Unite union (whose pitch could be summed up in the words “It’s not fair!!!!!”).
EGYPT AGAIN
The appearance of a stridently anti-American author called John Bradley, who raged against Washington’s backing for “the counter revolutionaries”, “neo-liberalism” and “privatisation”. Emily Maitlis was impressed with this expert on Egypt. “Fascinating”, she said at the end.
LOCKERBIE REPORT
The inevitable appearance of stridently anti-Israeli ex-ambassador and Guardian columnist Oliver Miles to defend the warming of British-Libyan relations, say Sir Gus O’Donnell came to “rather an odd conclusion” and “rather a strange conclusion“, exonerate Labour and denounce David Cameron.
JULIAN ASSANGE
A short series of interviews on the subject of the Julian Assange extradition trial – all with people who don’t believe Assange should be extradited over those rape allegations. There was Loz Kaye of the Pirate Party UK, “which supports and provides webspace for Wikileaks”. He was “hugely concerned” about the US getting hold of Assange on “trumped-up espionage charges” and sending him to Guantanemo Bay. He got a gentle interview from Bill Turnbull. Later came Jago Russell of Fair Trails International, who opposes EU arrest warrants and doesn’t see the need for Assange to be extradited.
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Lastly, another running theme of the day was anti-social behaviour, specifically the scrapping (if so it be) of ASBOs. As well as a left-wing professor, Dr Marion Fitzgerald, who regarded the idea of anti-social behaviour as a New Labour invention created to make it look more right-wing at a time of “falling recorded crime” and who attacked the present government for its “drastic cuts” and its education reforms, the other guests on this issue included four party politicians – Vernon Coaker (Labour, 3 and a half minutes and no interruptions), James Brokenshire (Conservative, 3 and a half minutes and two interruptions), David Blunkett (Labour, 3 minutes and no interruptions) and Tony McNulty (Labour, 3 and a half minutes and no interruptions). The Tory minister might have been on to talk about his government’s new legislation of anti-social behaviour but a full three out of the five questions put to him by Matthew Amroliwala were about cuts to the police.
Would that be the disgraced “Tony McNulty” ? It is amazing the BBC still have his contact details.
As an afterthought, I remember David Vance here once describing the loathesome McNulty as “the forces sweetheart”. I still chuckle at that !
Sorry for the unusual format, but that would have made for a very long post. Hope I didn’t exhaust you all!!
No Craig, excellent idea to get over your monitoring.
The Hoodlas / Liverpool Council interventions were obviously got up jobs by Labour and their army of stooges at the BBC to set up Ed Miliband for an attack on David Cameron at PMQs.
Its very reminiscent of when Major was ‘in Office but not in power’. The coordination between the ghastly Brenda Dean, that dreadful woman from the First Division Association outrageously flouting her duty to impartiality and Claude Moraes of the Refugee Council or some such and the Labour Party and the BBC was patently obvious.
Patently obvious yet neither now or then does the Conservative led Government call Labour/BBC out on it. It would really set the cat among the pigeons if a Tory Minister called the BBC out on its close coordination with Labour’s propaganda strategy of presenting their supporters as independent figures criticising the Government, but they dont. Utterly pathetic. We need a political realignment or democracy is going to disappear from out country.
I might add that all the above three (Elizabeth Symons was the ghastly First Division Association leader) were either ennobled or became an MEP shortly before or just after New Labour assumed power thanks to their media coup.
If I remember right, Elizabeth Symons was made a peer and a Minister in either the FCO or the DTI.
No Craig, excellent idea to get over your monitoring.
The Hoodlas / Liverpool Council interventions were obviously got up jobs by Labour and their army of stooges at the BBC to set up Ed Miliband for an attack on David Cameron at PMQs.
Its very reminiscent of when Major was ‘in Office but not in power’. The coordination between the ghastly Brenda Dean, that dreadful woman from the First Division Association outrageously flouting her duty to impartiality and Claude Moraes of the Refugee Council or some such and the Labour Party and the BBC was patently obvious.
Patently obvious yet neither now or then does the Conservative led Government call Labour/BBC out on it. It would really set the cat among the pigeons if a Tory Minister called the BBC out on its close coordination with Labour’s propaganda strategy of presenting their supporters as independent figures criticising the Government, but they dont. Utterly pathetic. We need a political realignment or democracy is going to disappear from out country.
Craig, it’s all very damning and conclusive. Cameron’s “henchpersons” need to examine it and ask questions of the Director General. This would be the moment for the Tories to act.
Having read the above, I feel nauseous. The bbc has made me feel physically sick once again. I really do hate them. Am I allowed to hate them these days?
John in Cheshire, hatred spoils objectivity. If ever a way is going to be found to bring down this Gramscian propaganda monolith level heads are needed.
I find if you give way to hate you start seeing bias where it doesn’t exist at the BBC because you hate it so much.
I love the BBC, that’s why I’m trying to salvage this once Great British Institution from the Marxist scum who now infest it.
And you trying telling people that the BBC aren’t biased, and they won’t believe you.
Pretty comprehensive analysis Craig. You can imagine the pre-production meeting searching for angles and the ear piece instructions.
While your complete post is stunningly conclusive in demonstrationg BBC anti-coalition bias to anyone with their eyes and mind open I fear the vast majority of viewers and listeners will simply take the BBC news as “fact”, listening to it with half a mind as they get ready for the day ahead or go about their business. Unfortunately that half mind will absorb the relentless message as it is repeated day in day out, week in week out, in a never ending stream.
This is why when the subject of the licence fee is raised in some newspapers there are huge numbers of these half mind listening people (half wits?) writing in support of the BBC with comments like “it is trusted worldwide”, “it is totally independent”, etc., etc.
I doubt if any British government of any shade would ever have the courage to confront this now corrupt institution. We need some Egyptian generals. š
HW, we need Conservative MPs to call out the BBC on its obvious propaganda coordination with Labour.
Craig, you need to get out more boy. >:o
tuck, unless this is a cheap insult from someone who feels threatened by Craig’s excellent work exposing BBC bias, you need to show a bit of appreciation for the service Craig has rendered.
I’ve never seen you post on here before. Time will tell if you’re a Gramscian servant of BBC bias, or just an ignorant oaf.
Hippie,
I seem to remember Tuck posting at least once before. It was even less memorable than his one above !
Lefties can never understand why anyone would put in such excellent work as Craig and not be paid for it. They never would !
Yes, isn’t it amazing Craig has managed to voluntarily produce this excellent analysis despite ‘the cuts’! Someone should tell Dame Hoodwinkingus.
QUOTE: They never would !
====
Oops, I misread that at first sighting as “They never work” !
Agreed, a disgusting insult. I suggest Tuck stays in more…and watches the sheer unbridled evil that is the BBC.
Great job Craig. Bravo for documenting all that attrocious bias.
I don’t know how you put up with if for so long. I can’t stand BBC News24 for more than 2 minutes. Thank god I have a choice of Sky, Aljazeria, RT and France24 – all much less biased than BBBC.
Reminds me of a skit they had on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show: the ‘joke’ was they got a young 20yr old researcher to watch Fox news for 24 hours to capture some VT for them to take the piss out of. Anyway – they guy comes out at the end and he’s now an old man having been exposed to all that evil freedom and liberty for 24 hours. Yeah – ha ha.
But just wondering how you’re holding up after being subjected to 24 hours of BBC bias? Don’t watch too much of it. The brainwasing might have the intended effect and turn you into an anti-semitic gay muslim suicide bomber.
Terrific stuff as usual Craig, you must have a very strong constitution. I don’t think I could stomach that amount of bias without getting violet with inanimate objects, then having to take a lay down with some diazepam until I calm down a bit. š
A tour de force of meticulous research (guess one can’t say reporting -though the BBC could only dream of such rigour in what they label as such -as there is a fair bit of ‘analysis’ (opinion)).
It really reveals the pervasive and pernicious ways the ‘news’ narrative can be managed by so many subtle and not so subtle means, from ‘guest’ selection, to vox pop editing to questions posed and how it is all edited together.
Not that it really matters, as the corrosive result on professional impartiality and objective public awareness is the same, but question is, how much is simply a consequence of the mental composition of the hive, and how much is more ‘directed’ for whatever reason?
I was pondering this very fact as I watched SKY (can’t stomach BBC Breakfast for its sanctimonious, hypocritical propaganda) news before reading BBBC as part of my morning surf.
Two stories struck me in contrast. One was about the CUTS!!!! The other was an interview on what’s next for Egypt.
In the former, an expensive SKY suit walked through a poor part Manchester past various poorly (in terms of looking anything other than set up) coordinated suffering, protesting, moppets and Mums. They are… ‘upset’ about the various closings of their [insert niche service they want preserved now], but unclear and untroubled by the interviewer as to where the money comes from or what else gets sacrificed.
On to the (clearly introduced, at least) Labour ‘Sir-in-a-suit’ leader of the council, who was, oddly, dismissive, critical and selective in his views. Also untroubled by any awkward questions on his salary situation and those of the moppets.
No other input from counter-views and/or explanation necessary.
Aunty would have beamed.
Then… Egypt. And to get an insight, the bouffant interviews… an ex head of Mossad to get his views. I do note that it was him and him alone, but it was interesting (if inevitably uni-directional) to not be getting a view from a raving street vendor or airbrushed bloke with a beard whose background and context is unclear or obscured.
As Craig opened with above, at the very least in the latter cases I had a clear idea at least of the provenance of talking heads to frame their opinions. Rarely provided by the BBC.
But in the Manchester case I was still left with the familiar, queasy feeling of an emotive, ratings friendly CUTS!, ‘we are wiv da people’, common sense-lite, empathy over-heavy piece of ‘reporting’ the station should be ashamed of.
At least with the latter I heard from a direction I doubt the BBC would let near its doors, even if I would have preferred a greater and broader spread of view in discussion in the round.
At least there was a sensible word of caution post the euphoria of the ‘success’ of the ‘revolution’ as to what fills the void left. One rather suspects that with Aunty’s current state of impartiality and professionalism, the corridors of Broadcasting House were merely strewn last night with empty, well-inhaled hookahs as they surged off to join (certain peripheral aspects of) the party in the square.
‘On to the (clearly introduced, at least) Labour ‘Sir-in-a-suit’ leader of the council’
This chap, I now discover…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1356230/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Bloated-councils-cheating-democracy.html?ITO=1490
SKY, you’re on notice. And you, at least, I can make pay.
Its proof of what we all know, but nothing will be done about it.
BBC are undermining this country with its constant bias.
This is the sort of spam we can enjoy! BBC frittered.
Craig,
Great to see you back to your old inimitable form ! Don’t suppose I can persuade you to resurrect your website ????/
Your analysis is utterly devastating as usual. How can anyone have the brass neck to claim the BBC is not biased.
All I can add is that it is quite amazing how many “professional” socialists, by which I mean people who are paid vast sums of money purely to be Left-wing, crawl out of the woodwork and are given so much time on the BBC.
Classic Leftie names like “Hoodlass” . Is that really what it says on her birth certificate ? Had anyone ever heard of her before last week ?
If that’s a “lefty” name, the same could be said of “Grant”. Government Grant, eh? Nah, it’s an English surname of ancient pedigree. http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Hoodlass
Steady on , Millie, I used to be a fan of your posts here š
Eh? I’m afraid I don’t follow your reasoning here. The basis for surnames as lefty eludes me unless it is some sort of play on words. Not sure what else you are getting at.
Millie ,
Grant isn’t my real name !
But your point about “Hoodlass” demonstrates that someone can have “an English surname of ancient pedigree” and still be a Marxist.
Oh, I wasn’t using it personally as your name as such, but simply illustratively, as a way of questioning how names were identified as lefty, i.e. whether you were making some word association between the surnames and some aspect of leftiness.
Dezzie, Scotty and t’other bloke (Greg?) what are your comments about Craig’s comprehensive research? No, really, don’t hold back, we would be delighted to know your views and how you can explain this apparent bias away.
Or are you going to disappear again like you did when asked to comment on Peter Sissons’ revelations? Or is it that there is no “low-hanging fruit” to reach for, as someone on this site calls it? Please respond, but we won’t hold our breaths waiting for you.
Demon,
No, don’t hold your breath ! At the end of the day even the Dezzies and Scotties know they are defending the indefensible , but for some reason they do try. Pathetic, really.
To continue with names. “Toby Bloom”, “Matt Dykes”, “Sir Stephen Bubb “. But the ultimate name made in socialist heaven has to be
” Loz Kaye “.
Craig, if I didn’t know you better, I would assume you have invented these names and people. Please convince me they don’t exist.
If they do , what on earth would they do with their sad little lives if they weren’t paid just to be Lefties ? Mind you you could say the same about Beeboids.
Final question for anyone. Why is the older Miliband “David” and not “Dave ” ? It just doesn’t feel right.
Great work, Craig.
Thank you Craig for your excellent analysis. I see the bias at the BBC and hope that my comments here make people think – but you put the time and effort into quantifying it. Much appreciated.
The BBC News has become one long party poitical broadcast for the Labour Party but in doing so it has become boring – my hope is that it is making people switch off.
Unfortunately not. force of habit means that Mrs NotaSheep listen to Radio 4 when she gets ready for work and that is the only news she hears. This is the case for a lot of people so unless they have someone to explain the problems with the messages they are receiveing from the BBC, what is on the BBC news, is the news and the narrative is accepted as the only narrative.
NotaSheep,
Good man, send the wife out to work and patronise her !!! š
I always knew allowing women access to the “News” would cause problems !
She does work, I am in bed snoozing when she is listening to radio 4!
I couldn’t possibly comment !!!
As forensic as an analysis as ever. Maybe Andrew Marr could be contacted and asked if he still stands by his comment (in this site’s sidebar) that: ‘“We get from time to time people saying you’re biased in favour of the Labour Party. Every time I ask people – show me a case of that bias, explain to me where we got it wrong and why what we said was so unfair – they seem to be unable to do so”,
Andrew Marr May 11th, 2001.’
Nota,
Something tells me Marr didn’t try too hard !
Well done, Craig. Tremendous work, dedication and staying power on your part to capture and document all that. When laid out like that, it speaks for itself. Will you be distributing it elsewhere to certain selected parties? I don’t just mean political parties.
Yes, I’ve e-mailed the link to some familiar names at the Telegraph and the Mail, plus to a few politicians. I’m hunting out more useful e-mail addresses at the moment!
Try William Hague, see if he is willing to actually do something to justify his supposed right-wing credentials.
Good luck , Craig. Keep us in touch, please !
Nota, I have given up on wee Willie. Does he have an Arab boyfriend by any chance ?
Good luck with that Craig. It would be good to see your name as a regular or occasional columnist on the Mail or Telegraph, failing that your work being written up by someone else for the MSM. There are quite a few regular posters here I would say the same thing about, David Vance, Robin Horbury, David Preiser and Sue to name but four. I can but wish…
Funny how things change, isn’t it? A few years ago, I’d never watch anything but the BBC – I found ITV cheap and nasty, and Channel 4 mildly interesting when it came along. BBC News was always de rigueur, because we knew that it would be unemotional, non-commercial and basically factual.
Now, I go out of my way to avoid the BBC, especially news and “comedy” programmes, because there’s such a blatant prejudicial spin to everything they say. Not that the other channels are much better, they all appear to have their little pet agendas, and these coupled with the hand-rubbing alarmism and over-blown (rather than factual) reporting, and the high degree of dumbing-down and patronism towards the average British muppet all serve to make them mostly unwatchable. You can’t rely on BBC Radio for a balanced view anymore, either – to wit “Today”.
We no longer have factual news disseminated to us, but an over-edited, over-egged and spun version of how the presenters (and reporters) “see” it, and we are spoon fed items which will be “good” for us, and which will “encourage” us to see things their way, and above all are protected from nasty violence (unless, of course, it’s supportive of their ideology), blood and gore.
The cognisant amongst us appreciate what’s happening to the way that we’re exposed to the goings on in the world, but the average plebs who have the news on merely because it falls in between a couple of soaps, or “reality” programmes have no idea, nor do they really care.
I really avoid most of the Beeboid News and Comedy as well. I find I can only stand small doses at a time. It’s all this constant relentless babble, babble, gabble, gabble, that gets me as much as anything. A lot of it is as you say, overblown. The News is not really a bulletin but a TV programme designed to occupy a half hour in the schedule. A lot of it is filler and bibble babble.
Hard, painstaking work, Craig! Your heroic diligence pins down the slippery parts of the BBC’s bias that other methods fail to reach.
Take a day off. š
Grant, talking of funny names, how could you not give special mention to Dr. Ghayth Armanazi?
D’you think there’s a message therein?
Sue,
A left-wing , gay , Arab Nazi with a lisp.
I assumed that Craig was taking the mickey doing an excellent impersonation of the late and great Michael Wharton.
Excellent work Craig, I just don’t know how you have the patience to sit through so much BBC Labour love-ins without kicking the radio into touch or hurling a brick at the tv screen.
Your accuracy and dedication to recording all the methods of bias (airtime, appearances, omission, interruptions, audience balance etc) is excellent, my only fear is that, apart from on here and on other blogs, your work is going unnoticed by those who can and should be investigating and then stopping the bias.
I noticed obvious bias in the BBC’s Ceefax letters pages and I tried to accurately record proof but simply found that work and home pressures meant I missed some days here and there. (What I did record showed about 78% bias in favour of Labour/Left – no suprise there of course) So I couldn’t even cover a tiny fraction of the BBC’s output – hats off to your coverage then.
Well done Craig. That’s how the BBC works, they feel that if they have one, token, right of centre voice (regardless of how many opposing, left-wing voices they have and whether or not they even let him speak more than three words without interruption) then they have given ‘both sides’ a say.
What is truly bizarre though, is that the Tory Party in it’s current form is quite happy to just sit there and take it.
All part of ‘detoxifying the brand’ don’t you know!
Thank you for all your very kind words.
I have to admire the likes of David P. and Martin who can watch the News Channel for long stretches of time. The hourly (or quarter hourly) return of things you found irritating first time round isn’t fun.
I just recorded the whole of Monday’s coverage on my digibox while I was out at work and fast-forwarded through all the repetitive bits (and all the beeboid-on-beeboid bits and sports news, etc) on Tuesday and Thursday nights, stopping whenever someone was interviewed or a new topic came up – so it didn’t take as long as you might think (thankfully!) to write it all up.
I will do it again soon.
I mostly just have the News Channel on in the background while working. But being around for the shift changes and the long term does grant the perspective to be able to see a Narrative as it builds. As you’ve shown here.
Excellent work as always.
You deserve a medal for actions above and beyond the call of duty.
Craig
Admirable stuff and complete proof – if that were needed – of the BBC’s comprehensively partial coverage of the issues of the day.
The depressing thing, as others have noted or, at least, implied, is the absence of any, let alone an adequate, response from the “Conservatives” to the litany of statist and Labour-leaning abuse which the BBC has been handing out to the non Guardian reading classes, certainly since 1979. After a short period of doubt after the formation of the coalition last year BBC bias and the consequent abuse of its position has grown in volume, extent and sheer brazenness.
Closer to home, I doubt you’ll get any comment here from any of the usual BBC apologists because, frankly, there is nothing for them to say given that the evidence of bias is so clear and extensive.
Umbongo, you said they had a small period of doubt after the formation of the coalition (I didn’t notice it myself but I accept what you say). Do you think it was because they felt they needed a few days to look as if they were giving the Coalition the benefit of the doubt, or is it that they thought their number was up and the Coalition would nail them for their relentless propaganda over many years and were therefore worried what Cameron might do to them? If the latter then it didn’t take them long to realise that Cameron was just another patsy that would be too frightened to stand up to them.
Demon yes the Beeb does have these brief moments of doubt when something (to them) shocking and unexpected occurs. For a few days following Sept 11th and July 7th the normal propaganda was suspended as for once there didn’t seem to be a party line for them to follow. This period doesn’t last long though as they regroup and agree a line (which is usually to ignore and tries to forget what has just happened).
There was also such a gap after the Coalition won the election. It was shocking to the average Beebiod on two fronts firstly they were sure that Brown would win and even after he didn’t achieve a majority they were sure Nick Clegg was one of them and would keep Labour in power. When this didn’t happen they were bseside themselves.
Don’t forget that the BBC pushed David Cameron’s candidature rather than David Davis’s. They knew which would bve easier to scare and easier to attack – the Tory toff.
Demon 1001
” . . they thought their number was up and the Coalition would nail them for their relentless propaganda over many years and were therefore worried what Cameron might do to them”
I’m not convinced thay thought their number was up but they were a bit worried. Who wouldn’t have been? If, say, the BBC had been biased in favour of not just Thatcherism but the whole anti-multi-culti, pro-capitalist, anti-EU package (ie just what the political class hates) from 1979 to 1997, just imagine what Labour would have done to the BBC. There would have been (metaphorically speaking) blood on the streets outside Broadcasting House and no champagne bottles in the corridors at the White City.
However, as we’ve seen, the reaction to the relatively unhysterical bias post the formation of the coalition was muted (or actually non-existent) and the BBC – for once with a public body in the UK – has really learned lessons. For the time being it’s untouchable.
OTOH, the good news is that even here, in the la-la land of North London, something is definitely stirring. The recent attack on Radio 4 and Danny Cohen’s pseudo-prole blatherings (together with its journalistic failure in Egypt) have even made the luvvies in Muswell Hill (if not yet Islington) aware that not everything issuing from the BBC is sacred text. There is a slowly creeping realisation that, in fact, most of the BBC’s ex cathedra statements about its “impartiality” and “world-class broadcasting” together with its class-ridden ambitions are actually fatuous rubbish.
Fantastic work, Craig. I was especially interested in the BBC’s prompting of interviewees to come out more strongly against the cuts. This is leftie social engineeering at its most obsessive from this news-manipulating organisation.
I am pretty sure that the BBC broadcasters genuinely feel that they are totally neutral and unbiassed because from a left wing prospective they reason that they are neutral. If they really were given permission to put forward what they considered a truly left wing agenda then I leave it to your imagination as to what that would be. Scary?
Maybe so but the simplest of simple measures to maintain and monitor its outpourings for impartiality would show whether the Beeboid Corporation is being impartial or not. If they did nothing more than count how many from each party they invite to their programmes that would show something. They don’t appear to do even that or to care whether they are impartial or not. So I don’t think it is enough of an explanation that they think they are neutral. THey have a responsibility to be impartial. So why aren’t they doing monitoring?
Because they don’t think they have to and because there are no sanctions if they do not.
If a group of BNPers (I won’t praise them by calling them right-wingers because they’re not) took over ITV and only employed staff with the same mindset.
And if during all their broadcasts they called for an end to immigration, the closing down of Moslem Faith schools and things like that: and lefties complained about their excessive Islamophobia, while neo-nazis attacked them for not calling for Gas Chambers to be erected and not having programmes on commemorating Hitler’s birthday; using BBC logic they could claim to be impartial as they were being attacked from both sides equally.
That is the BBC mindset explained – the above is an argument that could be used against their increasingly ridiculous claims of impartiality. For them Impartiality is a word in the dictionary and nothing else.
Interesting article on today’s Telegraph website “If I were in charge of R4”. Come on folks – now’s your chance to have some sport with the lefties.
John W,
Yes in the Sunday Telegraph today. All the arty-farty luvvies were supporting the white middle class R4. How ironic , their left-wing credentials flying out the window when they may be personally affected.
I really laughed at someone described as “Wendy Holden , writer” who says “My real passion is the arts ” then later ” I don’t mind Robert Peston but rarely know what he is on about ” .
You couldn’t make it up !!!