If you examine the 2005 report by Lord Wilson of Dinton into the BBC’s coverage of EU-related matters, what leaps out is bias by omission, the crude but systematic ignoring by BBC journalists of important EU issues. Six years on, nothing has changed. Transcripts of relevant items on yesterday’s main news programmes on BBC radio and television show that there was scarcely any discussion of UKIP’s remarkable second-place result in the Barnsley by-election. There was a 20-seconds soundbite from Nigel Farage on Today, but that was virtually it; UKIP was airbrushed out and the only angle that was covered was that the Lib Dems got a good kicking – giving BBC journalists another excuse to continue with their cacophony of anti-cuts stories. This fits in with their long-term agenda to both brand UKIP as loonies and otherwise ignore the party. The idea that UKIP reflects a major and fast-growing anti-EU swell of opinion is repugant to all BBC journalists.
In fact, the EU only ever comes under criticism from the BBC when there is worry that Brussels is not doing enough about climate change. Here, Richard Black sets out at length and without balance the views of those who think that an already suicidal 20% cut in C02 emissions should be increased to a lunatic 25% or more. To enliven his argument, he highlights a quote from a group of his eco-zealot chums called Sandbag, the jolly members of which are pictured above. They say, no doubt exactly in line with Mr Black’s own views:
“The scaremongering tactics of a handful of industrial lobbyists have successfully castrated Europe’s climate ambitions”
As I have noted before, there’s a clear link between Sandbag and the Futerra PR camapigning group which trains BBC personnel in propaganda techniques. That aside, as far as I can see, the only qualifications that this loathsome self-important, eco-fascist group have to lecture us are that they have spent years on fat salaries working for groups such as Oxfam and WWF. For Mr Black, of course, they are demi-gods.
“A great night for UKIP. I reckon it will be the largest British party in Brussels come 2014”
(by Ed West).
On propaganda by omission, BBC-EU’s advocacy of Islamising Turkey’s entry into the EU is evident by the BBC-EU’s tendency to relegate negative references to e.g. PM Erdogan’s demand that Turks must not assimilate into Germany/EU.
“German Politicians Do Away With Themselves “
Nice one, Robin. My only suggestion is that we call bias by omission what it really is: censorship.
It is shocking how little the BBC has said about UKIPs breakthrough at Barnsley. If its something that does not fit in to what they want they ignore it. Something must be done about the BBC they cannot continue like this. They are breaking their charter.
Nigel Farage was interviewed on Today this morning ahead of UKIP’s Spring Conference. That’s something at least. But why put him on at 7.09 on a Saturday morning – surely the worst spot on the show for listening figures? (Ah, question answered!)
John Humphrys’s questions, not lacking mockery, played down UKIP’s achievement (but, oddly, upped Labour’s).
Interviews with UKIP politicians tend to be unfriendly affairs at the BBC (despite the charm of the UKIP politician being interviewed). In what looks as if it’s going to be the only contribution the BBC News website makes to the corporation’s coverage of the party’s conference, Mike Sargeant sourly interviews Nigel Farage, playing down UKIP’s achievements.
My old interruption surveys showed that UKIP politicians were the most likely politicians to be interrupted by BBC interviewers. The Conservatives and even the BNP faired far better at the BBC’s hands than UKIP. The party has also been at the receiving end of some nasty BBC reports (the worst within the last couple of years being from Jon Sopel on the Politics Show and Jon “Guantanemo” Manel on The World at One, both shockers). The last article on the BBC website specifically about UKIP was this. It describes Nigel’s “grilling” at the hands of Mumsnet and is very clearly written by an anonymous BBC reporter who does not like UKIP.
Another sign of bias is the BBC’s continual, shameless linking of UKIP with the BNP. The two parties are very different, but the BBC likes to smear UKIP by pretending they aren’t.
Apart from the great Sir Patrick Moore, is there anyone at the BBC who supports UKIP?
Surely the bbc has Common Purpose with the Labour Party. And just about every other socialist, muslim loving organisation in England.
Another sign of bias is the BBC’s continual, shameless linking of UKIP with the BNP. The two parties are very different, but the BBC likes to smear UKIP by pretending they aren’t.
This is a constant tactic of the left. I’ve heard many refer to UKIP as ‘the BNP in blazers’. They try and make out right-wing ideas are more unsavoury or extreme than they are, for instance wanting to preserve something of British sovereignty is xenophobic, want to preserve somerhing of its history and culture is xenophobic or racist and so on. They also try and shift right-wing individuals and groups further to the right and as often as possible fascism, which for them is in a straight, rightward path from conservatism rather than having anything peculiar about them and therefore it is just a matter of degree between someone on the right and fascism and not a qualitative difference. One should be able to see the propogana value in such a position.
This means many on the left try successively nudge those on the right down this path they have created so UKIP are as bad as the BNP really are(of course to them, as noted, there is no qualitative distinction between such parties.) and the BNP are fascists and as bad as the NF. Sooner or later expect the Tories to be thrown in. There is perhaps a contradition in this tactic as it involves equating groups like UKIP and the BNP together while always wanting to shunt each group as far right as possible. This leaves a certain vagueness which amounts to be able to note little distinction between any of the right-wing positions; which is of course what the most advanced people on the left are basically willing to say.
I think at the moment it is the BNP and not UKIP who come off worse from this tactic. I don’t much care for the BNP but they aren’t actually fascist and yet are routinely called so which basically ends up dehuamanising the BNP and legitimising extreme and even violent tactics against them. The so called anti-fascists already often seem to think such tactics acceptable and at best the mainstream seems to generally silently acquiesce. This to me is becoming a very worrying precedent in British politics.
I don’t think I’m wrong in seeing some on the left would love to treat UKIP in a similar way(hence BNP in blazers comments.).
This is not to say we on the right do not exaggerate the designations and views of our opponents but not usually in quite so systematic and underhand way. But it is still wrong when anyone does it and we all must make sure we don’t partake in such behaviour.