Lovely pouting Sarah Montague doesn’t care much for George Osborne. If you listen to this interview the tone in her voice towards him is positively glacial. It all concerns a concerted leftwing attack on the Coalition’s economic policies and naturally the BBC has been to the fore in promoting their sub-Keynesian nonsense. As the prelude to the interview with Osborne, the BBC rows in with “an increasing number of economists are suggesting the Chancellor should be thinking again about the speed of the cuts” meme that is essentially Labour Party policy. Cue Stephanie “Two Eds” Flanders.
Osborne does very well, I think, by at several points picking up on what he rightly characterises as BBC misrepresentation. When I hear a senior Conservative tackle the BBC bias head-on I wonder why more do not follow. It’s only when you let them assert their bias unchallenged that they succeed. The BBC just cannot accept that Osborne is doing a much better job than their heroes such as Gordon “We saved the world” Brown and so it seizes on every piece of bad economic news and ignores any good economic news in order to try and tack behind the Labour narrative that the “cuts” need to be reduced. Note that Nick Robinson is brought in at the end to “comment” on Osborne’s answers and he immediately starts talking about the mythical Plan B.
I caught this interview. Sarah aggresive, interrupting, shrill and jumping out of her pram, but that is par for the course. I thought George did well, calm rational and pretty much accused the BBC of bias outright.
Sarah gave the game away at least once when she used the word “we” as if the BBC is part of the Labour opposition. I mean, heaven forbid.
BBC bias at its most blatant and boringly predicatable.
I look forward to Scottie, Dezzie and Daisy’s comments. I am sure they can pick up on a few typos somewhere.
Not sure you should lump Daisy in with Scott and Dez.
I had News24 on in the background last night and there were two of The Observer’s signatories interviewed but not one member of government.
Their left-wing rants, unsurprisingly, went pretty much unchallenged.
I don’t know if anyone else picked this up but one of the strap lines shown when the economists were being interviewed on News24 was “Left-wing academics criticise government…”
=-O
Daniel,
I suspect that an unpaid intern was responsible for that error which will be corrected asap. The intern will be sacked or sent on a re-programming course, but his or her future with the BBC looks fairly bleak.
On the other hand , it is a great chance for Scottie/Dezzie/Daisy to point out the BBC’s lack of bias. Except that I got in first !
If the BBC even regard them as “left wing”-they could only be Pol Pots dry cleaning firm.
I thought Osborne gave a good account of himself, and was especially gratified that he managed to get a dig or two in about the media being lurid purveyors of bad economic news, but, strangely, forget to mention the good.
Natsman,
Well he did mention some report about 400,000 jobs being created and something else I can’t remember.
But he did stop short at accusing the BBC point blank of bias.
Every Tory should do this every time they are interrogated by Beeboids. Why don’t they ?
I think it essential to accuse the BBC of bias when on the BBC as it discomforts them.
He did stop short, but it was obvious who he meant.
It was clear to me from the start that Osborne had decided on a tactic of continuing to talk over the interruptions, and it seemed to work quite well. Gratifying to see this more aggressive approach to a BBC interview, but will it continue?
David Cameron is very good at doing that. He makes sure he says what he had intended to say. He may have been giving George tips.
I’ve just listened to the clip and Osborne did do well in that interview. They know the Beeboid game and probably do plan and practise how to handle it.
A glimmer of hope. Now we just need them to remember they are Conservatives.
The BBC is completely in sync with the two Eds’ mythical Plan 9 From Outer Space. They have been banging on about ‘too fast, too deep’ for months. In fact it is now getting hard to tell what comes first – the Labour funky chicken line or the BBC bad egg message.
Hope that Today has a Plan B whenever they are stuck with Justin and Sarah again, leading us all in the Company Song Chorus.
Whoever sent them out on the Serpentine to splash and nearly sink their dinghy( that thinks it`s a flagship! ) needs to “reflect” on their decision. Poor poppets still treading water in the fleck and spittle as far as I could tell.
Only their own today-Billington(Guardian) Dandridge(Unis) Blackstone and Grayling(Godless Unis-Blairs flotation device) let them get away with their incompetences and prejucides unlike usual.
Everyone else in the last hour fought back-not always as they should(too posh and well brought up I`m sure!). Worms a turnin` though mama!
After the bull was carried out of the ring at 9am, Marr wondering if he really should follow it-we note that the Unions survey of job losses comes straight in at number 2(what else?) in the news bulletin.
Presumably that rigging of news items, cut and paste editing that removes their cack hands still in the warmth and the dog whistle that is “cuts” is all that remains in their dress up box as a Plan B!
God help them-well no! Grayling, Blackstone and the countless other athiest that they employ would not allow them even that as an option.
Plan B for taking down this washing line of dingy linens that is the Toady Show must therefore be the UK theme tune restored and extended for three hours…things can -MUST-only get better eh?
BBC rickshaws will soon be employing Sarah and Justin at the wrong end of the contraption if this continues-and I think it will too!
But Osborne must have agreed to put Patten in as head of the Beeb, and must have known that he has a pension to defend.
Absolutely David. Like all bullies, our egomaniacal Beeboid presenters retreat when interviewees challenge them.
I can never understand why interviewees are so defensive and respectful. I guess this is based on the presumption that Beeboids are actually, ahem, objective in their pursuit of “truth”. They are not, of course. They are invariably protagonists (of the most sneaky and malevolent kind). Therefore the more effective and honest response is to attack when attacked… and to constantly point out their own bias. As Osborne did today.
Anyone remember Anne Coulter eviscerating the vile bully Paxman? A pleasure to behold.
I remember that. We need much more of Coulter’s approach.
Yes he did quite well. I especially liked his resigned, dismissive exhortation at 10:55 when Montague proved she wasn’t listening to what he had said and ended up proving his point for him; her arrogance merging into downright stupidity.
I was driving at the time but about 20 minutes later some other guy came on about the sport and had a snide dig at the fact that GO had dared to object to the ridiculous preamble.
The Today programme is out of control.
Wrong, the Today programme is perfectly in control. They know what they are doing, who they are supporting and what they want – they will do all in their power to see the projects through and damn the public interest.
Ok – you’ve got me on an unwitting ambiguity!
What I meant is that they are acting ultra vires.
Are they still ignoring your complaints? They are just blanking me. Not sure whether it’s because they know I’ve got ’em…
Yes; BBC-NUJ cannot conceal their true political colours on economic policy:
1.) they are hypocritical, and instinctively hostile in their opposition to the Tories, compared to a co-operative attitude to Labour;
2.) as largely non-economists, they present a bowderised version of ‘Keynesian’ economics as their truth.
Agree with all the comments so far. GO did very well, stood his ground and also put SM in her place re reporting abd news.
One point, she sounded – in tone and delivery – exactly like John Humph to me, do they get TOADY training?
…and the IMF report he mentioned twice has come out in favour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13668574
(they managed a few lines!)
‘Two Eds’. I like it and am so stealing it.
Good for Osborne for calling Montague out on the biased intro. They do this so often, creating the context for their Narrative before anyone else gets a word in. “Hello boys and girls, Mr. Osborne is wrong, and he’s here today to tell us why.”
Interruptions, challenges, half-truths. Must be a Today segment with a Tory. It’s a bit unfair of an interviewer to step on the guest’s answer just because they know what the guy is going to say already. He’s answering the question, but because Montague knows the answer in advance (he defends his position, what a shock), she acts as if he’s not answering the question. Answers are for the audience’s benefit more than the interviewer’s, really. They should be allowed to hear it before the interviewer pressed the point further.
And does Montague get bonus pay for digging up hoary old attacking points, like reminding everyone that Osborne was once accused by Labour of “talking down the economy”? How long ago was that, and how fast did it die out because it was a lame charge? Weak.
But Montague’s entire case is based on the OECD and other economists saying that slowing it down the cuts is dangerous. So why the hell is the US getting a credit warning for not cutting fast enough?
And Robinson gave good doublespeak. There is no Plan B because there isn’t one, or because there is one but they just don’t talk about it publicly? Robinson knows but won’t say to protect what little access he has left. He should just quit the BBC and go be a spin doctor for somebody.
Hey, what a shock: the News Channel just led off the hour with this story, phrased as Osborne being under pressure to change. The first pundit, though, is the acting head of IMF who says that while they’re going to downgrade the prediction of UK economic growth, maybe things are so bad that Osborne should change tack. It’s a “slight downgrade”, he says.
It’s curious, but to my ears it sounds like the IMF guy just refuted the BBC’s position, but I think they hear the opposite, fixated on the word “downgrade”. There will still be growth, unlike what we heard from Montague.
Now Stage Performer Maitlis gave Laura K a leading question for her to give it the full attack spin: the nasty Tories “are basically betting the farm” that their cuts are the right thing to do at the right time. She doesn’t say anything informative, just doomsaying. They have their Narrative and are sticking to it.
Sorry, that should read that the IMF guy said things “aren’t” so bad that Osborne needs to change tack.
The Adam Smith Institute describes how few of the “economists” are actually economists.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/economists%3f-what-economists%3f/
Haha. Tim Willcox just asked another talking head (Mark Littlewood from the Institute of Economic Affairs) if we shouldn’t heed the advice of all those guys saying Osborne should slow down the cuts because “some of them worked for the Treasury”. Yes, the guy says, but one of the signatories was a “professor of media studies”, who isn’t qualified to pronounce judgment on the economy. Made my morning.
Littlewood also said that he heard the IMF statement the same way I did. Will the BBC listen? No, the Narrative is that it’s not so good after all, and we’ll find more reasons why not.
If an Economist “worked for the Treasury” he must be wrong !
Nick Robinson’s role appears to be cast as a judge presiding over a court case. The BBC puts the case for Labour followed by George Osborne’s case for the government. The BBC then gives itself the job of being the judge and jury. In a democracy this is not the way to present politics.
Interesting. Now that you point it out, this does seem to be the main reason the BBC has Robinson and Flanders and Peston.
Well, well. Georgie boy seems to have hit a raw nerve!
However, Mr Osborne was public in his criticism of how we are doing and chose to give three concrete examples of where he thought we had gone wrong. We feel it merits a response.
The Beeboids first point is BS and dodges the charge. He says that Osborne is wrong about emphasizing the OECD because they didn’t lead with it in last night’s news. But Montague did use it this morning to attack him, which is the whole point. And nowhere does this Beeboid admit that almost half the signatories are either activists or don’t work in economics. The way Montague presented it was basically a lie.
Point two is a classic. Osborne is wrong to say the BBC never mentions job growth because they did include a throwaway line once this morning, amongst all the negatives. Boy does that sound familiar.
Point three is half-assed as well. The fact that they mentioned three negative Markit reports is balanced out by reporting on one positive one? Yawn.
One supposes it’s just a matter of who thinks what is most important to get across…
IMF backs George Osborne’s spending cuts plan
http://www.channel4.com/news/imf-backs-george-osbornes-spending-cuts-plan
But one is sure the BBC’s versions ‘get it about right’.
Tying a couple of threads together, the BBC editor responsible for that effort – the BBC’s Business and Economic Editor Jeremy Hillman – tweeted this about the Sandi Toskvig controversy:
jeremyhillman Jeremy Hillman
Hadn’t heard the very funny R4 news quiz gag until Mail on Sunday splashed on the outrage They ‘had to repeat it’ to explain the story!!
5 Jun
Jeremy Hillman, the man the BBC put out today on their Editors’ Blog to defend the BBC’s impartiality in the wake of George Osborne’s criticisms – their own Business and Economics Editor – is an interesting choice to talk about BBC impartiality. (Yes, it’s Twitter‘s fatal attraction for beeboids time again!
Here’s Mr Hillman moaning about Jeremy Hunt:
Jeremyhillman Jeremy Hillman
Jeremy Hunt: BBC often doesn’t get it right on impartiality gu.com/p/2p6eh/tw – one day he may something complimentary about the Beeb 17 May
As well as lots and lots of snide remarks about the Daily Mail (of course) and friendly plugs for the Guardian (of course), there are lots of other tweets that show where he stands politically – and it isn’t on the same side of the political spectrum as George Osborne:
jeremyhillman Jeremy Hillman
Nightmare QT panel: Hugh Hendry, David Starkey + who? #bbcqt
28 Oct
jeremyhillman Jeremy Hillman @ @emilybell I’m going to make Nick Clegg follow me, he doesn’t seem to be fussy
10 May 10
And, most tellingly of all, here he is (just before the general election) re-tweeting something from an old friend of this blog, our very own Scott:
jeremyhillman Jeremy Hillman RT @scottm RT The real winner of #leadersdebate has been the BBC. Don’t let the Tories rip the Beeb apart
29 Apr 10
BBC impartiality??!! To quote someone from Mr Hillman’s least favourate newspaper, you couldn’t make it up!!
So good, it got tweeted thrice….
BBC – The Editors –http://bbc.in/iSZEiC – My response to the Chancellor’s criticisms of our coverage made on the Today programme earlier17 hours ago via
jeremyhillman Jeremy Hillman RT @jeremyhillman http://bbc.in/iSZEiC – BBC response to the Chancellor’s criticisms of our coverage made on the Today programme earlier
16 hours ago
BBC rejects George Osborne’s claims that its reporting is biasedhttp://t.co/UuG2ddI via @guardian
9 hours ago
Which, as far as I can gather, is him tweeting about the Guardian ‘reporting’ on him talking about himself as ‘the BBC’.
In light of the other tweets Craig has highlighted… a perfect spokesperson for editorial impartiality. Not to mention market rate talent grasp of reality.
How long before the BBC runs the Guardian story as ‘Media rallies around BBC?’ in a ”critics’ are not saying anything’ counter twist to their usual.
Shame no one seems to read the Guardian but the BBC, so such a stout defence may get seen beyond the blinkered hive and maybe convince a couple of others.
BBC-NUJ-Labour on the IMF’s report:
Comrade Mason avoids Plan A, and propagandises about Plan B and Plan C.
BBC-NUJ-Labour’s PAUL MASON, Father of the Chapel at ‘Newsnight’ manages to mention the Labour Party in his first sentence of an article ostensibly about the IMF’s report on the British coalition government’s economic policies.
Avoiding reference to Plan A, Comrade Mason only propagandises about Plans B and C.
“IMF set out a ‘Plan B’ for George Osborne”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13672752
Expect some careful BBC-NUJ-Labour editing of IMF spokesman on ‘Newsnight’ tonight.
Watch out to see how economical with the truth ‘Newsnight’ is on the economy.
Apparently, Comrade Mason’s left-hand (grasping at economic straws) doesn’t know what BBC-NUJ-Labour’s right-hand is writing:
“IMF says no changes are needed to UK economic policy”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13668574
Bless him… and the consistent narrative his employers manage to instill in all staff.
Clearly, again, when near all (bar a few economists whose backgrounds need not become an issue) are of a counter view, it becomes obvious that they are misguided and hence wrong vs. those who have grasped the ‘true path’ of righeousness.
Verily, they art unique.
And with £4Bpa and 24/7 reach to 60+M folk, they are likely to stay that way.
No matter what they come up with next.
The usual tactic for the BBc is to report something and have a left wing activist (disguised as an expert) rubbish it.
Perfect example on 5 lite. The IMF welcomed Osbornes policies on the economy it is anounced. The “political corraspondent” next informing us that the IMF always welcomes “cuts” so there is no suprise there. Then some German sounding economist who had written a letter to a newspaper critising the coalitions policies. After that no right of reply for the governments side.
Then a report by the Mothers Union on the sexulisation (is there such a word?) of children. No input at all from the report writer, but 10 minutes rant from some lefty professor who had already written a report for Labour saying there is no problems at all and the government was only responding to a few reactionary parents (who are not typical) – I think he meant people with morals, but he never mentioned that word of course. So the upshot was there is no problem at all. It was obvious that the interviewer had not read the Mothers Union report as not once did she mention it in her 2 or 3 “interuptions”
Now if any should doubt the bias, reverse the situation. Labour attack a policy and the coalition spokesman is then allowed to put their position without being interupted or challenged at all.
On both “items” to ensure fairness 2 people one on either side of the argument should be present in the studio Or is this just too revolutionary .
JHT,
The emphasis is on the IMF ” downgrading ” the UK’s growth estimates. Also I heard the “IMF have got it wrong in the
past “. None of the Left-wing think tanks ever got anything wrong in the past.
The studio point is right. If possible the BBC get the Leftie into the studio and any opponent on a telephone. Easier to pull the plug on them that way.
All tricks of the trade for the BBC.
The BBC have been running this one now for ages…basically all the Tories are doing is not admitting a hypothetical Plan B,so they can be accused of yet another u-turn at Beeb behest…the peoples champion interrogating arm.
The IMF have the sheer nerve to tell Osborne what their findings are to be…and not leak it to Monatgues research monkey. That is the crime to the BBC-why would they give a stuff about unemployment and disability etc after Labour did exactly the same things-but unquestioned?
So the “unacceptably high” unemployment levels get flagged up and highlighted…any good stuff “not surprisingly” gets dumped…and Montagues non story of this morning falls flat again.
But like a dog returns to its vomit..the BBC will “talk the economy down” but somehow that is OK if Mandelson isn`t accusing them of it now!
So this is Beebworld-and a complete irrelevance for most of us. There will be real non-payment of poll tax for the privilege of being so insulted very soon!
BBC-NUJ-Labour’s economic policy would signal the end of Britain’s national sovereignty.
Along with Balls, BBC-NUJ wants to get UK further into debt.
Economic policy, Greek-style; and debt, Greek-style.
BBC-EU reports the Greek demonstations against the consequences of their debt, without mentioning the threat to Greek national sovereignty. Of course, ideologically (especially under Patten influence) BBC-EU is for the destruction of national sovereignty, to be replaced by a European state of Europe (to include Islamic countries of North Africa). But surely BBC-EU should be honest about it?
“GREECE: There Are New Emergency Bailout Talks That Could Spell The End Of National Sovereignty”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-bailout-will-require-loss-of-sovereignty-2011-5#ixzz1OXGv6Bfs
But according to Stephanie Flanders the Greek bailout is going so well…
Why the Greek bail-out has worked
Here is Stephanie Floundering Flanders view on the IMF report.
“Impeccable sources have told me there was considerable concern among senior IMF economists last year at the pace of the coalition’s plans to cut the deficit. ”
If you dont have any facts then throw in some hearsay and hope nobody wonders why you are doing it…
‘Impeccable sources have told me’
Michael Crick has become a journalistic laughing stock for his near continual use of ‘sources’, whose peckerbility or not is irrelevant by being unnamed and their ‘views’ unsubstantiated.
That this lady is known to have enjoyed a close relationship with political soul mates who have a vested interest in sowing ‘considerable concern’ to distract from the spotlight rather disastrously shining on their less than coherent role in all this, and now dubiously alluding to views they are spouting, rather lands her in Mr. Crick’s dubious club.
Classic. The I m f ,an organisation not traditional Tory friends, gives the boy wonder a clean bill of health an you can’t find any mention on the beeb news front page.
Do you think if the Scottish cyclops had been given such an endorsement they would have dropped it from the front page in five days never mind five hours?
My posting on the BBC editors blog has just been removed, due to being:
“considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others, Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable Contain swear words or other language likely to offend”
Here is my deleted post, for information. Offensive, perhaps to some thin skinned beeboids, but breaching none of their other criteria. Certainly less offensive than Sandy Trotsvig’s nasty remark.
Seems to me that Shinsei and Derek_Watson have just nailed you to the wall, Mr. Hillman. Personally I find Biased BBC’s account of this rather snarky performance a good deal more credible. Hillman’s squirming little apologia is merely a prolix and erudite version of Bart Simpson’s “I didn’t do it”.
Please don’t keep denying the anti-Tory bias, from an organisation that thinks Tories “put the ‘n’ in cuts”, which I find far more offensive for its blatant political bias than for any degree of obscenity. Who but a lefty working for a lefty organisation whould let that through?
Perhaps you could tell us why you keep wheeling out Keynsian Lefty economists David Blanchflower and Paul Krugman to comment on the Coalition’s strategy, while others, probably the majority, particularly of people who actually work in high finance, support the government. Your guys have nothing but Keynsian dogma to spout and have no tools left to deal with Brown’s mess, when it is obvious that we need a big shovel and lots of elbow grease. How about getting Jon Moulton, who thinks the government should be cutting faster?
The problem with Keynsians is that they think economic principles are linear, i.e. that they apply no matter how extreme the conditions. Borrowing has limits – once you cannot service your debts, you are bankrupt, and the facile principle the Keynsians are peddling has run out of road. Poor Keynes, he would cringe at the way his name is being used by left wing economists in their delusional belief that blood can be extracted from stones. For goodness sake, grow up.
I forget who it was who, when asked what he would like to be reincarnated as, said “the Bond Market”. That is the final arbiter of government economic policy, not Keynes, Montague, Krugman, Balls or Osborne. But we can be sure that should Osborne, like Thatcher and Howe, be proved right, all we will get from the Trots of Newsnight will be sour grapes.
In the context of the piece, it is indeed hard to see where your views transgressed, other than being a nifty filleting of the BBC corporate stance and the competencies of its market rate talents.
Plus the ongoing view they and their groupies seem to have that the BBC is an exclusive club the entire country needs to pay for but should not have access to or presume to challenge.
May be worth appealing, if the outcome is a foregone conclusion. But nowadays sites like this are great outlets to expose the prissy excuses they try to use for censorship of propaganda being outed.
Probably censored because you said “Balls”.
Definitely worth appealing, but any victory will be Pyrrhic, as no-one will be reading the blog by the time any appeal is won and the comment reinstated.
Alcuin
Superb rant there. Typical of the BBC to censor it.
Yet in other contexts, the BBC likes to claim that it enjoys robust debate.
Hypocrites.