It seems like a good moment to update David’s excellent post below about the ongoing voicemail hacking change my password? Meh, why bother? nonsense in the news at the moment.
Compare and contrast what the BBC sees as a priority – indeed the Top News Story:
…and what the Great British Public are reading about (under threat of imprisonment for non-payment)
The BBC want to use this story to discredit both Rupert Murdoch and the Prime Minister even though it is only alleged at this stage (and not yet proven) that in 2002, five years into a 13 year period of Labour government, journalists working for a Labour-supporting newspaper edited by a someone who was a close friend of the then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, and who was also feted by the then Labour Chancellor and later Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, illegally accessed the voicemail of the missing Milly Dowler. Everything still remains allegation and speculation.
Now the BBC (and specifically Peston) want to derail Rupert Murdoch’s consolidation of what he already owns and Nick Robinson has the knives out for Andy Coulson.
The problem for our State broadcaster, as shown by the screenshot, is that the public are preferring to read BBC stories about female biology in New Zealand and how to escape from jail in a suitcase. Even the Most Read entry at 7 is a rebuttal by Cameron.
You might think that people are concerned about the crime but don’t buy into the convoluted attempts to smear Murdoch and Cameron, eh?
I’m not sure I can remember a story that has got the Beeb so excited as this one. It has blanket coverage on all their news outlets even on the North West news they found a connection to elevate it to the main story. You know that most people aren’t actually bothered about it when in every report they have to keep reminding the viewer how important and big this story is.
rachelkennedy84 Rachel Kennedy
RT @EmmaK67: If this had happened at the BBC everyone working there would have been made to resign. Even the cleaners.
5 Jul
http://twitter.com/#!/rachelkennedy84
Not strictly true is it Rachel. Phone hacking is one thing Witholding information on terrorists is another.
“Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
Come on Rachel resign along with your tea lady.
‘Phone hacking is one thing Witholding information on terrorists is another. ‘
Ah, but one is ‘unique’ if lethal. Like trying to stir up hatred by mis-information. The other is simply… criminal.
In any case, there are standards to uphold. Many of them.
“We are interrupting this week’s episode of The Apprentice to bring you the latest news on the phone hacking scandal. Nick Robinson is at Westminster. Nick, have we nailed Coulson yet?”
Is it just me that thinks that the ‘discovery’ of the Millie Dowler connection was convenient, occuring just after Belfield was convicted – when the public are feeling sympathetic to the family? And why did the Soham connection get discovered next? And then the 7/7 connection?
The Cattle Prod smells the pungent aroma of the bullshit of news management of the most slimiest sort.
And still no mention of which government was in power when all this was going on and which party NI was supporting at the time.
Yes, there is a feeling that this was wide inside knowledge in the politico-media class for a while now, but it was being “saved up” for a suitable moment. Yes, definitely.
The BBC hates Murdoch. Maybe because he doen’t bow down before them? Maybe because he won the war with the unions back in Maggie’s day? Maybe because he won the satelite war and made Sky a true competitor to BBC news. Now the BBC is carried on Sky? Unacceptable. Isn’t the BBC the only game in town? Shouldn’t all opposition be destroyed? Exterminate!
I heard some of this killer instinct in last night’s “World Tonight” on the World Service – but has the BBC never had it’s little internal problems in the past?
To see the full extent of this hatred read the following blog posted by a BBC man who is supposed to be neutral.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html
On Radio 5 this afternoon Mr Peston was speaking about the NotW affair as if he was in a state of shock and disbelief about it. I’ve never heard a reporter hamming it up like that before.
Sending him to cover something really atrocious like a famine or a war could kill him stone dead. Maybe he should be packed off to a BBC local radio station to cover cats up trees stories. It’ll be better for his nerves.
“Melody fired from The Apprentice. We’ll be asking her for her views on the phone hacking abomination.”
The number one “read” story is “Dead Soldiers ‘families’ “hacked”” (To be fair it’s only just appeared there.) But when you posted this the Number 1,4 and 6 stories in “video” were all to do with “hacking”.
David, might that have something to do with (a) the wall-to-wall coverage of the affair and (b) the fact that the 10 o’clock news on currently on TV?
I love my Radio 4 but I have simply given up in despair.
I don’t have a political axe to grind, honestly. But I sense there are agendas being played out here. I mean, it’s not as if the BBC, the Guardian Media Group and the Torygraph Group have a vested interest, is it?
‘David, might that have something to do with (a) the wall-to-wall coverage of the affair and (b) the fact that the 10 o’clock news on currently on TV?’
So if it’s not a popular story on there, the BBC’s supposedly doing coverage of something people aren’t interested in, but if it is high on there, it’s also because of the wall-to-wall coverage. Right.
‘Now the BBC (and specifically Peston)…’
David, in the spirit of fairness any thoughts on why this thread was kicked off at 6TH JULY 2011 – 11:45 and closed at 6TH JULY 2011 – 17:13?
I make that 5 1/2 hrs in the middle of the working day, serving a very limited pool of licence fee payers, no?
Nick Robinson’s has acted on this basis for a while now. 6TH JULY 2011 – 13:19 – 6TH JULY 2011 – 17:13 – 4 hrs
(the appropriately numbered final comment was a worthy closure, mind)
Why? While the NoTW employee criminality and senior executive complicity is worthy of note and action and correction, using this as a an excuse to make a mockery of free speech seems a heavy price to pay.
It’s one thing to report, but quiet another to rig the whole bubble and claim you speak for the country.
Well there’s a big technical shift behind the scenes with blogs at the moment and I know there has been an impact on the commenting system at various points.
There could be another explanation too. If you look at the Telegraph or the Guardian you’ll see most of their stories on this have had the comments switched off. There are plenty of interesting points commentators could raise about the story that might be a bit problematic legally (lots of stuff mentioned in the HoC that was protected by Parliamentary priveledge that doesn’t apply to our blogging system!) So I wonder if someone has kepy an active eye on that and then turned off comments at the end of their shift. I have no idea if that’s true or not but it wouldn’t surprise me. Could be totally wrnog though.
That said it’s 150 comments, would you bother wading through all of those?
Thank you for a prompt and through reply. More than any have got, so far, from any Editor on that mis-named ‘interactive’ blog.
‘Well there’s a big technical shift behind the scenes with blogs at the moment and I know there has been an impact on the commenting system at various points.’
So… ‘stuff’ has happened?
‘There could be another explanation too.’
‘Could’, indeed. But along with Richard Black headlines, not encouraging for rounded, informed information. This was a question about internal BBC activity and policy. Hence…
‘If you look at the Telegraph or the Guardian you’ll see most of their stories on this have had the comments switched off.’
… I don’t care what others are doing. You either allow comments, or you don’t.
‘There are plenty of interesting points commentators could raise about the story that might be a bit problematic legally’
So some commenting is more acceptable than others? Very Orwellian.
‘So I wonder if someone has kepy an active eye on that and then turned off comments at the end of their shift.’
I am wondering too. But seriously, a 24/7, £4Bpa outfit operates on a 5 hr shift in the middle of the day suddenly… controlling the message…when it suits?
‘I have no idea if that’s true or not but it wouldn’t surprise me. Could be totally wrnog though.’
Tx for insight. And honesty.
‘That said it’s 150 comments, would you bother wading through all of those?’
The precedent behind that statement needs reflecting on…seriously.
I might well bother, as over 600+ and counting folk have the (still open) Editors blog on the ‘new, improved, faster, cheaper, better’ blog system. As that is our choice and desire.
Is there advocacy that maybe it’s best that folk simply accept a broadcast only precis of what the BBC decides is relevant in future? Based on the fact that seeing the full scope of an issue is just too hard?
Wow.
And finally… about that only serving a minute minority of the audience between elevenses and tea time… shifts… who is that to suit?
‘If you look at the Telegraph or the Guardian you’ll see most of their stories on this have had the comments switched off.’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100095686/david-cameron-is-in-the-sewer-because-of-his-news-international-friends/
Most? Hmnn. Speaking of 600 comments to wade through. Talk about a little bit pregnant as a diagnosis.
The Guardian… maybe… but perhaps ‘no comment is ironic in the circumstances.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/07/phone-hacking-alan-rusbridger
Hope the CiF mods are well prepared.
Thank goodness this website isn’t censored !
10:15, and now for the rest of the news…
Is it really that important?
Nick Robinson thinks it’s now the time politicians are finally standing up to Murdoch (boo, hiss.) No mention of his political affiliations circa 1997-2009 though…
Remember this, at the moment many people don’t have access to Sky News, but once the switch to digial takes place, Sky News will be a direct competitor for the BBC as it will be available on Freeview to EVERYONE.
That could harm the BBC, the BBC are also sticking up for their mates at the Guardian who fear Murdoch’s money could be used to prop up his papers, note the Guardian loses millions a year and is propped up by other money, but none the less Cameron was a fool for getting close to the Murdoch mob he really didn’t need to, employing Coulson was a mistake, but once again the Tories have been ground up like minced meat by the BBC, they really are gutless in the Tory party.
The real danger here is that the REAL corruption is at Westminster, seeing Hazel Blears sitting behind Chris Bryant nodding away made me want to puke, the old hag SHOULD be doing time, as should Smiff and many others, but our politicians are getting away with it once again. The EU, immigration, benefit scum and so on is what matters, but MPs will use this to beat the press with.
Notice as well how the BBC are making big comments about how advertisers are boycotting the NOTW and even Sky, so BBC can we boycott the licence fee the next time you lot get found out faking stories or telling out and out lies?
Oh and Richard Bacon go into trouble on Radio 5 to day when some halfwit used the N word and seemed to promote the use of Cocaine, something Bacon is of course well familiar with. Bacon was snearing all day at the NOTW but then funny I had to remembered WHICH newspaper outed Bacon’s Cocaine snorting…and anyone want to guess which paper it was?
Coulson’s employment was a mistake. Yet more evidence of the bad judgement of Dave.
“Ha! RT @jonnygeller: The task for The Apprentice next week is to sell News of the World door to door.”
http://twitter.com/#!/rachelkennedy84
Who is this woman? “bbc tv news ed” Are we suposed to take this person seriously when editing news. She seems to spend almost every waking moment on Twitter collecting and giving out gossip to be used in the BBC news bullitins. How can anyone take this 12 year old seriously?
The hacking of phones by some low life private investigator is serious. But is everyone to blame in a massive organisation? As I have said above if you ask for the whole oraganisation to be held responsible for wrongdoing of the few then how is the BBC still functioning? Bacon taking drugs, Ross insulting elderly people, people being ripped off in quiz shows, aiding and abetting terrorism, etc.
Should I have to pay for Rachel to sit at her console gossiping to her socialist friends?
http://biasedbbc.tv/2010/10/more-bbc-tweets.html
“The hacking of phones by some low life private investigator is serious.”
It depends on your definition of serious.
‘Who is this woman? “bbc tv news ed” Are we suposed to take this person seriously when editing news.’
The whole genetic impartiality and professional integrity thing has rather taking a dent, to be sure.
Perhaps her superiors should now be considering their positions? Maybe even Hugs Helen or Mr. T? I pity the fools…
Funny how the BBC seems to have been reporting every exageratted nuence and detail of this hacking and police “bribery” scandal, without actually noting that it all occured during, and with the complicit acquescence of, the labour Government at the time. They forgot that labour was rimming Murdoch for 16 years from 1994 – 2010 and labour was in government when it was all happening.
Also convenient that evidence from the last decade is only now coming to light in the week prior to Murdoch’s BSKYB deal.
The BBC and Labour and the Guardian are shitting themselves that their “progressive” conditioning may be met with a rival broadcaster who could actually provide balance and show that the “progressive” minority in this country are a delusional bunch of national traitors
Ni needs to put serious aspects of its house in order.
But what you note others are not noting is bang on.
The editorial omissions being engaged upon and not being called out on are breath-taking, all by cynical use, and abuse of public revulsion on an aspect long since dropped like yesterday’s news.
Our other “State broadcaster”, channel 4, which is anxious to attach itself to the taxpayer’s teat appears to be unconcerned at biting the hand it hopes will feed it.
channel 4 news had a poll of 648 folk on the scandal (details now available at http://www6.politicalbetting.com/ )
One question “Which members or former member of News International /News Corp do the public consider to be most responsible should the allegations be found accurate?
In terms of bearing responsibility for the alleged hacking (respondents could choose multiple options), those surveyed thought Rebekah Brooks had the most responsibility (66%)”
WTF? I doubt that 66% of the public could name the leader of the opposition, let alone a former editor of that vile rag NOTW.
Having done for Rebekah, C4 News closes the programme seeking to stuff Cameron by running the credits over a still of her & Cameron together. Shame he has no balls.
Had some fun this morning on a few other blogs, though the number of referrals, etc got a bit frustrating when the mods saw the way things were headed.
One thing that has not sunk in i have witnessed strutting their stuff is that the enemy of your enemy need not necessarily become best tribal buddies by default.
Can’t speak for others (a patronising disclaimer I unnecessarily self-impose as a variant of ‘not an ‘ist, but…’ for this site) … but in argument many seem to think I am pro-Conservative or, in this case, NotW or NI.
Thing, and their problem, is… I’m not. I pretty much loathe all pols and media equally. NoTW crossed a line and NI can swallow the £ consequences for all I care. Their baby.
However, as anarchism does not seem a viable option, I simply assess least bads vs. truly venal, whilst demanding objectivity and professionalism.
Hence, looking at Mille E. just now on SKY was simply funny, as the useless fool showed what a poor excuse for a human he is, let alone leader of much more than a Brownie pack. Cameron is little better, and has adorned himself in ordure historically with chickens that are coming home to roost like Topper Harley’s arrow. However, he is the leader of the UK, and I’d rather her was dealing with more, of more heft than all this, rather than having to firewall who he had dinner with. Especially dancing to the tune of demands from utter hypocrite critics secure that no media at the moment will say ‘but you were/are just as bad’. ‘Two wrongs’ I know, but go and get a credible spokesperson before insulting my intelligence. The problem is, the BBC doesn’t have any, at least not on speed dial. or SKY, C4, etc.
As to media, they are ALL in the gutter, either through unprofessional incompetence, ratings greed or power-mad personal agenda. And it’s stuffing my country up, from industrial relations to sensible energy policies.
I can’t do much about the private sector bar vote with eyeballs or subs.
The BBC, however, is paid for by a uniquely-funded contribution I am compelled to make, and seems to be on a carpe diem roll to take out a threat to its dominance in demanding that tither, to in turn keep on mis-using it. Not in my name.
Hence questions will be asked. And I am getting a smidge ticked off with them either being ignored, obliterated or, in some cases closer to this site, quietly left in hope of another famous ‘moving in’.
‘moving on’ :-[