The BBC is hysterical in the sustained attack on Murdoch. Give THIS a listen to if you want to hear the comrades in full battle cry. I was particularly amused when Humphrys pointed out the global reach of the evil Murdock empire. So unlike the BBC!! And if that was not enough, try THIS if you have a strong stomach. There is NO pretence of balance here, just unrestrained bias against Rupert Murdoch. Note the image they use to accompany their Jihad against NI.
PULLING WHOSE STRINGS?
Bookmark the permalink.
Unbelievable! Except that it’s not. Do they not see the irony?
The “Week at Westminster” on R4 with Elinor Goodman had the vile David Mellor as a guest. ( I didn’t know he was still alive ). She was very civil to him, presumebly because he was spitting venom at Murdoch and even Margaret Thatcher.
I can’t remember , but was it a Murdoch newspaper which revealed Mellor cheating on his wife ?
Either way, it was strange that of all the Tory politicians the BBC could have chosen, they chose this repulsive specimen. I wonder if there is any bias there ?
It was the Sun.
To be honest, I couldn’t even get past the first two minutes of this. I can’t take this accusation seriously that Murdoch has some sort of unprecedented power and inside track with top politicians when we know for a fact that Blair and Brown would run things by Robinson and Peston before going public. Auntie Beeb has more real power than Uncle Rupert could ever dream of.
My grave concern is now Cameron. Either I’m naive and like Blackadder he has a cunning plan that includes lots of dirt on the BBC, Guardian and Indy, or he’s hiding under the stairs hoping all this will go away. If he doesn’t show some spine soon he’s finished.
sooner the better
he’s worse than useless
@Itwf1964.
Whilst I agree with you about Cameron being useless, I don’t want to see the Coalition broken by this crisis. I say this out of self-interest as I don’t want everything I’ve worked for lost by a wrecked economy. I doubt that he’d be forced out, but I don’t know who will lean on him to change his ways. There is a glimmer of hope for the progressive right in politics and broadcasting and it comes from second or third generation of Indians. You can’t have failed to notice that every Boots pharmacy has a young, female Indian pharmacist and I think that’s replicated across many areas of our professions and commerce. They’ve worked hard, got the grades at school, not pissed-about at university, got good degrees and professional accreditation and they won’t want to see their investments threatened by the feckless left, or weak right. They are what the BBC called in a recent doc ‘Global Indians’, and they’re very successful. They also have no time for the bleeding-heart Third World narrative much loved by the BBC and the leftie-liberals.
I caught a very few minutes of the Now Show last night whilst preparing supper (ie my hands were covered in flour and the off switch then not easily accessible).. John Finnemore had over 10 minutes to rant against News International
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b012942n starts at 6.35.
It was all about how we should all speak with one voice against NI. That we should oppose NI becoming the biggest commercial boradcaster in the UK etc etc. Where is the opposite view to be heard. No I haven’t heard it either.
yes, he went on and on and on, a long rant – and totally unfunny
The BBC News website’s ‘Most Popular’ chart is revealing of the public’s mood:
Most Shared
1: Space shuttle tracker
2: South Sudan becomes newest nation
3: Hundreds held over Malaysia rally
4: In pictures: Malaysia reform protests
5: Beko fridge fires started in 2007
Most Read
1: Gold hoard found in French cellar
2: Space shuttle tracker
3: William and Kate welcomed by LA
4: Chinook report ‘to clear pilots’
5: Raising baby: Boys versus girls
6: The End of Harry Potter? It’s Hardly Begun
7: Parasites make sex worthwhile
8: Hacking inquiry ‘must start now’
9: Bank has ‘failed’ over inflation
10: South Sudan raises national flag
Seems to me that only one political party has a News International toady advising it now.
Seems too that all this “big monopoly” stuff about Murdoch is mirrored by the bloated parasitic BBC feeding off the body politic like a fat leech.
They really should be very careful about what they say they wish for.
To hear Dimbly Minor say that the BBC can`t be compared to NI because it is “funded by the licence payer” will only make the coming revolution against the licence all the better.
‘the BBC can`t be compared to NI because it is “funded by the licence payer”‘
He is correct. They cannot be compared. The BBC is vastly more dominant. I have never bought a copy of The Sun or the News of the World in my life. If somebody said they worked for The Sun or the News of the World I would go and talk to somebody else. But if somebody said they worked for the BBC, I would throw them out of the house. Why should I be forced to pay for all that self-serving middle class Leftist crap?
Spot on wild!
Dimbleby minor was trying to tell us that the BBC is “owned by the people” so can`t possibly be compared to the Murdoch vulgarians!
That`s how deluded this privileged class of pied pipers and mood merchants are.
At least Rupert etc have made their money without the BBC highwaymen in their detector vans…which is of course why they are so hated and feared by the public sector.
To hear Deborah Meaden getting lessons in economics from Billy “Red Wedgie” Bragg was the classic example of self righteous posturing fake talking to someone who actually had worked for her living!
Organisisng a mass cycle out of Tolpuddle next week when the Bard of Bull strides onto the stage. Rush hour!
“owned by the people”
This meme today strong is in the dark side of Force.
I don’t remember the law saying you had to buy a tv?
There is a law that says you have to have to fund the BBC though. Why should anoyne who wants to watch ITV or Sky have to pay £150 to the BBC David?
The BBC scrapped the Radio licence years ago, why can’t you leftists put your money where your mouth is? If the BBC is such great value for money then scramble your BBC signal and charge people £10 a month to view it, if as you claim people love the BBC then 20 million people will happily pay for it.
I won’t but I will still get my Sky and ITV channels oh and this site will vanish overnight.
‘I don’t remember the law saying you had to buy a tv?’
Blimey, it’s a wonder you can still hear any conversations up on the planet surface still.
This… is what you are reduced to? I still see it trotted out on CiF, but even the locals get a bit uncomfortable around it, favoring the ‘trusted national treasure’ meme, which is rather falling around them on the trusted substance. And, possibly, as it sinks in…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/29/watching-tv-computers
(Sadly closed to be evolved as there seemed some confusion – sure there are more recent versions to clarify. Worth pondering the degree the BBC hacks into our private affairs as a topical point).
I know that, usually, you only ‘do’ asking reams of questions before bailing, but can you confirm which other countries in the world (especially healthy democracies) see the need for an ‘essential’ such as the BBC to the extent is exists; funded in the manner it is?
As precedents go, dodging the payment and the service issues around the ‘need’ for a piece of IT/media hardware in 2011, is a bit silly.
So why does the Beeboid Corporation harass people who don’t have one with its bullying letters, visits and sinister messages on the TV screen?
And what about people who want to buy a TV but don’t want to watch or pay for political propaganda from an undemocratic (indeed anti-democratic) organisation that thinks it has some right to decide what is good for us?
Yes, it’s amazing isn’t it, that he thinks that’s a point in its favour and that it disposes of any question of monopoly or dominant position?
Simply amazing!
Thank you David, though it really doesn’t make that much of a mockery of my point.
What do you think about that cat-naming scandal on Blue Peter all those years ago, Craig? I know we’ve done the subject to death here on B-BBC – what with it being our main topic of discussion and all – but I’m sure there must be more angles we can come up with
I know. It is a huge story even today. I mean compared to illegally accessing the mobile phone of a dead child and interferring with a murder enquiry… calling a cat socks or cookie is obviously more important.
Quite so, David G. As you stated in an ealier thread we here at B-BBC think the naming of a Blue Peter cat is far more significant than hacking the phone of a dead child. One only has to read all the many comments to that effect to see the truth of what you’re saying.
Milly Dowler seems to be in danger of being forgotten by the BBC. Not one of the seven articles on the NOTW story now featured on the main page of the BBC News website even mentions her.
I don’t assume anything about people who post on B-BBC, DB. But if you say stuff like;
“What do you think about that cat-naming scandal on Blue Peter all those years ago, Craig?”
I kinda assume it’s what you want to talk about. So for what it’s worth I’ll restate my respose. Awful. If people spend money getting in touch with the BBC they all have a right to expect their responses to be taken seriously. I went on a course to that very effect. And after a freelance presenter left an unpleasant answerphone message i watched as the head of that particular radio station was fired.
And who can forget the Hutton report? (Fun fact, SOMEHOW NI got hold of an advance copy, which is something that still interests me) where we lost a DG AND a Chairman. Although ironically I think you really could make a case to say that Giligan was right.
But lets focus on what matters. Why did Craig click on two out of three tabs and left out the one that blew a hole in his case? Cupidity or stupidiy? Because I think the end result is… B-BBC understimates how the nation feels about a newspaper deliberately trying to hack the phones of dead children, the families or our war dead and victims of terrorism.
That’s before we get to the political angle or the perjury.
But if you say stuff like;
“What do you think about that cat-naming scandal on Blue Peter all those years ago, Craig?”
I kinda assume it’s what you want to talk about.
No, it’s because I want to highlight the idiocy of your earlier on-the-one-hand-this/on-the-other-hand-that straw man argument that B-BBC contributors place cat-naming indiscretions on a par with the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone.
“B-BBC understimates how the nation feels about a newspaper deliberately trying to hack the phones of dead children, the families or our war dead and victims of terrorism.”
No, B-BBC does not underestimate any of that. However, our concern over those matters do not blind us to other motives. As your collegue Adam Blenford said: “media companies love Murdoch-bashing”.
(BTW, are you sure “victims of terrorism” is OK to use? Wouldn’t your World Affairs editor prefer “victims of misguided criminals”?)
“B-BBC understimates how the nation feels about a newspaper deliberately trying to hack the phones of dead children, the families or our war dead and victims of terrorism. “
No – I don’t think anyone understimates this.
I also do not understimate the seriousness of aiding and abetting terrorism.
“After the botched July attacks Hamid told a BBC reporter he had worked with on the programme ‘Don’t Panic, I’, Islamic’ that he knew the identities of the culprits – but she felt ‘no obligation’ to tell police, the court heard.The journalist informed her boss and the information was passed on up to senior executives but a decision was taken not to pass it on.”
http://www.libertiesalliance.org/910blog/2007/12/07/daily-mail-bbc-mum-on-terrorists-paintballs-self-into-corner/
People at the BBC have no right to lecture anyone on morality.
The BBC kept more than £100,000 viewers had pledged to charity for itself.
Staff knowingly withheld money that should have gone to causes including Children in Need and Comic Relief.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-565090/New-TV-phone-scandal-BBC-kept-100-000-Children-In-Need-cash-itself.html#ixzz1ReU6Zf5T
The BBc can argue that breaking the law is OK for them in order to get a “good story”.
“A Strathclyde Police spokesman said: “We can confirm that a woman was arrested yesterday in connection with a contravention of Section 123 of the Police Act 1997. She was not detained and a report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.”
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/114298-bbc-journalist-arrested-following-panorama-programme/
Or
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/insitutionalracism/BBC-journalist-arrested-during-police.2453439.jp
Or
http://www.orange.co.uk/entertainment/television/18537.htm?linkfrom=%3C!–linkfromvariable–%3E&link=box_main_pos_2_1_link_2&article=entertainmenttv2ndrow1ststory
Or
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-journalists-arrested-in-irish-probe-into-dissident-republicans-796780.html
In all these cases the BBC was not told to disband. Even during the Hutton enquiry 2 people were told to go, but the BBC carried on as normal.
Different rules for the BBC.
David since when did the BBC speak for the nation? How do you know what the nation thinks. You speak for a liberal elite not for the nation.
I do not condone wrongdoing by any organisation and I do not pick and choose depending who they work for unlike the BBC.
“B-BBC understimates how the nation feels about a newspaper deliberately trying to hack the phones of dead children, the families or our war dead and victims of terrorism. “
So you are saying that it is OK for the BBC to take a postion on this because of the outcry from the “nation”. But that is against the BBC guidelines.
“When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-controversial-subjects/
You should be outraged that your employer is reflecting the view of the “nation”.
Shame you do not take the view of the nation on other things as well, you know the ones which undermine or belittle the nation or those that will kill many elderly people when the wind does not blow.
David G,
Not sure why you’ve deleted your first reply (which leaves my first reply to you looking stranded and a little silly), but the list you gave there didn’t “blow a hole in my case”, merely slightly complicate it.
How do you account for the first two lists – the ‘most shared’ and the ‘most read’? What do they say?
I’d say they probably show that readers of BBC online were yesterday evening feeling fatigued with the BBC’s overwhelming coverage of the story, given that it had largely veered away from what people are interested in and appalled by – the wrongdoing over Milly Dowler, the victim of 7/7, the families of the war dead, etc. – and turned into what seems rather like a self-serving crusade to crush Sky.
The reason for my missing out the audio/video list should be put in the ‘stupidity’ category. I read the first two, thought ‘aha!’ and copied and pasted them (probably much as you did when you spotted the third list), thus leaving you an open goal. Whether you scuffed your shot or not, others can decide.
‘If people spend money getting in touch with the BBC they all have a right to expect their responses to be taken seriously. I went on a course to that very effect.’
I’d ask for a refund (that’s you on the course, which I presume we paid for. I realise that, at present ‘we’ can’t ask for a refund of the BBC for anything). Speaking of responses, I am laughing out loud still at this from that great interacter, Nick ‘closed by 5pm if it’s going wrong’ Robinson:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14093640
”In a brief pause from the hacking furore’ – irony really not the BBC’s strong suit.
‘B-BBC underestimates how the nation feels’
a) B-BBC is not a paid medium. It is a forum of individuals.
b) Folk here rarely have the temerity to speak for others to a fraction of the level the BBC claims to speak for the country.
Correcting mistakes (is that what was deleted?) and even offering sensible counter opinion is to be applauded. But the seemingly irresistible hole digging efforts by you in complement are beyond parody.
ps: Craig, stealth edits by the BBC are so common that whenever I reply on a blog I quote the specific line/para being replied to, and keep a copy of the entire piece in question. The BBC complaints system is in its nth month trying to explain away something I have a reporter, Editor, moderator and several layers of ‘go away, we got it right’ bang to rights on. Of course, there is no sensible way to progress matters once swallowed by the labyrinth.
My Site, a wise precaution it seems.
David deleted a comment that contained a list of ‘most watched video/audio clips’ which, although it showed that the royal couple’s visit to the U.S. was the most popular story, did show that several NOTW-related stories were clicked on, slightly correcting my original point – all topped and tailed by some heavy sarcasm!
‘all topped and tailed by some heavy sarcasm!’
‘That’s the end of broadcasting…’
Well, broadcasting only.
Odd that the high ground seems occupied more and more by the web-based, interactive, inclusive upstarts, while the likes of the BBC claws further down through the barrel, along the gutter and down into… well.. a dark place.
Which maybe why, once there, they can’t see it.
Quotes from David Gregory:
I don’t assume anything about people who post on B-BBC…
…B-BBC underestimates how the nation feels…
There is quite a lot of assuming there.
B-BBC is not a collective or single voice. So to say that B-BBC underestimates is nonsense.
The nation? What do you think the nation is? How does one get into this exclusive club? Give up posting opinions on B-BBC blog? Post Beeboid-approved opinions?
I regard it as more of a civil war. Murdoch and the BBC are two heads of the same body.
Both really concerned with keeping the unruly mob ( that is us ) in our place and thinking exactly what they want us to think.
Neither party is the true friend of freedom.
The politicians ? They represent only themselves and of course the money power and the real interests of those who at heart despise and fear us.
They know they do not speak for us and this is what really worries.
Look who’s doing What the Papers Say this week.
I wonder if he’ll find time to mention the Information Commissioner’s Office findings that Mirror Group Newspapers used private investigators to sleaze for personal information more often than any other press outfit. I doubt it, somehow.
I haven’t opened the link. Let me guess…it wouldn’t be Ubiquitous Maguire, would it? You see him here, you see him there…
You certainly do Millie!
Maguire’s doing the paper review on Breakfast this morning, which is a bit odd as he did the Breakfast paper review last Sunday as well.
Sort of a Maguire monoploy of the airwaves, really.
Good job it’s the ‘good’ kind.
Amazed to see he’s not also doing the Andrew Marr Show paper review – and even more amazed to see that the two who are (Amanda Platell and Fraser Nelson) are both politically on the Right. That is very rare for the Marr Show. Still, Marr is interviewing Ed Miliband and Chris Huhne later, which balances that out (and some!).
Would that be Chris ‘Follow our line and we’ll go easy as you are so compromised’ Huhne, and Ed ‘we’re scratching your back so remember whose ‘side’ are you on?’ Miliband, in the febrile world of media monopolies shaping political direction and policy.
But Marr interviewing a delusional adulterer and political disaster and cheap hypocrite on the BBC does suggest comfort zones all round.
‘ Chris ‘Follow our line and we’ll go easy as you are so compromised’ Huhne’
Mr. Huhne’s voting history will be interesting.
Any of these come up?
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2011/07/ten-questions-to-ed_miliband-about-phone-hacking-and-tom-baldwin-notw.html
(interesting ding-dongs in comments)
If so, how discussed?
Andrew Marr couldn’t avoid asking Ed Miliband something about this – especially after Amanda Platell had mentioned Tom Baldwin earlier – but he did so in a way that raises yet more doubts about Marr’s competence/impartiality:-
– a soft introduction that didn’t mention anything about the questions he (Ed Miliband) needs to answer but, instead, presented a picture of a decisive Ed talking the initiative over the scandal.
– a few soft preliminary questions about what needs to happen, what he’s going to tell the prime minister to do, Commons tactics (etc), all allowed long answers (which included attacks on the prime minister).
– a failure to press Ed’s wriggling over the ‘other papers’ question.
– a few, vague questions about past Labour leaders (Blair and Brown) being too close to Rupert Murdoch, allowing Ed to repeatedly distance himself from them and pose as a moral force, bravely taking on the might of News Corp.
– letting drop the question about being warned by ‘colleagues’ about the risks of taking on Murdoch, which Ed ignored/misunderstood in order to answer as if Marr had asked him about being warned by News International staff instead. Why didn’t Marr correct him/press on that point, but chose to press Ed’s point instead?
– raised going to Rupert Murdoch’s party once and made a joke about it that made light of Ed’s failure to speak out. Ed answered and assumed the moral high ground. Marr moved on without a follow-up question (returning once more to the same vague question about previous Labour leaders). 50 seconds only spent on this.
– a few questions about press regulation and the PCC and what Ed would like to see happen.
– When Tom Baldwin was brought up, Marr introduced it very archly (“Can you remind us where your press secretary used to work?”) and made a “same old same old” crack. Marr mentioned the accusation about Baldwin, Lord Ashcroft’s bank account and the blagging asked Ed if he was sure that it was untrue. “And you’ve asked all the right questions as David Cameron didn’t of Andy Coulson?” Ed attacked Cameron and Marr didn’t interrupt. Marr then moved on. Just two minutes of the 17-minute interview were spent on this.
– Marr moved on to ask another variation on the ‘Miliband bravely standing up to News International again’ question then asked him what Rupert Murdoch should do next.
Of those ten Tim Montgomerie questions, Marr failed to ask about most of them. He didn’t ask about Ed’s office sending out an email to his top team in February 2011 (written by Tom Baldwin himself) saying “BSkyB bid and phone-tapping . . . these issues should not be linked” (which Ed is now doing). He failed to ask the specific questions about Labour’s failure to act on the Information Commissioner’s and DCMS reports, or about Ben Bradshaw’s remarks about the public inquiry, or about Lord Prescott’s concerns about Tom Baldwin. Nor did he ask about the accusation of illegality, apparently involving Tom Baldwin, over trying to secure confidential drugs information.
The lightest of grillings, thanks to Andrew Marr. No wonder Ed Miliband looked relaxed and happy at the end of the interview.
Craig, Nelson is there because he had a column in NoW, and Platel is another voice from a hated Right-wing paper that the BBC can use to say, “See? See? Even these right-wingers think it was wrong,” adding support to the notion that Muroch is unfit to own anything. They were both useful to that cause.
I agree with your assessment of Marr’s treatment of Miliband. It was a great checklist of things he needed to say or clarify in order to take best advantage of the events of the past week. Marr was tossing up softballs left and right. The “challenging” ones were made to seem like strawmen tossed up for Miliband to knock down easily. Marr even faked sarcasm when asking about Baldwin, and it sounded weak compared to how he attacks others. It was clear he wasn’t going off script, and that this wasn’t one of those BBC “ambush” interviews.
“I think that what’s going to happen is that in Britain at least.. I actually think the BBC..there’s a grave danger it’s going to become THE sole news provider in the country“
“we’ll be in a danger…we’ll be in a period when there’ll be a monopoly provider…”
Worth blogging that, Craig.
Good idea DB. (Thought I’d better delete the comment here, to avoid duplication).
So another working class British institution bites the dust. Irreverent, naughty, oh and patriotic, and a bit embarrassing at times – but not Kowtow-ing to its ‘betters’. Not until now.
Who is happier today? I’ll tell you:
Sleazy celebrities, politicians and ‘commentators’ who are making busy calling for new privacy laws.
Those that want us to forget that the justice system attacks the victims of crime and pampers the criminals.
Those that want us to forget that it is the terrorists who are responsible for murder on our streets.
Those that want us to forget that it is our enemies who are fighting wars against us and killing our soldiers.
It should really be an effigy of Vince Cable pulling the strings. Either him or Van Rompoy.
Let`s hope that all those dopey teachers that went on strike( and no doubt the kids actually learned something that day!) will be boycotting The Times Ed-for that too is a rag of the fascist Murdoch!
That it peddles the usual bullshit of the knock kneed stools and ciphers for NuLabor at least shows that Rupert wasn`t too fussed about what that rag of his actually said. Teachers found it hard to read I expect…but the jobs page was easy enough at least.
Had Rupert actually LIVED in the country, I doubt the Pyongyang Tractor Figures would have got by him…for that is all the worthless TES is fur!
That picture gets about.
Crops up in this nice, balanced piece from Paul ‘No agenda here’ Mason’s latest..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14093772
And ain’t ‘democracy’ great>
40+ people ‘like’ this…
‘“… newspapers that told the truth could not make money. The Guardian, whose veteran reporter Nick Davies led the investigation, is indeed burning money and may run out of it in three years’ time.”
New mechanisms for funding the media must be found. They are an important part of our democracy. We must insulate good journalism vested interests.’
I sense a twitter policy soon.
Unique funding extended (further) to the Graun?
Maybe they liked the thought of the Guardian running out of money in three years’ time?
No, not likely: there’s a Pavlovian clicking of up and down arrows on the BBC blogs at the moment. “Four legs good, two legs bad — click!”