The BBC has been running with Saint Vince’s latest diatribe against the evil banks. Don’t get me wrong, as a businessman I have plenty of dealings with banks and they are certainly no angels but to suggest, as the BBC repeatedly does, that they are the source of all evils is malicious and playing into the Labour copybook. Anyway, the BBC invited CBI Director-General John Cridland onto the Today programme today and Evan Davies decided that rather discuss the issue of banking regulation he would instead assault the integrity of the CBI itself, suggesting on several occasions that it was a/ A mouthpiece for the banks and b/Divided against itself. I thought Mr Cridland did quite well in response but it was the sheer inappropriateness of the line of questioning that appalled me. Give it a listen here and you will know what I mean. The BBC still rejects the complicity of the Labour Government in bringing about the financial meltdown and instead chooses to assault the banks and anyone who dares defend them.

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to CBI ATTACK

  1. Roland Deschain says:

    I didn’t mind Evan Davis’s initial question to Mr Cridland regarding whether the CBI was a paid mouthpiece for the banks.  It was a reasonable question and one which Mr Cridland dealt with well.  But then Mr Davis kept harping on about when the point had been answered and it was no longer relevant to the matter at issue.

    I just wish the BBC were normally so assiduous in asking guests whether they are mouthpieces for other organisations.  I mainly catch BBC current affairs driving to and from work.  Many is the time I have wished I could google interviewees to find out what their true agenda is and what pertinent details the BBC is keeping hidden.  Almost invariably they turn out to have an agenda that leans to the left.  It’s now at the stage where I ask myself this about every guest.


  2. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Many is the time I have wished I could google interviewees to find out what their true agenda is and what pertinent details the BBC is keeping hidden. ‘

    A topic, coincidentally, that is cropping up a lot these days, across a fair few ‘objective’ media outlets.


    The odds of any ‘news’ piece being anything other than pure advocacy, for profit or agenda purposes, especially across the BBC/Graun axis, are about nil.

    Hardly a single guest, ‘expert’ to vox pop, turns out after a quick Google to be as independent as the nation’s propaganda treasure makes out.

    When Newsnight tried to pitch a Graun editor’s missus as a ‘mum’ who spoke for the nation on a topic hubs was stealth twisting to feed the breakfast headlines, I realised that near anyone that graces the BBC green room can be presumed suspect until well and truly proven otherwise.

    Not a great rep for the world’s ‘most trusted’ news org.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Yes, the BBC did this yesterday, in fact.  The News Channel dedicated a good chunk of the day hyping up the housing report, and two out of the three people they spoke to about it (not counting the nasty Tory MP) had provable far-Left agendas which the BBC hid from the public, instead introducing them as innocent, unbiased commentators.  And I say only two out of three because I didn’t google the third one.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      I do wonder if the BBC has started doing this more, or if it’s simply that we are becoming wise to it.  I suspect the latter.


  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Davis ought to have spent more time considering the credibility of the FSA first.  I won’t hold my breath.


  4. Jane Tracy says:

    Remember Gordon Brown was once praising the banks and their policies so presumably was the BBC.

    “During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential. And it is part of the greatness not just of Lehman Brothers but of the City of London, that as the world economy has opened up, you have succeeded not by sheltering your share of a small protected national market but always by striving for a greater and greater share of the growing global market.”

    The “greatness” was such that it collapsed..