“Over the past few weeks we have heard a new refrain from the BBC George Osborne says that low interest rates and foreign investment are a sign of confidence in his economic policies. However the BBC’s Stephanie Flanders (and others in the Beeb) beg to differ….it is a sign of looming economic disaster and investors are panicking.

“I guess it depends on your definition of safe haven. Investors are buying UK government debt these days, not dumping it. The chancellor says that is the reward for his commitment to bring down the deficit.  But yields are also falling because investors are panicking. As Mr Osborne understands very well, when it comes to the global recovery, we are not a safe haven and we never will be.’

It all comes together of course when you hear something else from Stephanie on Newsnight that I missed….

“It has been mildly nauseating the last few days the way the Chancellor has sort of crowed here about how we are a safe haven and no one is worried about our commitment to cutting the deficit.”

Perhaps not something you would expect to hear from an impartial journalist. Then again, “Two Eds” is not impartial.”

Hat-tip to Alan

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Nota Sheep says:

    Imagine how the BBC would report the news that a Fox News reporter economic or political reporter had previously had sexual relations with two now leading lights in the Republican Party. Now contrast this with the lack of interest in Stephanie Flanders’ previous conquests.


  2. Martin says:

    Yes radio 5 were at it this morning. Anita the chin Anand reading out an endless list of anti Tory text messages telling us how Osborne has it wrong and Balls is right. Don’t they remember just who got us into this mess?

    I notice that the BBC are only attacking Osborne from the left, I think Osborne is wrong, he needs to cut taxes big time and cut public spending. It’s the private sector that will get us out of this mess not the government.

    But you won’t hear that view on the BBC (and yes I sent in a few emails pointing that out, Anita probably couldn’t read my emails due to her chin getting in the way) any time soon.


  3. cjhartnett says:

    I`m not sure if the BBC are somehow trying to get us to review our opinions of the little squits…the likes of Blair and Osborne.

    Whenever I hear a Humphrys or a Flanders, I am pathetically grateful that-bad though these supine creatures are-they don`t quite have that Student Rag week virtue and certainty, in which the Beeb seems to marinade its mouthpieces.

    A classis case today on B.H( as its friends are asked to call it).
    Kevin Connollys worry after ten years since 9/11 was…is there really anything new to say about it after all this time?

    If I were a 9/11 widow, I could only hope to share Kevins pain…poor thing running out of fascinating angles and all!

    In that one sentence of Kevins…we get the BBC/leftlib concern.
    That they have nothing new to say and are boring…so maybe that`s why they have to make it up and lie continually, as they now do!
    Tough if you expect truth or trust though…try the Muslim Brotherhood or the SWP if you need a steer towards those.


    • Demon1001 says:

      Tiredness will cause these Freudian Slips.  She reveals her true self, and unadulterated bias, every time she slips up.  Her depth of bias is matched only by the depths of her stupidity.   Stupid Flanders!


  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Flanders had to apologize for that bit of sneering at Osborne.  She blamed the slip up on being exhausted after several hours of “broadcasting”.  No excuse given for the rest of her constantly biased behavior, though.


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Not sure how this is all as pervasive, and overt as it has been allowed to become.

      Not just the sneering, and the faux ‘corrective’ too late to count apology, but the HR practices that result in total editorial skewing that, far from genetic impartiality, would make Mendel blush.

      We seem to have an enviro beat staffed with a group who not only don’t have a science brain cell amongst them, but are all addicted to rather one-sided conferences, either in attending or being paid to chair.

      We have a nepotistic dynsasty of 3 kids now the emminence grises of the BBC, with the 2 in positions of political sway mostly (pro) active in politcal programmes.

      Newsnight’s entire team seem to be the products of a milk run through the 80’s sink Uni Trot society presidents. With guest list essentially from the Gruan, or undeclared relatives of same.

      And we have an ‘economics editor’ who seems to have learned her craft at the feet, so as to speak, of some of the most tarnished, and partial financial pea-brain minds of the last few decades, giving Ed succour whenever she opens her mouth.

      Against which there is Andrew Neil (when not muzzled or sidelines), or the ‘fact’ that Nick Robinson was once a member of some faction, despite now being a complete tool of another one.

      Helen, your beloved perception of impartial  gene therapy is in disarray, luv.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Did you include Justin Webb in that dynasty of 3 kids?  He too had the genetic impulse to become a Beeboid, even without riding his father’s coattails.  Although I have to say I really don’t have a problem with offspring going into the family business, so to speak.  If it were any other industry, this wouldn’t even be an issue.

        I’m more concerned about the general hiring practices of the BBC, as – aside from the family ties – they seem to constantly hire from the same mindset.  As we all know, the BBC seems to hire almost exclusively from the dedicated Left when it comes to people covering the US.  I guess the farther Left one is, the more one wants to change the world, and sees “journalism” as a way to do it.  But still, the on air personalities are all on one side of the political spectrum, as are all the “editors”, with the alleged exception of Robinson, who has chosen more than once to protect politicians to maintain his insider status rather than inform the public.


  5. hatethebias says:

    The point is not that “Two Eds” made the comment, thus exposing her bias, then having to apologise (using the lamest excuse since “My dog ate my homework”). The point is that it demonstated her natural bias. Normally this is hidden, allowing her to subtly poison and slant her reports, while maitaining a spurious impartiality and detachment as an “Expert”.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I wouldn’t care what her private biases are, if it was just an isolated incident.  If she didn’t let it influence her “broadcasting”, it wouldn’t be a problem.  But she does, often.  I don’t think anyone at the BBC realizes it or even cares.  She is well-credentialled, and nobody will see past it.  Again, it’s a problem for the whole concept of BBC topical “editors”.


      • hatethebias says:

        Surely my point is obvious. She will continue to give her views in a manner which, while distorting the truth, will enable her to continue to pose as an “impartial” expert.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          I don’t think her bias is normally hidden at all.  It pretty obvious most of the time.  It’s the BBC which enables her appearance of an impartial expert.


  6. DJ says:

    To be fair ‘Two Eds’ is probably still trying to grasp the concept of raising funds by selling gilts on the open market. She’s probably wondering why the government doesn’t just extort the money from everyone who owns a bank account, perhaps through some kind of ‘money licence’.   


  7. George R says:

    Ed Balls on Radio 4 ‘World at One’ today, to Martha Kearney:

    “Don’t put words in my mouth, Martha.”