I have a copy of the Peter Oborne’s Guilty Men which I picked up at the launch at the CPS last night. Figures such as Michael Howard and even the odd Labour eurosceptic MP were there. ..but conspicuous by their absence were any of this miserable so-called Tory government, who even now are desperately trying to save the euro despite their professed scepticism. That aside, some of what Mr Oborne says about the BBC’s coverage of the first day of the euro on January 1, 2002, deserves spelling out in full to add to the previous post:
It was a moment of celebration for the BBC, whose already fragile sense of perspective collapsed. The BBC forgot its duty of impartiality….And it was nakedly contemptuous of its mass British audience.
Today presenter Jim Naughtie, in France on January 1, spoke of:
“…a sense of occasion, a genuine excitement, a sense of peculiar new notes, a sense of change in the air especially among young people, a sense of breaking away from the past.”
Naughtie lapsed into mystical language, strikingly similar to the words used in St John to describe one of the central mysteries of Christianity: “The arrival of the currency that the fathers of modern Europe dreamed about are symbols now made flesh”.
The BBC Charter with its demand for neutrality and professionalism, was broken again and again in those early days of the euro. Guidelines on balanced reporting were repeatedly ignored. Reasonable doubts about the euro were underplayed. Some reporters failed to distinguish between normal New Year revelries and specifically euro-related celebration…The BBC coverage should be seen as apart of a wider and more significant national pattern as many mainstream British institutions were subverted to serve the aspirations of the pro-euro camp.
I await with interest reaction from the BBC. Mr Oborne bases his analysis of the euro launch on a detailed research paper. My guess is that, as usual, Patten and his henchmen will simply bluster and ignore it. After all, they are always right. They say so.
Update: Mr Oborne appeared with eurofanatic Denis MacShane at the end of Today. I am currently having the sequence transcribed…and will comment when I have looked in detail at exactly what was said. True to form, there was a particularly sneery interruption from the aforementioned Naughtie.
Reaction from the BBC? Robin, you know as well as all of us that it will be “we think we got it about right”.
Mr Horbury
Peter Oborne was given a few seconds at 8.55am on the Today programme to repeat his serious charges against the BBC (and the Financial Times and CBI) – with Ian McShane there to rubbish him.
It was exactly as you say – Humphrys AND Naughtie literally laughed it all off, in a blustering indeed hectoring manner. All one big joke was the theme, worth a little laugh in the usual pre-9am funny slot.
The BBC presenters had the gall to suggest that Eurosceptics find a new issue to bang on about every couple of years. One time it was immigration, two years later European justice, another time the Euro.
But these three issues – as examples – are not occasional feasts. They are ongoing, year-in-year-out, as is the BBC’s endemic pro-Europe bias.
Sickening. Humphrys and Naughtie set out to trivialise Oborne’s serious and well-documented charges of bias. They laughed their way into the 9am news.
The BBC presenters
I’ve yet to hear it (currently listening to Nicky Campbell’s Israel/Palestine call-in), but if it is as you say, if this is not grounds for a complaint of Gross Professional Misconduct, I dont know what is.
Just listened, wouldn’t share your characterisation of how it went down, or at least wouldn’t characterise it as strongly as you did. Naughtie and Humphrys certainly weren’t too keen on Oborne getting out what Rod Liddle says he was told by a senior BBC exec that eurospectics are “mad”, but then Naughtie rather foolishly brought Liddle’s name into the equation.
Humphrys’ excuse for the 2:1 disparity in favour of pro British €uro entry interviewees over anti in the critical months leading up to the €uro was feeble in the extreme ‘Maybe it was the climate of opinion at the time’? The climate of opinion at any given moment over the last few decades has been we’re swamped with immigration, but until quite recently voices saying so have either been ignored by the BBC or implicitly slandered as racist. As Humphrys is very aware, impartiality requires parity for both sides of an argument
When such serious charges are being levelled against a programme and its presenters as Oborne was making, it shows what disregard for professional ethics TODAY has that they’d seek to act as ‘judge and jury’ at their own ‘trial’. The correct thing for the BBC to have done under these circumstances is to bring in another interviewer that Oborne (and MacShane) accept as impartial.
The irony of the piece though is that as much as I support everything Oborne was saying about BBC bias on the Euro and that MacShane was just coming out with the most ludicrous special pleading, it remains that Oborne is a screaming anti-Semite and MacShane a leading campaigner against anti-Semitism.
Aint life funny?!
h-p
I stand by my description of the way the Today programme treated this. It is irrelevant what Oborne thinks about Israel – he is nutty on a whole lot of other matters. In this case the topic was meant to be a full report on how public opinion was manipulated in favour of the Euro – with the BBC as a prime culprit.
It was bad enough that Humphrys and Naughtie ganged up with Ian McShane to attack Oborne’s argument – as presenters they should be elucidating. How often do BOTH presenters on a Today programme conduct an item ? Yes, Oborne got some good points in – but to anyone not knowing the essence of the CPS report the treatment was biased in the extreme.
It was worse that both prresnters seemed to treat the whole thing as a joke.
But I suppose that is the reality. It is one big joke at the BBC to spit in the eye of public opinion. We are just suckers, the BBC is in charge here, the BBC is the tribune of the people even though the people disagree with BBC groupthink on a whole range of issues.
The ‘Israel’ comment was an aside.
Naughtie came into it when Peter Oborne brought his name up, and then probably wished he hadn’t when he brought Liddle’s name into it!
Like I indicated, it is deeply tacky that Humphrys should presume to interview someone about his bias as a TODAY interviewer. The caption they have for this piece, as per below, is utterly outrageous.
This is what is says on the Today website for the running order
“Does the current economic crisis vindicate eurosceptics, and if so will they ever be held to account? Former Europe minister Denis MacShane and the Daily Telegraph’s Peter Oborne discuss whether it is time to play the blame game.”
Seems like they are trying to hold the wrong people to account.
Wow, what a screamingly bent way to frame the piece.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9598000/9598051.stm
If the eurosceptics are right, what on earth have they to be held to account for? Orwellian mindwarpism at its worst on Comrade Radio. Sounds like Naughtie barged his way onto the typist’s seat with his fat Scottish arse to vent his spleen at making himself look like such a prick for shooting himself in the foot by bringing up Rod Liddle.
Yes, that’s truly amazing, what do Eurosceptics need to be “held to account” for? The BBc really can’t face to lose the argument on this can they? And you’re right about Naughtie, he cocked up hugely by bringing Liddle’s name up and opening the door for Oborne to repeat what Liddle had said. Att the tiem I couldn’t believe he’d walked into that.
I’m not sure what Naughtie’s arse being Scottish has to do with it.
Just a bit of cut and thrust Roland – for me someone as truly appalling as Naughtie merits the odd barbed comment or two, especially after the blurb TODAY gave this piece on its webpage.
Also, in my personal opinion, a fat Scottish arse is a formidable weapon for barging someone off a seat.
I wonder how long it will be before the BBC blame eurosceptics for undermining the Euro and “if they had all just shut up and let us join, we would not be in this mess…”
Can’t be too long now…
I heard some of it. When Oborne gave them the statistics on the breakdown of pro-Euro and Anti-Euro interviewees on their programme they suggested that that “reflected the mood at the time”. The “mood” where? Are they suggesting that the British public was at least two to one in favour of joining the Euro in 2001 or did it reflect the “mood” in their little coterie.
Perhaps then it’s time they reflected the “mood” on climate change.
Or does that rule only apply when they say it does?
The mood at the time was that 25% wanted to join the euro, 58% wanted to stay in the EU but keep the pound. 10% wanted to leave the EU and 8% did not know.
Click to access 2001_october_no_campaign_euro_poll.pdf
He must mean that it reflected the mood of the BBC.
Also note in 2009:
“Some 71% of people are against entering the European single currency, with only 23% in favour..”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/02/euro-public-support-poll-sterling
Maybe this what the BBC see as acceptable:
“Eigthy percent of Czech’s against adopting the euro as their national currency”
http://www.foreignexchangeservice.co.uk/foreign-exchange-europe/czech-republic/04/2011/eigthy-percent-of-czechs-against-adopting-the-euro-as-their-national-currency.html
But they will get it anyway regardless.
They seem to think that the pasing of time will make people forget. The great thing about the Internet is having records available for time gone by.
A bit like their admission of bias: It was in the past but not anymore kind of thingy.
They are so far out of touch with the public mood. Well they would be wouldn’t they. They never go anywhere on public transport.
TAXI FOR BEEBOID!!
BBC Trust Member Diane Coyle – as economics writer for the Independent 10 years ago: “The defenders of sterling are, in the main, a group of elderly men with more stake in their past than in our future. They clothe their gut anti-Europeanism and Little Englandism in the language of rational economic argument.”
That is it – the label. “Eurosceptics”, “AGW sceptics”. That is you are “sceptical” about a “majority” view.
Loaded tags added to people they do not like to send a message to the audience It says that these people are not following the right course and therefore not to be trusted.
The BBC have no right to label anyone with terms used by their opponents. Yet when it comes to terrorists it bends over backwards to not use “valued judgements”.
“The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” or “terrorist group” can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality.”
“..“Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act- the hand grenade thrown into a crèche, the airport queue machine-gunned – we should still avoid the word. In the first place, our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels...”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-reporting-terrorism-full
We can also tell where people stand on the question of the EU and “Climate Change” therefore we do not need to be “provided with labels”. Their words are all we need.
How come if you`re a sceptic these days, then that makes you a denier if you continue to press your case?
I for one think being a sceptic is the natural state of proper enquiry. That the BBC seem to be derogatory about people who did not fall for the EU con trick…nor believe the BBCS perpetual squauking over their own climate change neurosis…just shows how bankrupt they are.
The BBC have put the skids under any trust in police, armies, courts, schools…yet seem to think that trusting THEM is somehow a good or a virtuous thing.
And if you don`t trust them…well you`re a sceptic or a denier…and even some “phobe”!
I trust in God, the USA and Israel…I would trust 100 Nick Leesons over one BBC…at least Nick seems to have learned something over the years, whereas the BBC learns absolutely nothing.
Anyone remember when the BBC last actually surprised us or informed us…not subject them to the Lennon/Lenin CampFire Songbook ad nauseum!
“Peter Oborne attacks BBC and FT for pro-euro bias”
Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/84985,people,news,peter-oborne-attacks-bbc-and-ft-for-pro-euro-bias#ixzz1Yo1P5dQY
Does anyone know how much the BBC gets from the European Commission? If so pease post. The corporation has always been coy about it in the past about how much it received from what was then called the “Audio-Visual Programme”..
“The arrival of the currency that the fathers of modern Europe dreamed about are symbols now made flesh”.
Nauseating. And now their false god is rotting before their eyes.