Here is a new Open thread, I have some posts to follow.
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- StewGreen Nov 15, 00:27
Midweek 13th November 2024
Quick bit of info from GBnews.. “Musk has retweeted GBnews twice in the last 24 hours” One tweet was about… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:20
Midweek 13th November 2024
The Alison Pearson case The police are now saying she was wrong to say it was a non-crime hate incident… - StewGreen Nov 15, 00:17
Midweek 13th November 2024
Police breaking the law again. They cleared someone 2 months ago But only decided to tell her tonight Yes #TheProcessIsThePunishment… - JohnC Nov 14, 23:48
Midweek 13th November 2024
University cash crisis to get worse despite tuition fee rise, BBC told https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c14lv7e61d3o [img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/c006/live/66b8a290-a27e-11ef-9881-317cd05de9c4.jpg.webp[/img] By one of the BBC’s own… - Guest Who Nov 14, 22:28
Midweek 13th November 2024
https://order-order.com/2024/11/14/guardians-self-deplatforming-post-420-times-more-popular-than-average-tweet/? - non-licence payer Nov 14, 22:01
Midweek 13th November 2024
Zephir, how times are changed. This was the sort of advice that was printed in the Socialist Worker. It is… - vlad Nov 14, 21:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
After woke Welby, next woke Francis maybe? (Any non-Catholics, take it from me: he’s just as bad.) - Nibor Nov 14, 21:56
Midweek 13th November 2024
Taffy, Make friends. I’m a moaner and complainer and haven’t paid the telly tax for 20 years, and other taxes. - vlad Nov 14, 21:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
I’ll be a Socialist for 1 night. Nah, too high a price. - Eddy Booth Nov 14, 21:19
Midweek 13th November 2024
He’s too obsessed with “the genocide in Palestine”.
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Brilliant just what I needed:
Meanwhile OLSX demonstrators have denied claims that several tents were unoccupied overnight.
The group said it has a “sign in/sign out system” in place to keep “vacancy to a minimum”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15457669
BBC pin their colours to the mast again.
Yes;
-For the censoring BBC-NUJ on the privileged and the non-occupying ‘Occupy’ –
“Anarchist student at the centre of St Paul’s protest is the son of a property tycoon”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053126/St-Pauls-protests-Jack-Hartcup-son-property-tycoon-centre-Occupy-London.html#ixzz1bqAfekLN
AND:
“The thermal images that prove 90% of tents in St Paul’s protest camp are left empty overnight”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053463/The-thermal-images-prove-90-tents-St-Pauls-protest-camp-left-overnight.html#ixzz1bqBsipXH
It does back up my theory that the rebellion is more against Daddy than Big Capitalism.
Gosh, it’s almost as if the BBC were trying to downplay the scandal. How could that possibly be?
I suggest some good samaritan round up the unused tents at night and deliver them to any charity that is helping the newly homeless in Turkey after the quake. They need them more than Tristram and Arabella.
The group said it has a “sign in/sign out system” in place to keep “vacancy to a minimum”.
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Aw cut them some slack.
It’s just that at the moment the sign out system is working a tad better than the sign in system.
“Occupy London respond to Telegraph’s video on empty tents.Occupy London admit there are empty tents at St Paul’s but only because protesters need a break. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8849200/Occupy-London-respond-to-Telegraphs-video-on-empty-tents.html
“It is ‘time for protesters to leave’ says Bishop of London”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24002352-it-is-time-for-protesters-to-leave-says-bishop-of-london.do
Bit harsh you lot!
There are an awful lot of pets for this lot to go home to feed…that`s the excuse du jour I kept hearing on Channel 4s soapsplash of an interview last night.
As for that Tory MP though…how very dare he?
Hope the RSPCA will be weighing all those Tiddles and Amys out in Saffron Waldon and Tooting…a pet obesity epidemic is a comin`!
This Mail Online story is the lead headline:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053310/Samad-Tadjkarimi-saves-Pc-Paul-Madden-3-minutes-death.html
Last night on the BBC it only made it on local London News.
Policemen nearly murdered in the line of duty protecting the public, and this is all the attention the BBC deems it merits? Disgraceful.
Oh, and especially when one sees the amount of wall to wall coverage the BBC are giving the extremist OWS. Sickening.
This guy had rap sheet of violence as long as his arm, and killed somebody while driving under the influence. He got two years in jail, and that’s it? Your legal system is as much responsible for this attack as the criminal is.
ROBERT BROWN; David, our justice system is arranged so as to provide maximum income stream for the legal ‘profession’, much as yours is. I regard the legal system as more of a racket than a profession. On another note, at least in the States you can arm yourselves to some extent. Here, the ‘authorities’ are petrified of an armed populace, but do not provide us with any protection from armed thugs and vilify us if we as much lay a hand on said thugs. Then we have the police that do carry weapons with more firepower than a soldier, with half the discipline. Yes, things are bad here, and getting worse.
David P,
That was a harsh sentence by UK standards. The whole “justice” system here is a sick joke.
Obviously Onyenaychi is not as nice as he looks.
Ed Miliband makes an awful effort at PMQs. BBC News 24 doesn’t see it. Beeboid Ross Hawkins at the Commons plugs Tory Splitz. Completely avoids the PM having quoted the Miliband / Sopel interview…odd that.
Lets be honest, RedEd’s efforts at PMQ’s are hit and very much mostly miss, if had been playing for Man Utd against Man City last Sunday it would have scored more than his fair share of own goals.
Much like his, ‘Sarkozy’ comment on Monday…
Miliband still thinks he’s taking part in the school debating society. You’d think his advisors would tell him that adopting that whiney, petulant tone when trying to make a point destroys any reasonable chance of besting Flashman at PMQs. The gurning, on top of the schoolboy whiney tone, make me want to give him a good slap.
Whinging little oik!
Barry Rubin has:
“Welcome to the Islamist Middle East and It’s Not Going to be Moderate.”
“Preview:
“The New York Times and BBC headlines on the Tunisian elections tell us it is a victory for “moderate Islamists.” I’m putting those headlines in my file alongside Moderate Islamists Take Power in Iran; Moderate Islamists Take Power in the Gaza Strip, Moderate Islamists Take Power in Lebanon, and Moderate Islamists Take Power in Turkey. And I’m leaving room for Moderate Islamists Take Power in Egypt.”
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/10/welcome-to-islamist-middle-east-and-its.html
I’ll happily defend the notion of “moderate Muslims” all day long, but “Islamist” by definition isn’t moderate. I heard the BBC use that term more than once yesterday about Tunisia. Madness.
Moderate is a term of relative position as much as ideology. Many years ago a Rhodesian (as it was then) friend told me that there were three parties in the all-white parliament : a right-wing party; far right-wing party and a lunatic right-wing party. The far right-wing party of Ian Smith was consistently elected as the moderates between the two extremes.
Does it really matter how the Governing party is classified in relative terms as long as they get the job done.
Under Ian Smith the Black population of Rhodesia had the best education and health system in Africa. They enjoyed rising employment and a growing middle class of Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers etc and they had adequate food supply, potable water supplies and reliable electricity generation. They were net exporters of food and agricultural produsts. And all this whilst there was an international trade embargo.
Under Mugabe, elected under universal franchise, they enjoyed the traditional African one-man-one-vote-once whilst Mugabe sytematically murdered his opponents and tens of thousands of Matabele tribesmen. Stole the land belonging to commercial farmers. Zimbabwe is now totally dependent on food aid to feed its people and half the population lives in South Africa as refugees. They have cholera infested water supplies and virtually no electricity supplies because generation equipment.
But at least they can vote for him next time.
After a NATO supported uprising against Gaddafi, the new rulers have now declared that Sharia law will be the ‘basic source’ of Libyan legislation. Knowing full well that Western nations will be none to happy with having promoted any extremist Islamic force to become dominant there, the new Libyan rulers are doing their best to minimise the impact of this edict, with the claim that they really are moderate Muslims. However there are disturbing elements, and a distinct amount of bullshit surrounding this pretence. Especially when conflicting claims can be seen to arise.
In this article about it from Canada’s CBC News, the headline is Shariah law in Libya will be moderate, officials say
and among other things it tells us …Ali Aujali, Libyan ambassador to the U.S., said there’s no need to worry that Libyan-based Shariah law will be anything like Sharia law practised by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
“Libya, first of all, is not Afghanistan,” Aujali said. “Secondly, the interpretation of the scholars in Afghanistan is completely different from the interpretation of the scholars in Libya. Libya is a very modern society. It is a conservative society, it’s true, but it is a society which is based on logic and human issues. I’m not worried about this at all.”
Shariah will deal with personal or social issues, or issues related to interest on loans, he said while assuring that, women, for example, will have the same rights as men.
In this article from the Daily Mail we are told The chairman of the National Transitional Council declared that a future parliament would have an ‘Islamist tint’ and any existing laws contradicting the teachings of Islam would be ‘nullified’. Under the new regime, men will even be permitted to take up to four wives, he suggested.
Clearly, women don’t have the same rights as men, but as we’ve seen all too often, Islamists will spew any story that fits what the listener wants to hear at the time, and which enables them ultimately to take greater power. Their word is deceit, and merely a weapon for them to use in their desire for world control.
So what about the BBC’s take on this issue.
For starters there’s no main article on this event, and the only reference to it appears on this article headlined Libyan authorities announce Gaddafi death investigation like this is what’s really important to readers here. Halfway down the article it gives us Sharia law
On Sunday, there were celebrations across Libya when Mr Abdul Jalil declared the country liberated.
However, Western governments expressed misgivings about his statement that Libya would take Islamic law as the source of its legislation. In his statement on Monday, Mr Abdul Jalil sought to address those concerns. “I would like to assure the international community that we as Libyans are moderate Muslims,” he said.
Do you feel assured? I certainly don’t! But this is the line the BBC will be pushing.
How does Tony Wrights lad…chap called Ben doncha know?…get to speak his two cents about how Cameron does against dads chums when PMQ is going on.
What does the BBC expect him to say…well he says it…and that is exactly what the BBC are paying him to tell us all.
If our Ben hasn`t lit the fireworks for the coming men of Nulabor…Ed really must have reeked at PMQ.
Ben sounded down in the mouth, as id any of the rest of us give a damn about what a Labor MPS son has to say about political discourse when he is paid by the taxpayer to keep on blowing daddys party.
Still…at least no Prescott or Stephen Pound…probably needing tandem rickshaw cyclists to get to W11.
‘So President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel ganged up against the Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi at the weekend.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15452367
That’s a strong claim – it implies that Berlusconi was being bullied.
Unless Gavit Hewitt was privy to what was said in private meetings, I don’t see how he can be confident of that claim…
Jeff
Don’t all these EU non-leaders just love each other !
Their love for each other is inversely proportional to their respect for their electorates.
Stephanie “Two Eds” Flanders is at it again, calling for more spending to boost the economies of Greece, Portugal, etc. No surprise that she uses Redder Ed’s term in the headline.
Plan B for the eurozone?
It’s Germany’s fault, you see, that this latest negotation to throw more taxpayer money down the “peripheral economies” hole. Flanders says that it’s not enough to temporarily prop up Greece and Portugal – which is an improvement from her usual Keynesian musings – but they also need to made “more competitive”.
Germany made themselves more competitive a few years ago, she says, and so can these countries. I must say it’s amusing to read this bit of intellectual acrobatics:
The way the German finance minister tells it, the first step on the road to increased competitiveness, for any country, is to bring the public finances under control. The other key element is structural reform – of labour regulations, pensions and the like – to make the country more dynamic and support growth.
Firstly, notice that she’s making this the Germans’ idea. It’s ridiculous that she knows on paper that this correct, but can’t bring herself to adovcate it the way she’s always saying they oughtn’t to cut too much too soon, and they should really spend more money to help growth.
The second half of her statement is even more mind-boggling. Austerity? Nasty Tory Cutz to public sector pensions? Oh, the humanity. The fact is, reforming labor practices – greatly easing employment laws and reining in unions – is what enabled Germany to start producing all that stuff that’s made them a successful export economy now. Why can’t she say it? Instead, she says this:
Now, it will not be news to you that many see this view as dangerously one-sided. They point out that Germany was able to grow in a period of flat domestic demand because external demand was booming. And a lot of that demand for German goods came from the rest of the eurozone (the same countries who are now in trouble).
The only reason external demand was booming is because nearly everyone else was spending like a drunken sailor during the bubble economy. And we all know how that turned out. Yet Flanders won’t say that, as it detracts from her belief that the German plan shouldn’t be applied elsewhere. No, money must be spent.
Then she goes on about more boring details of how and why more cash should be thrown around. Demand needs to be boosted, blah, blah.
But we’d rather they combine it with economic growth, and at least some stability of nominal incomes (and, incidentally, so would the people holding their debt, because it then has a chance of a being repaid).
Repaid? We all know that’s already not going to happen. Greece is going to default (still waiting for her Nick Robinson-like apology over saying the bailout was working), Portugal’s debt will be “re-structured”, etc. I mean, one of the major points of contention in this week’s meetings is just how much of a bath the banks are going to take over this. Who is she kidding?
Only herself, apparently. The rest of her piece is about how they’re all sitting on a pile of cash just waiting to be burned. How that’s supposed to reform the pensions and labor regulations she doesn’t really say. Über-Keynesian to the end, is “Two Eds”.
I don’t suppose that it has struck thick Steph that Greece , Portugal and Germany are completely different cultures which are totally irreconcilable.
I notice that Merkel said today that , if the Euro is not saved, peace in Europe cannot be guaranteed. Am I the only one who finds that chilling when coming from a German ?
I think , some years ago, the repulsive bully, Kohl, made a similar threat of war.
She means violent protesters trying for bloody revolutions, surely.
David P,
I hope you are right !
I dont see Angela Merkel as the world domination type. That was Jacques Delors.
This talk of war is particularly absurd. It would postulate a real desire for it from the Germans and the French historically the instigators of war in Europe. What possible reason is there for such talk?
To persuade Europe that the Euro must be saved to save the politicians’ faces.
Or more likely it is about the German desire to keep the real value of their currency artificially low thus ensuring the eventual German domination of modern Europe ( in the nicest possible way of course).
BBC report:
A former director at investment bank Goldman Sachs has been taken into custody on charges relating to a hedge fund insider trading case.
Rajat Gupta, 62, is accused of providing illegal information to hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam.
Rajaratnam was sentenced to 11 years in jail for insider trading earlier this month.
What the BBC won’t mention – both of these characters were big donors to the Democratic Party.
Raj Rajaratnam.
Rajat Gupta.
And so was Bernie Madoff.
Here’s one of those sites full of stuff which tells the BBC that they get it about right because they get complaints from both sides. It’s very amusing to learn that the BBC is controlled by Zionists and Freemasons and is in league with Rupert Murdoch.
Missing link (literally) *DONT_KNOW* ?
Oops. sorry.
http://www.intmensorg.info/bbc.htm
What a ridiculous site. Just one of the many stupidities is that it claims that the BBC was nasty about all those brave students who were committing criminal acts against innocent people. Anybody with an open mind would have been aware that the BBC was overtly supporting them and excusing any indiscretion. You can see why Dezzie and Scotty are so stupid, if they follow lies like that.
Demon1001, actually I’ve made several posts about how idiotic the whole “Common Purpose” conspiracy theory really is.
If you want to find some people who actually believe in this sort of ridiculous nonsense try searching the B-BBC archives; they’re all there.
So you do agree that all the rest on that site is OK it just the ‘right wing conspiracy’s’ that you don’t like so er business as usual for you!
Interesting Have I Got News for You on Friday night. Lousie Mensch took a right good kicking from Messrs Merton, Hislop and Danny Baker and there didn’t seem to be any pretence at humour, just have a go at the Tory. I expect nothing else from Baker but Merton and Hislop are generally fair minded – everyone is fair game.
I usually take agreeing to appear on HIGNFY by any pol of any hue to be a sign of either masochism or derangement.
In all cases, with the possible exception of Boris, they have all been both dire as either presenters or guests, and made to look even bigger plonkers than one knows they are already.
The fatal attraction of ‘being on the telly’ seems explicable to a slapper from Essex trying to boost a career from beautician to reality star, but going from MP to laughing stock… less so.
I watched that and everyone had a crack at her.
I think it showed through when she had a pop at the occupylsx bunch with the jibe that the so called revolutionaries couldn’t cope with iphones & starbucks and they went for her for having a pop at someone for wanting a cup of coffee.
The thing is, this is just the sort of thing that Hislop and Merton would have used as their own gag. It’s particularly within Hislop’s style of quip in whihc he likes to point out hypocrites.
I would say this though – she was definitely trying too hard.
Mensch messed up what was originally a good point. She said at first that the Occupiers were hypocrites becaue they were anti-Capitalist and anti-Corporate yet were enjoying the full fruits of both, with laptops and iPhones and lining up and giving their money to Starbucks. But then she lost that plot and repeated only the latte gag. Merton and the rest easily jumped on that, as if she was saying that the Occupiers’ grievances were completely discredited only because they bought a latte, and her point was killed.
But I did enjoy seeing Hislop back up Martin’s point about the lack of certain innuendo in reporting about Fox and Werrity.
White man subjected to race attack by gang of yobs Andrew Goodram, 31, suffered a punctured lung and two broken ribs after the gang of four yobs shouted: “white bastard” at him before subjecting him to a vicious assault.
That the headline from the Daily Telegraph, the assailants were Asian youths, imagine if this hate crime had been committed by a white group on a innocent Asian, we would have indepth coverage on the BBC, and of course the accompanying article in the Guardian.
On the BBC they have nothing on this assault, even the local BBC news has decided not to cover it, instead an article about the pop group ‘Elbows’ drums being stolen is the main story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8850704/White-man-subjected-to-race-attack-by-gang-of-yobs.html
BBC are big fans of Elbow. The singer is called Guy Garvey. Do people recall how Gordon Brown said he was a big fan? (of the band, I mean)
If there are a couple of St Pauls protester types available for hire…would they mind getting down to Wood Lane and putting their tents up at BBC reception?
Reason being that Steve Earle is coming to town…and if he is not a shoo-in for the Toady show “culcha” bit at 8.20, then I`ll be surprised.
Songs about the cuts, Katrina and the like…a tubby Guthrie type with Springsteens old shirt on!
Said protesters could moan at how much of a carbon footprint Steve is making as he trawls the world banging on about Mexican immigrants…and, of course: get in out of the cold to feed the Blue Peter leopard…well, snuggle up in the vestibule or Jenni Murrays sleeping bag…whichever is the bigger!
http://tinyurl.com/67h3b5e
Meh, steve is such a talent I can forgive his politics.
It’s the rest of them wihout the talent but with the politics who I detest.
Yes – like Billy Boastful.
The BBC ‘Trust’ is having another ‘review’.
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/bbc-trust-launches-impartiality-review-of-arab-spring-coverage/s2/a546503/
What are the odds of the BBC ‘getting it about right’?
Helen Boaden is quoted in the article is saying:
“It is often in the tone and language and people often don’t realise they are taking sides. Our values demand impartiality. We don’t always get it right but we work at it very hard on a daily, even hourly basis.”
Why, then, did the BBC tell me that they were no longer willing to consider my complaints of bias (as reported previously in this blog)?!?
Jeff
but will exclude coverage by the BBC’s local, regional and national services, and the World Service.
What’s left to review? CBeebies? And I think this bit pretty much tells you all you need to know about the inevitable outcome:
Mortimer said he was “honoured and excited” about being asked to lead the review.
“Events in the Middle East during 2011 up-ended many widely accepted notions about the region. Such stories are always the most exciting for journalists to cover, but also present many challenges. It will be fascinating to examine in detail how the BBC rose to these.“
Mortimer chose – in a significant career move – to become the UN director of communications for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In other words he opted to become a professional liar on behalf of the corrupt boss http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/898433/posts of a dysfunctional and corrupt organisation. Why does the BBC bother? Who will be convinced by the whitewash which Mortimer will certainly produce? In the whole world, was there no other candidate?
Of course Mortimer is “honoured and excited”. Pleased also is, I guess, his bank manager who will see a nice slug of taxpayers’ money drop into Mortimer’s account. Not, I should add, that Mortimer’s judgement would be swayed for one moment by any payment. He would give the BBC an encomium on this issue and anything else for free: that’s exactly why he was selected for this non-onerous and (as David Preiser observes) incredibly circumscribed task.
For an excellent and insightful background to this ‘Mid-East’ expert, and exactly why the BBC selected him for their ‘impartial review’, as well as some more goodies on the BBC themselves, there’s a great article by Hugh Fitzgerald at the New English Review called Islamintern Propaganda – The Players.
Written in 2006, it’s almost like he saw this review coming. No prizes for guessing what the outcome will be.
TB
Wow I hadn’t read that before: Mortimer’s even more of a sh*t than I’d realised. No wonder the BBC selected him: he and Lord Patten will have a lot to discuss over the post-prandial port.
Recalling how ‘impartial’ those selected to serve on the review for BBC coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict, as well as when Steve Jones (bias is in their geneticists 😉 ), the one selected to head the review for BBC climate science output, there was no doubt in my mind that for this review they would have a slimeball of similar ‘stature’ to head it. The first Google search page on him brought up the very material I expected to find.
Frankly, the very biased panel that the BBC uses to judge their output, is the proof itself of their gross imbalance. I would love to have Mark Thompson on my version of Hardtalk, where he would have to justify how he showed his commitment to fair and impartial reporting, instead of the usual assertions that they are because they say so.
I expect the conclusion of this latest review to tell us that the BBC coverage of Arab Spring was too swayed in favour of the Christians attacked by the peace loving Muslims.
I’d say what the Arab Spring has given us is ‘Demoncracy’.
In a recent letter to my local MP, Jeremy Hunt, I wrote:
“I’m also intrigued as to why you continue to put up with the BBC’s blatant left-wing bias and anti-Conservative agenda? Scores of examples of bias, and lies, are recorded by independent bloggers and elements of the right wing press every day. I believe in absolute freedom of speech, I’m not a liberal, so the BBC should exist, but it shouldn’t be funded the way it is. After all, I don’t buy The Guardian, so why should I be forced to pay for the BBC to broadcast the same minority views and left-wing drivvle.
It’s insane that a corporation of this size and influence should be self-regulating too. The reply to any complaint is always akin to a small child putting his fingers in his ears and repeatedly shouting “LA LA LA LA”!
If they’re as good as they say, then surely they’d thrive in a free-market.
His reply:
“I believe that the BBC is an incredible asset to this country’s media and cultural diversity. Lord Patten is conducting a review of the governance of the BBC and he recognises that the BBC doesn’t always get it right. However if you have concerns you should contact the BBC Trust directly as it has responsibility for ensuring the BBC remains impartial. Ministers I am afraid cannot direct the BBC what or what not to broadcast – otherwise they would find it pretty difficult to hold us to account, which is one of their primary responsibilities.”
I’m amazed he feels like that about them, as they despise him and his Party.
If they held Labour and Green politicians to account in the same way, then their wouldn’t be quite so much of a problem.
I believe that the ‘Conservative’ Party, in it’s current form, deserve all they get. The sooner Cameron and his socialist clique have gone, and the Party has a true conservative at the helm, the better.
Jeremy Hunt is a waste of space. I’ve also written to him about BBC biased reporting and received the SAME reply! Obviously he’s received so many complaints about the Beeb he’s resorted to using a standard pro-forma reply.
Hunt has shown he’s just a party hack without the will or gumption to sort out what is an obvious breach of the BBC Charter.
Jeremy Hunt is an idiot.
Grant, Jeremy Hunt is not “an idiot”. He is afraid. Or simply cautious. Afraid of gaining an anti-BBC reputation. Cautious in case his dislike of the Beeb would bring an onslaught from it – or worse he could be ignored by it. All politicians need a platform. Its ability to give politicians one is where the BBC’s power lies.
How can this system be reformed from within? It cannot. NO-ONE who is craving an interview on the BBC will dare offend it – Conservatiove of Labour.
You may well be right.
If MPs fear the BBC, then all this tosh about the bullying Uncle Rupert can just as easily be applied to MPs in their craven dealings with the BBC.
It would explain why these fawning prep school twerps seem always so in awe of the likes of Justin Webb…who`d not scare anyone here on Planet Earth, but clearly worries the likes of Maude and Hunt.
Maybe the next lot from Eton could get some self-esteem classes from those rioters who seemed to lack it!
At the risk of repeating myself again, it seems that Hunt is yet another person who can’t separate the biased News from the rich heritage of the BBC’s cultural output and light entertainment. Until this distinction is made, there can be no progress.
I read the word ‘diversity’ and tuned out. >:o
I too have had this reply,He never replies to the way it is funded always the content. The Beeb Got his name right spelt with a C.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15428024
Have a look at this little beauty.
Classic Britain bashing that is so loved by the BBC.
Traitors I think.
Most of that stuff is quibbiling, not too controversial, IMHO. But the idea that Britain was an also-ran in WWII is unbelievably insulting. There’s a reason why we in the US have different years for the War than you do in Britain. If not for the British, the War (in Europe, not counting Japan) would have been over before the US and Russia had a chance to “win” it for you.
“Instant histories of the war – not least Winston Churchill’s own – depicted it as Britain isolated and alone against the might of Germany. This was true only for a period in 1940-1941, when little fighting was done.“
This quote does seem to render that period of the war as almost insignificant. This might be the case in relation to the total number of deaths in the War as a whole, but I doubt most British people consider the pivotal Battle of Britain a period ‘when little fighting was done’.
Plus the fight, the spirit of the British people through the Blitz.
Near the home of one of my daughters in East London, there is a small plaque on the side of a school. It records that 19 firemen and firewomen were all killed by a bomb on that site, which was their local HQ. Up the road is the tube station where over 200 people died on one night.
Trust the BBC to minimise that. They were against Churchill before the war, they were appeasers – and they still are. Spineless, craven.
Simon Jenkins is just another pompous, left-wing clone. But, remember, he is merely a journalist, nothing more, nothing less.
But, David P is right. Whatever the truth of the matter, Jenkins has insulted the memory of all those British servcimen and others who suffered.
My late father was a Desert Rat and, from what he told me, the North Africa campaign was no picnic. Spineless scum like Jenkins wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes. No wonder the BBC love him.
I’ll restrict myself to just two observations: Agincourt is important as a “myth” not because England failed to capitalise on its victory but because the victory was clearly down to a small number of English (and Welsh) foot soldiers/archers – under the inspired leadership of an English king – who, though heavily outnumbered, humiliated the flower of France’s nobility.
The “Glorious Revolution” was, I suppose, technically treason but, for all that, the English were not prepared to have a Catholic on the throne: FFS a civil war had been fought 40 years before partly to prevent a king – whose loyalty to Protestantism was suspect and who had a Catholic wife – continuing in power. I suspect a referendum in 1688 would have found heavily in favour of William. Interestingly, the contemporary Bill of Rights – significantly not mentioned by Jenkins – underlay the freedom of the English until about 15 years ago (or is this another “myth”?)
Although it’s difficult to fault Jenkin’s take on the bald facts, myths are important to a country. He realises that and, certainly the BBC does. That’s exactly why this kind of article is commissioned and published by the BBC. It’s part of the process of delegitimising the English in their own country and denigating England and its history. I’ve yet to find an article on the BBC website attacking, for instance, the myths underlying Black History Month (eg this http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/ would not see the light of day on the BBC). Given the choice, the BBC in its frenzy of compassionate hatred (H/T Peter Simple) will always opt to kick the English.
Correct. The elitist fellow travellers of the BBC are well aware of how to destroy a people’s sense of identity.
Change the past if necessary but at all costs destroy the people’s pride in their past and their myths, for all nations have these myths that serve to bind a people and underline nationhood.
That done a people can be given a new history and a new myth courtesy of the elites and we can all guess what a dreary predictable heap of rubbish that will be.
Myths are important. I believe the D Day soldiers wore the Agincourt rose to remind them of another day.
And whether or not Harold was a an anglo Dane and how he died has never mattered. What matters is that the English on that day fought to the bitter end and were overwhelmed but did not flee.
The BBC mindset hates all this . How can you build the new England, sorry Britain, if the idiots they presume to talk down to stubbornly cling to their past.
I am surprised they have not called for the removal of Nelson and the renaming of Trafalgar Square.
Dave S,
No doubt Simon Jenkins will do a programme for the BBC explaining why Trafalgar was really a British defeat.
This is typical of the liberal-left. Apart from the obvious Battle of Britain (which, we’re always told, was a Polish achievement) it ignores other British contributions. The huge Royal Navy tends to be ignored in favour of the RAF, the Merchant Navy kept people fed and armed – and not just in Britain. We could also draw attention to Bletchley Park (which I know had US and Polish input – before someone points it out), the SOE, the widely used Merlin engine etc.
Unfortunately, we stopped making WW2 films ages ago in spite of the fact that there are many film-worthy achievements which have never been covered – some of them quite inventive and hair raising. This has left a couple of generations vulnerable to the suggestion that we did very little except make speeches and drink tea.
I don’t know any other country which runs itself down like this one.
Grant
You might not be so very far from the truth there.
In 2005 the BBC was prepared to do virtually nothing to mark the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar. In the event it was shamed into covering – grudgingly and at a distance – the firework display at Portsmouth. As reported at the time http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1493074/Even-German-TV-provides-more-coverage-of-Trafalgar-than-the-BBC.html even german TV provided more coverage of the display.
This was true only for a period in 1940-1941, when little fighting was done.’
So the start of the blitz on British city’s was just a bit of trouble the Bismarck HMS Hood ?? the battles of Malta/ Greece/ Norway/north Africa even Dunkirk was all just a blip?? what about the RMS Lancastria I suppose a myth killed the 4.000 on board ?
What a cretin!!!
Dave S – “for all nations have these myths that serve to bind a people and underline nationhood.”
Exactly, Dave. This concept of ‘nationhood’ is the very thing they wish to deny. What better way than to diminish or misrepresent our shared past. As you say, this is one of the things that binds people together. But the left see that sense of belonging that comes from a common national history as too ‘exclusive’ to newcomers. Thus they would prefer to wipe the slate clean of all the positive aspects of our history and have a new year zero, whilst still holding on to any negatives that serve to heap shame and guilt on our nation’s past and it’s people. Where better to achieve this aim than in the teaching of history in state schools.
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” George Orwell.
Is there anyone who better understood the motives and objectives of the left?
This article is published yesterday by the Washington Post and is from Associated Press
Rights group warns of a cover-up in Egyptian Christian protesters’ killings
CAIRO — A leading international rights group has warned of a cover-up by the Egyptian military in the investigation of the killing of more than two dozen mostly Coptic Christian demonstrators in the deadliest single incident since the February overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak.
The New-York based Human Rights Watch called Tuesday for the independent investigation of the October 9 deaths of 27 people, mostly Christian, in front of Cairo’s TV building. Military vehicles were filmed running down protesters.
The group also urged authorities to transfer investigation of the case from military to civilian prosecutors.
Jihad Watch has more on this. The BBC have still managed to avoid all reference to the ludicrous nature of the military investigating their own actions, following their disputed claims that they were not purposefully responsible for any Coptic deaths. We see all too often how the BBC are the first to jump on the ‘Human Rights’ bandwagon when the cause is one they want to advance.
One can only wonder at the ‘World Service’ they really perform.
Impartial as usual…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/8844483/BBCs-too-little-too-late-apology-to-Tory-MP.html
BBC’s ‘too little, too late’ apology to Tory MPAndrew Tyrie, the Tory MP shown apparently being muzzled by Steve Hilton at the Tory Conference, wants a proper apology from the BBC
Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator, also has something to say about this, as well as a few other observations about BBC falling standards. And this is a guy who seems to respect BBC’s output.Coming to the BBC, an everyday story of bias and falling standards
I was going to post that i bet tonight’s Frozen Planet will be spoilt by references to global warming, it has after 20 minutes, predictable…
Jonathan,
How funny. I had a bet with my mother that it would feature in the first 5 minutes !
Great programme , about the only thing the BBC still do well. But spoilt by the mindless, loud music, of course. Why do they do it ?
Our hosts should have done a live blog – plenty of chances for ‘climate change’ bingo !
Strangely, I was going to make a similar prediction but the wifi went down and I never got round to it. Actually it wasn’t as blatant as I was expecting. More episodes to go, though and I bet the last one really goes to town.
Roland,
Yes, the last one will probably be exclusively on climate change.
A Wall Street fat cat confronts some “protestors” – priceless.
Why can’t some lads in the City take the fight to the dropouts in Finsbury Square ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/26/fun-peter-schiff-confronts-occupy-wall-street-protesters/
Awesome. I’ve got to get the video of my own discussions with these people uploaded already.
A good go at Beeboid bias, falling standards and fakery – Primark, The Queen and Andrew Tyrie – by Peter Oborne. Has a swipe at senior management too:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100113804/coming-to-the-bbc-an-everyday-story-of-bias-and-falling-standards/
Yes; pity about Oborne’s weak, inadequate conclusion:”it is time the BBC woke up.”
True, but when even those who appear to respect and enjoy the BBC start seeing the holes in the socks and the urine stain on their flies it gives us call to be optimistic 😉
Tonight, on the ten o’clock news, on R4, one of the later pieces concerned the prediction of future immigration growth to Britain. The “expert’ was actually an imbecile from the “university” of Southampton, who started off by saying that Britain was only the fiftieth most-heavily populated country in the world, ignoring the fact that some parts of England (plus Glamorgan, in Wales) are very densely populated. Caroline Quinn quoted “MigrationWatch”, with a contrary opinion, to which the imbecile replied, “Well, that’s another opinion,” but failed, otherwise to respond with any coherent reply. Quinn did not press her.
The imbecile then suggested that immigrants could avoid the south of England and settle in sparsely populated areas of Scotland. Quinn didn’t bother to ask how these people would be compelled to remain living on Rannoch Moor, when millions of previous immigrants were living south of Oxford.
The imbecile was also allowed to peddle the old fiction that immigrants are young and the natives are old, as if immigrants have the secret of eternal youth. If Quinn objected, I missed it.
I’d love to see this guy interviewed on the BBC.
Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have A Good Side?
Check out the bewilderment of the interviewer. Katty Kay, the queen of shrieking about inequality, would probably freak out if she spoke to Richard Epstein.
On the Today programme this morning, we had a discussion about the demise of Tibune, but the way it was discussed it was implied that all political or “ideas” magazines were in big trouble. Not the full story; it is left wing magazines that are failing fast.
The Spectator circulation: 76,000 weekly
The New Statesman circulation 24,000 (monthly)
Tribune not sure, but so bad it’s closing
Similar patterns are seen when comparing newspapers
Daily Telegraph 651,000
Guardian 279,000
But don’t expect the BBC to give you this sort of information
yes, they made it sound as if the Spectator was jus about to close too. but the real bit I liked was when Jim Naughtie described Michael Dobbs as being from “the other side of politics”.
and another thing….
have you noticed that whenever Jonathan Dimbleby does a straw poll of the audience in his “Any Questions” programme the majority always have the “BBC/Guardian” view? I wonder how tickets are allocated, but if done on a random basis the data from the above post predict that there should be a majority opposing the “BBC/Guardian” view. Unless of course lefties are more likely to attend these sort of programmes, where they know that the panel will always be predominantly left-leaning, particularly with a Dimbleby in charge.
I think you’re correct. There are always some up for a fight about these things but most of us, I suspect, would find the toll on our blood pressure too high to even contemplate applying to attend.
I can remember once they asked who read the Sun, I don’t think a single hand was raised, to which the audience gave a loud cheer.
Tells it all.
Having twice attended Question Time programmes in recent years, I can confirm that one is asked certain questions on the application which will establish ones political leaning. The one I had both times was whether I supported the Iraq invasion.
I suppose the BBC can always justify it’s majority leftist output as balancing the more rightist one that would appear naturally if they didn’t manipulate it.
Fun fact for a dull day. Labour MP Jack McDonell alleges ‘the Murdoch empire’ influenced the government’s decision about fixing the BBC’s licence fee. Culture minister Ed Vaizey responds
“I have never discussed the licence fee with Rupert Murdoch or the Murdoch empire.”
and then goes on to reveal that the Beeb was stabbed in the back by the Grauniad
“Funnily enough the most influential discussion I had was with the Guardian Media Group [publisher of MediaGuardian.co.uk] who complained about the size of the BBC website.”
Coming to the BBC, an everyday story of bias and falling standards – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100113804/coming-to-the-bbc-an-everyday-story-of-bias-and-falling-standards/
Duplicate! See a few posts earlier in this thread.
Listened vaguely to bits of the “Media Show”…the Howlett Media Production one on at 1.30 yesterday afterneoon.
Featuring Kevin Howlett no less fronting it…very cosy!
Anyway heard two pops at the BBC, but both were swiftly brushed over.
1. Their monopoly market share position in news output is distorting enterprising new ways like the 20p Indie, Wikileaks, paywalls etc…no don`t ask…wasn`t listening THAT much!
2. X Factor is in trouble, but the BBCs Saturday nights offerings are that meagre, Cowell will not be losing too much sleep.
Thin pickings I know, but always a delight to hear a few glass shards being thrown down to the serfs when we only get saccharine and crumbs fron Pattens High Table.
Howlett presumably getting his next series… he isn`t THAT independent as he shows by skating rapidly over these quips.
Another feather bedded licensed rebel then!
I’m actually quite impressed if they managed to fit all of that into the 10 minutes of the programme which isn’t spent whingeing about Rupert Murdoch
‘The BBC received more complaints – 240,000 – than the previous year, an increase of 20,000 …
Some 257 complaints were escalated, 17 of which were upheld or partially upheld’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14120960
Something has gone seriously wrong when only 17 out of 240,000 complaints to an organisation are upheld or partially upheld! The other 239,983 complaints cannot all have been without merit!
And it’s curious that so few complaints were escalated. That would suggest either that:
A. The BBC almost always chooses not to escalate complaints (because they don’t take them seriously).
Or
B. The BBC aren’t advising the public about how to escalate their complaints (because they don’t take them seriously).
Jeff
Those figures suggest total disregard for the people who pay for the 20,000 BBC “workers” – plus a deliberately obstructive complaints procedure designed to “lose” complaints.
Escalation of even 1% of complaints would give a figure of 2400 – not the pitiful 0.1%.
0.1%. That is – one-thousandth of the complaints justify escalation, in the BBC’s eyes.
And the BBC then “upholds” or partially upholds one in ten thousand !!!
Orwellian stuff.
It’s because they always “get it about right” of course. If they say so, who are we to doubt?
Surely , in most other industries there is an independent ombudsman for complaints ? Why not for the BBC ?
On an amusing note, I once had a letter from the complaints section of RBS upholding part of my complaint but deeming the rest to be unfounded. I was surprised as I hadn’t made a complaint in the first place !
BBC London News producer Jane Bradley yesterday:
@jane__bradley Jane Bradley Any other journos going to this? The brilliant John Pilger is speaking: ‘Reclaim the Media’ – j.mp/tzZIsW
The link takes you to a website called Right To Work (“Save jobs. Stop the cuts. Defend Public services.”) where the event, held yesterday evening, was being advertised. Apart from Pilger the meeting also boasted the NUJ’s general secretary Michelle Stanistreet and Socialist Workers Party activist Gary McFarlane (at least I’m assuming it was that Gary McFarlane and not the Christian relationship counsellor sacked by Relate for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples – hilarious if they booked him by mistake.)
As with her failure to turn out for the Trafalgar Square demo a couple of weeks ago it appears from her tweets that Bradley went home and watched telly instead. Seems like she’s a bit of a sofa general when it comes to this left-wing activism thing, but evidently likes to signpost her radical credentials to her colleagues nonetheless. That sort of thing clearly goes down well at BBC London because they’ve had her reporting on the St Paul’s protests for the past couple of days.
Of course they sent Jane Bradley to St Paul’s. They want impartial reports on the cuddly campers, and who could be more impartial than Jane ?
/Snort
Turns out Stanistreet didn’t speak – instead they had NUJ president Donnacha Delong (who calls himself an anarchist) and BBC NUJ rep Becky Branford. Her Twitter follow list is pretty much what you’d expect.
Here’s an interesting tweet from one student journalist at the meeting:
@Arcadian_O Eva Blum Dumontet #reclaimthemedia contact sheet circulating. Building a network of activists. #nuj
A UK version of JournoList, only more radical?
The same person tweeted about her feeling of exhilaration over the vibe at the meeting:
@Arcadian_O Eva Blum Dumontet #nuj meeting feels too much like a communist party meeting for me not to feel a little exhilarated.
Look out for her at the BBC in a couple of years.
Does any one know if there are any licence fee-funded NUJ pilgrims at the BBC?
Becky has a cute Twitter list. You couldn’t make it up !
And they claim people like her can’t be biased ? She sounds as loony left as they come, wears it on her sleeve – how can suchlike not show their looniness through their “journalism” ?
DB,
I mean , even by Left-wing standards, these people are extremists. Amazing.
I think the activist list thing is worth giving wider attention so I’ve blogged this topic.
Larks. Sage advice from a Graun ed..
dpcarrington Damian Carrington Daily Mail nonsense got you worried on green taxes on your energy bill? Easy. Save £263 a year – by not buying it gu.com/p/33v34/tw #eg
Thing is, there may be a precedent also, savings wise on dire media.
Though in one, unique case, there is an exception still.
it would seem that the paper that less and less are buying is
the grauniad
aka the daily andrex
and of course we can all save another £140 odd by refusing to pay the tv tax
I know I have 🙂
There’s a big international financial meeting in New York today. So whom does the News Channel have on satellite feed for opinion? Ed Balls. Europe needs to get their house in order, but Britain needs to trade with them, etc.
To his credit, the Beeboid in the studio asked Balls to comment on how the majority of the public seem to be unfavorable towards Europe these days. The reply was that not joining the Euro was one of Labour’s best decisions. Ah, Labour saved you all!
A joke just aired on BBC R5 “good news for Christians – attendance is up at one church , St Pauls, the bad news is that none of them went inside” , o.k. just a joke, but could you see them telling one about Muslims and Mosques ?
That reminds me of a comment I saw on Cranmer’s site yesterday. Someone suggested that a great way to clear out the Occupiers would be if the Dean of St. Paul’s went out and held Mass and started preaching amongst them.
Credit where due, this is very funny (with even-handed mockery in every direction, including self). Satire of satire…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0162zbx/Holy_Flying_Circus/
I especially liked what seems to be an homage to any Newsnight pre-pro these days.. ‘Do you want it funny, or a serious debate?”. Post me my BAFTA!
Ethical Man is back… and he’ll be eating a caterpillar live on air to show how the world food crisis can be solved. Ant & Dec may appear. John Prescott will not (little local difficulty on the doubel standards front… again).
There is a rather nice notion on boycotting. And how Complaints get treated (bit of a contradictory diatribe on this topic later on). Liked the bit at the end about others, convinced of their rectitude, better able to decide on behalf of others.
Best to watch. Well worth it. Interesting how, when confronted with naked opinion, un-enhanced my narrative, the public did make its mind up. There’s hope yet.
ps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCarG9im8C4
Question Time panel :
Iain Duncan Smith – Work and Pensions (Christian – OMG)
Gloria De Piero – Labour MP (thick)
Jo Swinson – Scottish Liberal Democrats (?)
Nigel Farage – Leader of UKIP (…hurrah!!!!!)
Julian Fellowes – actor and novelist (posh – boo hiss)
So, some genuine people of the right for a change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/9624503.stm
WTF? This must be a first – more right-of-centre panellists than left (as it should be on a regular basis, of course). Still not sure I’ll watch though – it pisses me off too much, regardless of who is on.
Oh dear the BBC unveiling it’s pro right wing slant that those clever lefty’s always say is there! hidden behind their pro Israeli news and anti Euro /immigration bias see that’s what happens when you have 2 wet ex Tory’s working for you !!
pmsl !
They can use this episode of QT as evidence of their ‘right-wing bias’ for decades to come!
It’s probably bookmarked by the cherry vultures here for just such a purpose, while Newswatch will have it on file as another of their nu-maths ‘splits’, that put 100:1 on par with 50:50… when it suits.
Classic double standards on Radio 5 today. Thicko Bacon was doing a bit on the BBC’s sport coverage and got some moron on the line who said that he didn’t like Sky (yawn) and wouldn’t pay to watch F1 on it, but happily admitted he’d “look for it on the internet”.
The irony of spouting this on the BBC was obviously lost on him and thicko Bacon.
I just wondered what would have happened if I had stated on the BBC that I didn’t own a TV licence because I thought the BBC was a left wing shit hole?
Just heard on the BBC news. One of the protesters at St Pauls said “Jesus was a Socialist” You couldn’t make it up:)
woh oh Dawkins will have a fit !!!!! i hope O:-) !
It’s not exactly made up:
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Mark 10:21
“Only the man who says goodbye to all his possessions can be my disciple.”
Luke 14:33
All the believers joined together and shared everything in common; they sold their possessions and goods and divided the proceeds among the fellowship according to individual need.
Acts 2:44-45
Actually, I suppose this does mean Jesus wasn’t exactly a Socialist. There was a lot of extreme asetheticism going around at the time. Like the Essenes, for example. That kind of behavior had been around for centuries already. Nothing new here.
Just watched this stonking piece of moral masturbation on Panorama on Moussa Koussa:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016ytvt/Panorama_Britain_Gaddafi_and_the_Torture_Trail/
Adrian Mole has left his ex-poly and works for the BBC under the name of Paul Kenyon.
He recounts the sob story of a chap called Sami Saadi who claims MI5 helped rendition him back to Libya.
Kenyon describes him throughout as ‘an opponent of Gaddafi’. For some reason he failed to inform us of his leading role in the Al Qa’eda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
The true scandal is the way our military has aided pro Al Qa’eda terrorists in coming to power in Libya, and how scum/fools like Kenyon are doing Al Qa’eda’s propaganda for them.
One fears Britain has lost a crucial intelligence asset in Moussa Koussa due to this moral masturbation. We can certainly have him locked up for the wrong he’s undoubtedly done, but if we can use him to do more good than the harm his done, surely that’s a good thing.
Not in the ‘Brave New Britain’ we’re living in. ‘Cool Britannia’. No. Fool Britannia.
The rank, enemy complicit dishonesty of Paul Kenyon kicks in @ 06:08 on the above. Such coyness in the service of our terrorist enemies. MI5 should be having a word with him.
A little bit on the ever so not Al Qa’eda linked LIFG here:-
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/libyan_islamic_fight.php
Paul Kenyon? Rendition anyone?
@BBCr4today #Executivepay set by “a closed little club, setting pay for each other” High Pay Commission.
As a matter of interest, how are media ‘market rates’ ‘set’?
Another consequence of a flawed system (democratic capitialism), if no better seems evident (crony socialism only works on an Animal Fram top sideways basis), is of course the matter of remuneration.
I have no truck with paying for mediocrity, and especially for failure, but this does appear now not so much prevalent, but almost mandatory in almost any sector, public or private.
Thing is, in private it really is rather between those running the thing and those paying them to do so. If the money is there, and the latter are content with how the former have rigged it all, then that’s kinda between them (different in areas such as banking, where the taxpayer gets to pick up the tab for less than stellar performances, with – well paid, perked and pensioned, despite performance – government (of the day) connivance).
‘The media’, especially some in certain sectors whose excitability on such things seems matched only by their selectivity, have of course gone to town on this.
Which is how I come to wonder why the remuneration of commentators, luvvies, media & footyballists seem given pass by critics (who are ‘saying’.. a lot)?
Interesting the comment ‘most picked’ by The Editors here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866
‘376. ravenmorpheus2k
3 HOURS AGO
Utterly disgusting. But what will and can my fellow Britons do about it?
Will we organise a revolution – no. Too many people simply don’t care. And even if they did as soon as we started to organise via the most effective means – social media and mobile phones you can guarantee the government would have it shut down post haste.
Sit hear and moan by all means but take some action also!
Legitimate frustration and a valid sense of outrage (if trying to get such a job never seems to be an option, doubtless only for ethical reasons and nothing to do with not having ANY skills or work ethic, so moaning and dragging down is an easier option), but are the BBC really meant to be in the business of fomenting ‘action’ like this?
Many countries in the world have to cope with ethnic divisions within their boundaries and some have had to face armed insurgencies instigated by minority groups.
Why do the BBC give some nations such a bad press while others receive a get-out-of-jail-free card?
Consider two BBC Online News Country Profiles:
1. Turkey
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1022222.stm
The first mention of the Kurds comes about 16 sentences in and it is in the form of a positive statement – ‘Reforms were introduced in the areas of women’s rights and Kurdish culture…’ The BBC eventually gets to grips with the ‘Kurdish Issue’ after three prior paragraphs on ‘Overview’ ‘Rise of AKP’ and ‘Foreign Relations’ .
Meanwhile,
2. Sri Lanka
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11999611
The Tamils are first mentioned in the second sentence,
‘But the island has been scarred by a long and bitter civil war arising out of ethnic tensions between the majority Sinhalese and the Tamil minority in the northeast.’
And the rest of the article? Well I’m afraid that on the subject of Sri Lanka the Tamil conflict is all that the BBC wants to talk about. The subject fills the BBC country overview. You have to clink on links to find further pages – but you will find that they all bang on about the civil war.
Balanced and informative reporting? Or a skewed narrative?
As I see it,
I have commented before that, prior to the present Islamic government in Turkey, the BBC were 100% behind what they saw as the “Kurdish view ” in Turkey. As soon as AKP got power , the BBC changed sides !
Having said that, you can write the collective knowledge of the BBC of Turkey on the back of a postage stamp !
“BBC blinded by own ‘bias’ on local radio cuts, say MPs”
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/story-13687281-detail/story.html
Directors’ pay rose 50% in past year, says IDS report – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866
The article quotes three people attacking the pay increases, but no-one speaking in their defence.
It would have been nice to have included a quote saying something like:
‘These figures reflect the importance British firms place on having strong leaders who can ensure that they remain competitive and succeed despite challenging economic circumstances’.
Jeff
The banker’s bonuses are utterly obscene after the bail out they’ve needed, but with regard to high pay for business leaders, they earn a lot less than footballers (read today Tevez earns 198,00 p/w) and they’re more or less in a ball park figure of top talent at the BBC. It’s all a bit of got up rabble rousing as far as I can see – that the BBC are very happy to encourage.
I agree, the problem is all this SHOULD have been sorted by the last Labour Government, but they didn’t want to do anything about the bankers as the tentacles of Labour run as deep into the city as the Tories, the problem is the Labour party like to hide it and the BBC/Guardian didn’t want to make a fuss.
Now all of a sudden we have a Tory government trying to clear up the mess and the BBC/Guardian are kicking up a fuss.
The “obscenity” of bankers’ bonuses all depends on which banks are paying them and why and to which bankers the bonuses are being paid. A blanket condemnation is, I think, playing the BBC/lefty game on their rules.
For instance HSBC and Barclays avoided a government bail-out. Barclays certainly underwent a (very expensive but highly successful) private re-capitalisation. Accordingly, it’s up to their shareholders to decide obscenity or otherwise.
OTOH bonuses paid out by Lloyds and RBS (and any of the other banks which would have folded taxpayer-rescue of the system or not) are either an in-yer-face insult to the taxpayer and/or stupid. One reason advanced by RBS, for instance, concerning bonuses is their contractual nature. Of course, it was within the power of the geniuses who regulate our banking system and those other geniuses who spend taxpayers’ money like water, to make a rescue conditional on a recission of such contracts. A banker offered a choice between the bankruptcy of his employer (and thus no job and no – or much less and lengthily delayed – money) and a continuation of his employment under slightly less generous terms would have had a simple choice.
Anyway, there was no need to invest taxpayers’ money on a permanenet basis to rescue the system: the BoE need only have been involved to prop up the liquidity of the system which it did successfully by intermediating in the inter-bank market. The areas of insolvency (RBS, Northern Rock, HBOS) should have been subject to an orderly liquidation (with deposits of up to £50,000 per deposit being the only taxpayer guaranteed pay-out). Instead we now have the walking dead of RBS, Lloyds and NR around our necks for ever: that is a real “obscenity”. I don’t blame the bankers for holding on to their jobs: I blame the politicians and regulators for preserving those jobs unnecessarily in the first place. I also blame the auditors who certified year after year that the profit made by the banks was “true and fair” and were, as it happens, a chimera. That the banks’ auditors have escaped condemnation in the whole fiasco is also part of the real obscenity here.
Umbongo,
I couldn’t have put it better myself. You should copyright your post !
Yes, the idea of capitalism should mean that if banks take risks and win, they win, if they lose, their shareholders and bondholders lose. If necessary through liquidation. The taxpayer should pick up none of the tab – except if there is legislation to protect individual deposits up to, say, £50,000.
Instead, the UK and US Governments decided to alter the rules. If the banks win, they still win, but if they lose it is often the taxpayer that pays the much or all of the price, not the stockholders and bondholders.
If the rules had not been buggered up, there would be fewer complaints about City bonuses – the bonuses would not be seen as being paid out of “our money”.
I did hear on Today a 2-second unrepeated remark to the effect that many (most?) of the FTSE100 companies are not UK companies – a point that Today didn’t exactly labour. So this is not a particularly UK “problem” – if it is a problem – it is however a convenient hook on which the BBC can hang its anti-business credentials.
Again, by all means let’s have the results of this research discussed on Today but – as usual – the BBC conflated news and opinion by having the opinion of Deborah Hargreaves as a news item on the 8:00 Radio 4 news. BTW the Today intro to this discussion made the BBC point contrasting these rises for senior executives with the 2+ % rise in pay for people in private sector jobs and the nil (oh yes) rise for those in the public sector (which data was not part of the report or rather its press release: the report costs £460).
Perhaps the locations of those banks- Scotland and the N.E had something to do with the last governments actions.
Just been reading about the BBC complaints and appeals procedures – http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/complaints_appeals/editorial/index.shtml
Let’s say that I make a complaint about bias through the complaints portal and get the usual brush-off.
Can I then email the Trust Editorial department – TrustEditorial@bbc.co.uk – and ask for the complaint to be escalated?
And if I do, are they obliged to investigate it?
Thanks
Jeff
PS Just been reading a document about the complaints procedure – http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2010/complaints_fr_work_ed_complaints.pdf
It sounds like the Trust Editorial department are obliged to investigate any claims that are escalated.
NB THE DOCUMENT ALSO SAYS THAT:
‘If the ESC upholds your appeal it expects the Executive to take account of its findings.’
In 2010-11, only 257 out of 240,000 complaints were escalated. This may be because the BBC knows the possible consequences of escalation, and doesn’t advertise it.
If the BBC Trust constantly need to tell the executive to stop showing bias, it could get embarrassing!
I SUGGEST THAT EVERYONE APPEALS COMPLAINTS OF BIAS THAT ARE NOT UPHELD TO TrustEditorial@bbc.co.uk.
Jeff
It amazes me how folk here read stuff an analyse on their own dime and time what the BBC’s legions never bother with; these days relying on cosy mates’ PR to rehash as ‘news’.
Great insights.
I know through experience that the BBC operates on an attrition basis, combined with delay.
Hence you get endless knock backs. These you simply ignore and persist, as it has to be logged.
Where they can win is through pushing a reply beyond your ability to recall. They may even have ‘silence means we can drop it’ weasels lurking to ‘close the case’ and tick a box. I try and keep track, but it is hard. Not one response I have had has been without the opening line ‘We are sorry we did not get back to you in the time specified..’. It’s a silly template testimony to their ineptutude.
But it looks like the Trust may be worth pestering once it’s clear the wheels are spinning in one place at Helen Baoden’s dead letter PC.
Dame Nicola Campbell was in fine form this morning on the Radio 5 phone in. The “Would Jesus support the protesters” phone in was an excuse for the left to do the usual capitalist bashing. Dame Nicola even admitted that “most of the calls were in support of the left” yet he didn’t ‘plea’ for callers of the opposite view to ring in, which he does when most calls on a subject go against his own lefty views.
Then we got the Steve Jobs=Jesus nonsense again. What is it about the BBC and Apple? In no way can Steve Jobs be seen as a nice man, he was a nasty piece of work, not just to his own staff, but I don’t ever remember him bothering much about the poorly paid Chinese workers churning out his plastic crap.
Bill Gates on the other hand has pumped billions of his own money into Africa, in particular at eradicating Malaria, yet Gates is sneered at by the BBC on a regular basis.
The BBC love Alan Sugar, you know that titan of business who once told Bill Gates “you won’t make money out of selling software”
Sure Alan, sure.
I actually think that it would be better if this website made complaints on our behalf, then the comments from the BBC published here.
If this site did it as an official pressure group and kept a record (rather than us complaining as individuals that the BBC can ignore) it might get further.
I disagree. It’s easier to attack an organisation with an agenda than individuals about whom you know nothing.
And I think it’s important to appeal when you’re not happy with the outcome.
NB YOU CAN APPEAL BY EMAILING TrustEditorial@bbc.co.uk
The BBC publishes the outcome of all appeals, so even if the appeals are unsuccessful, there will be a public record of the complaint. If the appeals log is full of complaints of left-wing bias (whether upheld or not), it will put pressure on the BBC…
Jeff
Perhaps the site could have a section on complaining: links as to where to complain, the hoops that people will have to jump through, how to escalate etc.
Great idea!
Or maybe a prominent link to a ‘how to complain to the BBC & be as awkward as possible’ document! 🙂
Jeff
Check it out: Mark Mardell has an actual clue for a change.
Echoes of Washington in euro deal
He’s talking about the US perspective on the seemingly endless deliberations over this Eurozone deal. For once, Mardell grasps the concept of “states’ rights”, and that the President can’t always get His way because of the separation of powers entrenched in the Constitution. Thank heavens for small favors.
Of course, Mardell is clearly convinced that Europe must go the most Keynesian route possible, and seems to object to the whiners who are concerned about ceding even more power to Brussels (and Germany, really). But it’s nice to see him display an understanding of how the US works. It’s such a rare occurrence that it stands out.
Absent from this and nearly all BBC reports about violence between Occupiers and law enforcement: Why did the police need even to touch them in the first place? We aren’t told. All we get is sympathy for them.