Good to see the Daily Mail following in our humble footsteps and getting stuck in to the State Broadcaster;
“Two hours before Britain’s economic figures were released yesterday, the BBC enthusiastically predicted that growth would be ‘even worse than we thought’. The potential economic slowdown was discussed at length in grave tones for three and a half minutes on Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. The issue was considered important enough to be placed third on the programme’s news bulletins at 7.30am and 8am.
Unfortunately, their pessimistic predictions were wrong. Instead of growth being worse than forecast, it was better. But rather than injecting a more optimistic tone into their analysis, they simply relegated the story to being an also-ran.
Indeed it dropped off some later bulletins altogether. The World at One on Radio 4 did not include it in its headlines, neither did BBC1’s 1pm news. Earlier on the Today programme, the normally scrupulously impartial John Humphrys introduced the economy story with a dose of doom. He said: ‘We know the economy is slowing down, which is another way of saying the nation won’t be getting much richer, if at all. But today the latest revised growth figures will be published and everyone seems to think they will show it’s even worse than we thought.’
If only the Mail would get with the BBC view of economics and accept that we need to follow the received wisdom of Stepahnie “Two Eds” Flanders and resort to Plan B ….more unfunded spending.
The closing of this thread is now explained, if not excused…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/12/the_challenge_of_reporting.html
The challenge being, apparently, reporting with accuracy and without agenda, and not getting called on it by almost everyone.
Can’t wait for Newswatch… ‘you vill accept we get it about right!!!!’
Happy Xmas Helen. ‘Eau du Desperation’ – You ‘know’ your’re worth it.
“….the normally scrupulously impartial John Humphrys……..” HA HA HA HA HA HA
Daily Fail needs to inform itself a bit more rigorously. Reading Biased-BBC & cross-checking the references would help it.
Yes, that phrase jumps out of the screen, doesn’t it.
‘normally scrupulously etc…’
Irony often gets lost in the print medium but I detected a heavy dose of it in that statement.
Good to see the Mail and the Telegraph reaching out their hand and grasping the baton passed onto them by this site.
That one was brought to you courtesy of Metaphors ‘R’ Us (bargain rail)
I often hope that the Conservative party are aiding and abetting that momentum of noticing bias; here many often say that Cameron et al don’t do enough but they can’t, to come out and openly slag the BBC in an open fashion (in an ideal world they could) there would be immediate misinformation and backlash at how the evil tory scum want to make granny and kids pay for their TV etc. Labour would have a field day.
The 10PM news on Radio 4 had a headline of no growth in April to June. The expanded news item acknowledged that there had been growth subsequently (marginally greater than anticipated), but the previous period of zero growth was a constant theme.
Why has it taken the Daily Fail so long ot wake up to this? We have been reporting this sort of thing ACROSS the the BBC’s output for years, it got worse after the election.
Remember Jon Pinheads words “It’s our job to find those cracks in the coalition and force them wide open”
And there was me thinking the job of the BBC was to report the news.
Correct. The BBC’s economic reporting is more doom laden now, than it was during the banking crash and at any time during the worst and deepest recession for 60 years. Of course it took them several weeks to even admit it was a recession, and then it was only a ‘technical’ recession, that should be reported as a downturn.
Now we are seeing growth, the BBC keeps ‘slipping up’ and still reporting it as a recession, before stating something like, “feels to most people like a recession”
Purely by chance I happened to see Jeff Randall’s show on Sky News on Wednesday evening. He had on two experts (OK one was an assistant editor on the WSJ but, although a journalist, he seemed to know his subject) to discuss the latest wheeze by the eurozone to prop up the euro for another few months ie money printing by the ECB. This discussion lasted, I suppose, about 20/30 minutes (including ads).
AFAIAA no-one was grinding axes (or, maybe, the axes being ground were those I would have ground myself) and, refreshingly, here was a knowledgeable interviewer asking knowledeable questions – the ones we’d all like to ask – of two knowledgeable interviewees. How refreshing! I actually learnt a bit more about the problem and, as it happened, how and why this particular prodigality will not solve the problems of eurozone banks with “assets” in the eurozone.
Contrast this relaxed, genuinely inquiring and informative format with the usual crapola from the BBC’s economic/financial correspondents. I have rarely viewed/heard an intelligent, unbiased (by the demands of the Narrative) discussion or interview (except for the occasional one with Terry Smith) whereby the viewer/listener is informed about what is happening outside a scenario of doom (or, in the case of the eurozone, unwarrented optimism) painted beforehand by a BBC enabler.
The BBC is not on a mission to explain, let alone inform. Its mission is to propagandise for the continuation of the euro and the EU (and give a drive-by shooting to the (non)cuts in particular and capitalism in general).
or even “unwarranted”
Remember it was as recently as May this year that BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders wrote on her blog.
“Why Greek bail out has succeeded”
That is why she does not explain things, you see she does not understand them herself!
Thanks for that excellent comment Umbungo. A great antidote to having just seen Fergal Keane on the 10 O’Clock News addressing the audience as if we all had dummies in our mouths and daipers on.
In my view ‘mission to explain’ always was to cloak ‘mission to progandise’.
“Everyone seems to think that…”
In that one sentence , there has got to be a PhD.
Because Humphrys said it…and he has written books about how much the English language is being debauched…he`s the man whose feet have got to be held to the flames a while yet.
Who is “everyone” John…and is this your considered view, or just what you`re getting paid to read out?
“Everyone “seems to think that”…do tell John!
Do they(who are they, by the way?) really think it…or merely give the impression of thinking it when your researcher/interns asked?
Or …cutting to the chase…is it just a lazy hollowed-out shorthand for saying that the BBC only could possibly know what the nation thinks?
The BBCs lazy sloppiness in its use of language is sinister when it`s not remotely bothered…as long as Labour get back to power!
What`s the point in employing an Orwell when you don`t take his warnings seriously?…and what`s the point in keeping a self-styled expert in linguistic dumbing-down like Humphrys, when he does not practice what he preaches…it`s clear he doesn`t practice at all, and just reads what he gets given for him.
Fair play to the French…at least their language matters to them!
When it’s not “everyone” it’s an unidentified “some” who “think” or “disagree”. Nevertheless, whoever “everyone” or “some” are their thoughts, criticisms or beliefs almost always – by luck or coincidence – mirror the BBC Narrative.
sometimes i wonder who is worse
the cretins who dish out this drivel on the bBC,or the sheep like masses who just lazily drink it in without question…….
what will it take to get people off intravenous crapola like Eastbenders,Constipation Street and Emmerdallas?These are people,who on the face of it you would consider to be sane rational human beings,but when it comes to utter tv drivel, they consume like gluttons,and lose all semblance of being connected to the real world
are they being subliminally hypnotised by this wall-to-wall crapfest or something?
WAKE UP SHEEPLE
In 1984 only the proles would be able to get rid of the Inner Party and Big Brother. However, Winston Smith knew that this would never happen because the proles were, among other things, diverted from thinking about the realities of the political situation by, amonst other things, an endless stream of soft porn and prospects of winning big on a fixed lottery. Sound familiar?
Although the National Lottery (AFAIAA) is not fixed the distribution of National Lottery Awards gives away £ billions in awards and grants chosen by members of the political class to be tipped down their own favourite toilets (eg Arts England, Creative Scotland, Olympic crapola). Meanwhile the BBC, although it does not deliver an endless stream of soft sexual porn, delivers instead an endless stream of political, economic and faux-scientific porn to the proles. The sheeple will never wake up until the BBC is no longer supported by the taxpayer or such is the accumulated evidence in the public domain of its mendacity and bias (to which accumulation this website contributes) that even the sheeple notice.
“criticism..should never deter us from…telling the story accurately and fairly, testing it against a wide range of opinions and challenging all those opinions with rigour.”
As she knows full well, most criticism of the BBC comes from people who assert that it does NOT tell “the story accurately and fairly, or test it against a wide range of opinions, challenging all those opinions with rigour.”
So who decides who is correct?
The people who have to pay for it, or the people who take your money and use it to pay people to write articles which say that the BBC are impartial?
Let the viewers and listeners decide for themselves how impartial the BBC is by giving them the freedom to decide if they want to pay for it.
Her defence amounts to the claim that; we approve of the way in which we report the world, and so we think you ought to be forced to pay for it.
I am sure the Labour Party approve of how they report the world, but (in a free society) that is not a justification for people being forced to pay for them.
How much is Helen Boden paid to parrot this Stalinist crap? Because it is a “public service” maybe she does it for free? For 50K, 100K, 150K? I just looked her up…She gets paid £354,000 a year.
Yet another example middle class Leftists parasite. Remind me again why I am FORCED to pay the wages of this sanctimonious Guardian reader leech? Because she thinks she is worth it – they all do. Now pay up! She wants to educate you some more about what she believes.
Next up. Why she thinks the EU (and the Labour Party) are great, and anybody who votes Tory should have their vote taken away from them.
You forgot her pension. Add that in and she is on 1000 plus per day!.
There is no way on this earth anyone can justify this wage. She knows it we all know it.
This is why I am now convinced that only an economic disaster can rid us of this parasite class
This class can neither make, repair or create anything useful. They will be useless both to society and their families. And I, for one, will lose no sleep at their removal from power and influence.
sorry but all those on benefit couldn’t careless about the beeb and the news as long as the price of beer is kept low. sorry i dont do politics ,cant be interested i often hear,but mention maggie they all have a view.
The British Brainwashing Company have done a good job turning the masses against maggie.The tories still haven’t learnt a single thing ,the BBC are and always will be against them.
A feather in your cap, Vance. We, your footsoldiers, salute you. Now Daily Mail, Telegraph etc (even BBC?) get your arses into gear over the 2012 US election. Read Preiser.
Good comments above.
Thank God for this site as well as other good `uns who won`t fall for the gas and gaiters approach of the media class.
A lot of educated people here..and it`s very much the bush radio as Skippy would have known it.
Green stuff? USA?Israel? linguistics? social text and abuse of language etc?…it`s all here folks!
Been a seismic year on a par with 1989…and the BBC etc won`t want the dots joined.
Thankfully…the BBC crawl round “The Crescent”…but we see “The Whole of the Moon”!
Great! A waterboys reference. 🙂
Years ago the Telegraph used to do ‘Beebwatch’. I wonder if DV has thought of contact the Telegraph or Mail to try to get them to try to get something like that going again perhaps with links to the blog?
Good idea. You’d never get Private Eye do do a “Beebwatch”, because owner Ian Hislop wouldn’t get any more license fee money for his lefty propaganda slots.
They print very little about EU corruption too – I suppose that’s part of Hislop’s deal with the BBC.
Yes, I used to regularly read PE and it used to be fairly even in its scorn. These days however there are whole sections given over to left wing propaganda (‘in the Back’ for instance).
I have also notice they have started with the old BBC trick of saying ‘Tory councillor’ when exposing a Tory and ‘councillor’ when mumbling about Labour .
I swear I even saw an instance of ‘Tory run council’ where the person with they hand in the till was a labour guy – labelled as a ‘councilor’ only of course.
And yes, it is because Hislop would be out on his ear if he stepped to far from the fold.
“The normally scrupulously impartial John Humphrys”.
Way to go Daily Mail for highlighting the BBC’s ‘news values’, but the piece was not without its flaws I feel!