Polly Toynbee, former BBC correspondent and let-them-eat cake socialist, has framed a tub-thumping Cnut-like expression of the corporation’s sense of self-importance here. Note especially the nasty, venomous, gutter-level disdain she has for any form of broadcast competition, and, of course, Sky. True to form, she has neatly airbrushed out of the equation any consideration of the fast-fragmenting broadcasting environment and the absurdity of a hypothecated cane-the-poor, send-poor-mothers-to-jail broadcasting tax when, on top of Sky, there are dozens of free-to-air satellite channels (that aren’t Sky). And she ignores, too, streaming, which she should well know is in the process of blowing the elitist model of broadcast delivery (under which the BBC was framed) out of the water forever.
Her spleen is also vented – in true BBC fashion – on those who would dare to challenge the idea that the corporation is anything but neutral and excellent in its news coverage and programme content. She cites the Christmas series of Charles Dickens’ masterpiece Great Expectations as an exemplar of quality. Actually, Polly, as Peter Hitchens shrewdly and pithily explains here, it was a travesty of a literary adaptation and the hijacking of one our greatest stories, part of the dumbing down of our morals and our culture hat the BBC rams down our throats on a daily basis. Do her elitist pinko chums outside the BBC really believe this was artistic excellence? I doubt it.
As for claims of the neutraility of news coverage – and that, if anything, it might be too favourable to the Coalition – Ms Toynbee leaves me simply speechless. She, her colleagues-in-arms at the BBC and the Guadianista are clearly blind to the assault on journalistic standards broadcast every day and chronicled on this blog.
As I said on another post the left have to keep claiming that Beeb favors the other side to stop the government cracking down on them.
I disagree, I think that Polly Toynbee’s defence of the BBC following on fron the Labour party/Guardian claims that the BBC is pro-Coalition shows that they are worried by blogs such as this one and maybe mine and have decided to use the oft repeated lie as their defence. The trouble is they are so powerful and control the agenda so tightly, they may well succeed.
They will never succeed: Their lies will out, it’s just a matter of time. “Time wounds all heels” (Roger McGough).
I agree about Toynbee’s circling of the wagons there, although I doubt she even knows this blog exists. Still, any time someone strenuously defends the BBC like this I always get the sense that they believe they’re defending it against the evil Right, and not just against any old critics.
We often hear about how the BBC gets complaints from both sides, but has anyone ever heard of someone of the Left demanding it be shut down or purged of bias or for the end of the license fee? If it never happens, that pretty much says it all.
A pean of praise from Ms. Toynbee, epsecially one as bizarre as this one in its naked desperation, may not be the optimal support Aunty could hope for. If strawmen could pick cherries and half-bake ’em any better, she’d have Mr. Kipling on the run.
CiF is also getting a hilarious reputation for the lack of free comment, leaving ‘is’ as the only word possibly accurate, which given the content is in doubt, so it’s amazing the thread is still open, but the lack of ratings seems… odd.
ROBERT BROWN; Have to agree about CIF, i was booted out from ‘comment priviledges’ a couple of years ago, my regular sniping at Toynbee and George ‘mudhut’ Monbiot and their witless witterings must have exasperated them beyond their limits, and they do have very thin skins!
“The BBC fought back, playing them Mitch Benn’s brilliant song I’m Proud of the BBC as a warning of the popular campaign it would run if the cuts were truly crippling.”
Wow, they really wheeled out the big guns there! Bet the entire Murdoch empire were quaking in their boots!
Saying that, being subjected to that vomit-inducing, arse-kissing, barely-listenable piece of crap would batter anyone in to submission!
Excellent point by Peter Hitchens about the inferior quality of BBC TV ‘Great Expectations’, compared with David Lean’s masterly film (1946):
4 min video clip of opening sequence:
“yes, why on earth did the BBC change a perfectly good pork pie, which makes sense in the plot, and is lovingly described before its disappearance is noticed, into a mutton pie, an entirely different comestible? I can’t imagine that Mrs Joe would have served a mutton pie cold (ugh) and one gropes for any reason for meddling.”
yes … nonsensical (chortle) i mean WHO could be offended by a PORK pie eh?!
AND i did notice repeat images of hijabs? even burkhas?? as an irritant in Arnandos Dickens doc last night … unless its an inference to the continuing
mental/physical slavery, (by our mutton pie eaters 😉 … of women today? )… somehow i think not
Polly’s claim that Great Expectations was superb is typical arrogance, compared to the detailed rubbishing that Peter Hitchens has given. The David Lean version of Great Expectation was the first film I ever saw – and that opening scene in the graveyard was truly scary in a darkened hall.
I have not watched all of last week’s new BBC version yet – but the opening scene was back-to-front, you saw the convict before you saw young Pip, you knew he was up to no good. The church was far too imposing for a bleak spot in the marshes – Lean had just a simple square Saxon tower.
So, from the off, the BBC started fiddling around with a classic. At huge cost. I am not sure if I want to watch the rest, it sounds way off the original plot. Peter Hitchen’s main points about the ludicrous model-boy beauty of the teenage Pip, and the unreality of the new Miss Haversham (plus absence of cobwebs) are enough to dissuade me from continuing. Also if Joe Gargery is something quite different from the book – I don’t want to know.
Maybe I’ll read the book instead !
……………………
I had already posted on an earlier thread that the BBC had made a new radio version of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities. It too had departed quite a bit from the book – especially at the end, which was tame ond boring by comparison to Dickens’ original. The BBC had made a radio version in 1989 – why could they not re-broadcast that, instead of wasting our money on a new version ?
And I expect they are already planning on yet another remake of the Sherlock Holmes stories for radio – even though the late Michael Williams version of the entire genre is perfectly adequate and absorbing.
This is just another example of the BBC and the Guardian teaming up to try to pretend the BBC is neutral, we can expect to see a lot more of this whinging from the BBC/Guardian alliance this year.
The BBC being balanced is a bit like Islam being the ‘religion of peace’ it’s just utter bollocks.
The silly, bitter, snooty and priveleged woman epitomises all that is inbearable about the spoilt metro left wing elite. Her partisan extremist left wing views have become tiresome and offensive to a large percentage of the population who are struggling to make end’s meet. She’s never had to know poverty or social struggle and, to be honest, has no right pontificating on anything remotely connected to real life. Her pseudo-socialist ideals are quite frankly pathetic; she would be the first to tears if she had to live in a real socialist state. Polly, if you are happy to be coerced into funding a state institution that continually censors and supports instead of reports the news then you’re welcome (it’s not as if it’s going to casue a huge dent in your massive wealth!)
“Gaining monopolistic control of Sky was only step one: next was abolition of impartiality laws for broadcasters. Fox News was on its way here, destined to poison the UK as it has US politics. Murdoch-friendly commentators were already softening up opinion, claiming Britain’s fuddy-duddy neutral news was outdated in the age of the shouty internet. Dominating the press is not enough, the right would control broadcasting too. Cameron was up for it.”
Says it all. Since when have any of the current bunch of TV news outlets been impartial?
Fox is dangerous as it might just alert the population to the lies propagated by the current crop.
Internet is only for the Arabs as we already have the correct kind of democracy.
Makes me want to puke.
Perhaps a little unfair Merlin . Polly wiilingly pays the new £10 tax on air travel to her Tuscan home .
The silly, bitter, snooty and priveleged woman epitomises all that is inbearable about the spoilt metro left wing elite.
Amen. Well said, Merlin.
This is an example of the type of broadcasting and freedom of speech that Polly and the BBC are petrified of seeing in this country:
That is the first time I have heard Tommy speak on anything, in person. The last part of the second video needs to go viral.
That is what all the lefties in this country, including the BBC, the UAF, the Islamists, the national socialists in the BNP etal, are all terrified of.
Ordinary, everyday people standing up to the divisive, prejudicial politically correct, racist cultural genocide of our traditional English culture.
here telling it straight, debating Islam on Russia Today TV
with wood”ead” mortimer, on the often hilariously biased
crosstalk.
http://youtu.be/ZoMIeTAAswk
i remember an exasperated D Murray, telling the host on this.
“how can you know so little and still keep talking”
😀 classic
The British media (with the exception of the Daily Mail and Telegraph perhaps) are absolutely terrified of the growing Muslim radical threat in this country and so placate them by turning a blind eye to their violent supremacist bigotry. Racist and violent attacks on white and black Christians, Hindus and jews are totally ignored by our media and the narcissist human rights campaigners conveniently turn a blind eye to radical Muslim facist ideology. The only explanation for this cowardice and appeasement is conspiracy to promote the Islamic faith. But the danger in appeasement is that you often forget about your own human rights!
It is not appeasement it is moral inversion. The BBC are not Neville Chamberlain, they are the Cambridge spies. For the BBC the enemy is England.
I watched these videos; Excellent. Contrast that with the Newsnight interview, where Paxo practically demonised Tommy Robinson. From that exchange, you see that he genuinely cares and shows that it is possible to be a real patriot without being a racist. Unlike Nick Clegg, and his happy clappy lot, who would gladly sell this country down the river just to appease the real backward racists – fundamental Islamists.
Polly wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds her, would she?
By an outrageous coincidence, the BBC’s most ardent supporters are usually those who secure the most gigs on its radio and TV stations.
Polly is probably hovering slightly below Stephen Fry and Sue Perkins in the Beeb’s ubiquity ratings but she certainly does well for someone whose readership is about the same as the population of Plymouth.
“In the Christmas ratings war, the BBC trounced the competition as it always does. A pointless silly-season contest, but it’s a national reminder that Britain’s good broadcasting comes thanks to Lord Reith’s legacy.”
By that logic, the X Factor is the greatest TV show this country has produced in the last decade.
Exactly. Ratings = quality at the BBC.
Thing is I hardly watched any BBC or ITV TV over xmas and the new year.
When I did watch TV it was usually one of the digital factual channels.
We know that the BBC never keeps or monitors the political balance of its output. If any of you have ever complained about the BBC being biased you know the standard BBC reply which goes something like this; “we aim to balance out political coverage across our networks and not necessarily on one programme” or words to that effect.
The fact is if you ask the BBC how they actually manage balance they can’t tell you because they don’t monitor it, which is why people like Craig can tear the BBC apart when it denies lefty bias becuase it doesn’t do what Craig does and monitor what output the BBC has.
On Desert Island Discs the other day, Terry Wogan was asked about the stillbirth that he has previously mentioned in his book.
In the book itself, he cites this tragedy as a reason why he lost any faith he might have had.
Yet Kirsty Young had in mind(or her producer who writes the crap) to get that soundbite…rather like her hope that people will reject the offer of the Bible.
Her probe was completely without context and was gratuitous, rather like her pregnant pause for Tel to give us something on the Christian Brothers who taught him.
Just a nasty fishing expedition-but it gets emoting and atheism that little bit more up the Beebs flagpole.
I say all this because ,within a few minutes of this psychic ambush, Wogan had a hymn of praise to the BBC…he said it was needed “to keep the other broadcasters straight”
In other words, he is either too kind, too wealthy or too dependent still on the BBC for him to see what they actually do to their OWN…and send it down the pipe for the rest of us sucking at their open sewer!
If Wogan doesn`t see what the Beebs game is, he really ought to tell us that this was “straight” broadcasting without any slant or spin.
I thought it terrible and will never listen to Young and her show again!
To Toynbee there is only one truth, one belief, one kind of country, one way of life, one ideology, one BBC, one newspaper, one political party and one morality. It’s her’s. And you’re a fool if don’t tick all the boxes. That’s the socialist way. Seig heil.
To be fair to Polly she does beleive that anyone who can show a years subscription to the Guardian can walk into a polling station and vote .
‘Every £1 of the licence fee puts £2 into the economy, in talent trained and nurtured, in independent companies commissioned, its own output rolling through the economy.’
Wow!
In that case, we should triple the licence fee! Nay, quadruple it!
There’s gold in them there hills! LOL!
Jeff
“Every £1 of the licence fee puts £2 into the economy, in talent trained and nurtured, in independent companies commissioned, its own output rolling through the economy.”
This sentence grabbed my attention too, Jeff, for two reasons.
Firstly, it is an appallingly clunky sentence that only really becomes comprehensible after three or four readings.
Furthermore, it sounds like an excerpt from a Tony Blair speech: “Every pound becomes two pounds. More talent. Economic. Growth. Cheese for everyone. No more boom. No more verbs.”
Secondly, how on earth can she substantiate this claim? This appears to be one of those Toynbee assertions that are unsupported by any meaningful evidence.
And when she talks about “its own ouput rolling through the economy” what the fucking hell does she mean? What, precisely, it “its” in this context? Her sentence is ambiguous.
Does she mean the £1? Does this magic BBC £1 train up “talent” and – BOOF! – turn into £2? And what the shitting heck does “rolling into the economy” mean? Tax revenues? Profits? More cheese for the masses?
Sky, Channel 5 and ITV all “nurture” talent and generate revenue (often before the BBC poaches them), and they manage to do so without the aid of this magic £1.
I think she is trying to convince us that the licence fee is an important tool for fostering economic growth, which is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard. How’s about we double the licence fee and double the money “rolling into the economy”, eh?
George Osborne, take note: if you double VAT, you’ll double the money “rolling into the economy”. Polly says so, so it must be true.
Polly really is quite bonkers. Aw, bless her.
I think the BBC does generate wealth. Thanks to its corrupt programme procurement process, senior executives owning their own film companies are able to live on far more than just their salaries. This extra money then “trickles down” into Hampstead wine bars, West End restaurants, Tuscan estate agencies and the Swiss bank accounts of Columbian coke barons.
The taxpayer enables the BBC to make more Guardian readers millionares than even the most corrupt Labour Cabinet.
@Jeremy…
Yes, I read that sentence and also thought, WTF? It does read as if it was written by Dr Seuss. I think it just goes to show that the gap between us (the normal people), and the bubble in which her and her like-minded chums inhabit, is the size of the Grand Canyon. She reminds me of that doddering aging relative that you humour when they start rambling. I’m not quite sure which village PT wandered off from, but she clearly needs to go back. Even if it means dragging her back in a straight jacket.
Where is the Government?
The only people I’ve seen or heard on TV today have been Liebore dross. Have I woken up in 1997 again?
Toynbee is a very easy target. I doubt she has any effect on anybody except die hard guardianistas.
The subtle bias of the Today team is much more dangerous.
Really hope that these two blokes convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence are guilty_I really do.
Hope the DNA testing is as good as claimed, and hope that it was just these two and not the other three who don`t seem to get mentioned in reports.
Hope too that things like covert surveillance and entrapment techniques are still legally able to withstand appeal.
It just makes me uneasy when I see the BBC/Guardian-the likes of Ian Blair and Cressida Dick-all so pleased with themselves….as if the liberal consciences of the last 20 or so years are now cleared.
Didn`t like the BBCs showing of trial CCTV etc, as if they were nobbling the jury as they went along.
As I say-I really do hope they`re banged to rights, but I`m still uneasy about much of all this!
I agree. I can’t help but wonder if, in 5 years’ time, the appeal court will rule that the evidence against the guys contained more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese…
Jeff
The problem I have with this case is the lefty media in particular have only concentrated on the supposed ‘racism’ of the Police, yet from what I’ve seen of this case the failings of the Police were more in that of evidence gathering and forensic procedures. Just how many other murder cases from that era involving whitey were also screwed up?
I saw some of the Panorama special on the Lawrence trial tonight, but I didn’t see any reference to the Daily Mail’s campaign to get the trial redone. I may have missed it.
The Mail was the only paper at the time to stick its head about the parapet and say what none of the lefty media like the Guardian would. Today even those on the left acknowledge that, yet perhaps I missed it.
This nonsensence about quality and quoting the occasional example of the BBC`s right to exist .
Any idiot can make the odd outstanding product in an organisation that rakes in millions by enforcement and lack of compettion . Even the USSR did produce something good sometimes amongst its monstrous waste of manpower and resources .
What’s most annoying is the reference in the title of the article to Sky being ‘parasitic’. Which is the greater leach, the corporation that exists on a subscription by the choice of it’s customers, or the one that lives off a compulsory tax regardless of choice. As Wild says, this is typical moral inversion from the left.
All the Liebore politicians who appeared on the BBC regarding the Lawrence case were given verbal blow jobs by the BBC, but Lord Tebbit who just wenrt on Radio 5 was verbally spat in the face by Phil Williams.
Williams had a right go at Tebbit over comments he made in the Mail saying that he didn’t agree with McPherson regarding double jeopardy.
Williams was not a hpapy boy, oh and the BBC have sneared at the Daily Mail again, the ONLY paper at the time of the Lawrence killing to really come out strongly about the killers.