Interesting post HERE on the DT from Ed West concerning the BBC;
“The difference between the makers of Fox’s political programmes and the BBC is that the former believe they are in a battle of ideas while the latter genuinely thinks their beliefs are “the” default correct ones. That is why the BBC – which is still a first-class broadcaster – is so keen to respond to criticism of bias, because they really do not believe they are. Yet bias it is, and the BBC remains the world’s largest echo chamber.
First-class?
I`m guessing that Ed wrote this before seeing Paxman, Wolfe and Jordan last night with thirteen screeching Wags wanting the government to get their tits out and for the rest of us to pay for it!
Yeah, about that ‘first-class broadcaster’ thing…
With a guaranteed income of £4 billion and change they could have Ed Milliband running them and they should still be able to get the odd good program out.
The comments seem to be less than kind to the BBC. Ed West has given up on it as I have. It is becoming the British Leyland of the media and will end as ingloriously. Sad really. If change is possible it would be worth trying to save it but 40 years of a hive mentality and a self righteous belief that it alone possesses the “truth” has finished it off. It is just a matter of time.
Can’t wait for our intrepid defenders of the indefensible to rush right over and tell Ed West what’s what.
It is the Left which bears the primary responsibility for destroying the BBC.
Every now and then see a flicker of what it once was, a semblance of the faith in human excellence and political neutrality which was believed by advocates of the BBC such as Hugh Wheldon. But the Left could not resist the temptation to take it over, just as they have taken over (and destroyed) the State education system, and are currently taking over (and destroying) the police and justice system.
If I had to sum of the in two words the contemporary BBC I would say “Stalinist Shit”.
Anti-Conservative Anti-British Anti-Christian
Pro-Leftist Pro-EU Pro-Nihilist
Anti-Capitalist Anti-Liberty
Pro-Public Sector Pro-Statist
Anti-Civilization
Pro-Barbarian
They are morally corrupt, intellectually bankrupt, pigs at the trough, here today gone tomorrow coercive utopians, with nothing in their head, or their hearts, except hatred of anything that constrains their decadence.
The BBC are a cancer, destroying our society from within on the basis of nothing more than the parasitic conceit of a few contrarian Public School boys, who insulated from the harshness of life, seek to indulge themselves at the expense of future generations.
It is the great betrayal.
I like your style Wild but it would be nice if those who you describe as “Stalinist Shit” at the BBC read your post and thought about it for a minute or two. Someone there (at the BBC) must of course read this blog, if only to bring in plod if they could to find an inflammatory or racist rant to then try and close it down.
They probably just think of us as right wing extremists and dismiss every article & comment accordingly. If ever the blog became very successful what would they do then? Invite the editorial members of Biased BBC onto the Question Time panel to give their point of view. We all know what would happen then; they would be ridiculed and dismissed as fascists by the specially selected audience and the illustrious even handed Chairman, Dumbledor of Green Wellie Land.
So how do we get the message through, and it is a message that I think the majority of people in this country believe in? Shall we demonstrate in Parliament Square? Shall we write to that nice but dim chap Dave (I can only find reverse) and (those bloody Indians will take my your money) fellow, or shall we continue to vent our spleens in this blog? Yes that’s probably best, it’s a bit cold to demonstrate at the moment and Dave is too busy to see my letter just now. But you wait until it gets warmer later on and I will really make a fuss, but then I have got the garden to do after Easter, and we are on holiday in May.
“…They probably just think of us as right wing extremists and dismiss every article & comment accordingly…”
I have no doubt that’s the case. Why should they care? The BBC has never cared what it’s critics think, do, write or say. Again, it’s all to do with that self-satisfied, smug attitude: whatever they broadcast is the incontravertible truth – there will be no argument, no discussion. You’re either on-message or you’re out of the door (as several brave ex-BBC broadcasters have discovered to their cost).
Personally, I think the BBC are a growing irrelevance. In this digital age I have more TV channels than I know what to do with (on Sky) and they cover just about all the political bases, including many international current affairs outlets across the spectrum. Then add in all the online news sites…the choice is staggering and really throws the blatant bias of The Corporation into sharp relief.
I still doggedly force myself to watch the occassional Question Time, mainly for the laughs, but I can’t be bothered with the BBC’s version of the news (I get far too cross). I resent the fact I have money demanded off me with menaces for a TV license, when the current affairs I get off said service is so clearly sub-par and hopelessly compromised by a clear internal agenda when put up against other providers.
The license fee cannot die soon enough for me. At the moment it just feels like simple theft.
Dogstar
My weekly trawl through all the BBC TV programme listings showed only one programme worth watching on iPlayer this week – the same as last week – Borgen. And even that is hopelessly PC, albeit with “good production values “!
I find it is unusual to find more than 2 or 3 programmes worth watching on my weekly trawl. And scanning the 4 channels listings all in one go each week really underlines how much trash there is – and how many repeats – and repeats of repeats. If all this was stripped out of the schedule, I doubt if there would be enough to fill a single channel.
The working class British people, sorry English people, (the Scottish, Welsh and Irish have their respective ‘working class’ parties) have never had a loud political voice. The British working classes have been bullied by the middle and upper classes since time immemorial. But there was a time when the left really did speak for the poverty stricken, when the true socialists stood for equality for the workers and propounded noble theories aimed at giving the poor a voice. BUT not any more; this true socialism ended after the consumer boom of the sixties wherein spoilt western generations born into one of the most enterprising and affluent eras of Western history lived of their wealthy parents, attended university funded by the taxpayer and comfortably espoused the liberal ideals that were once meant to benefit the truely dispossessed and disaffected. This paradox of the wealthy adopting working class ideals has inevitably led to an upper class arrogance liberalism which picks and chooses those working classes which fit the agenda of sympathy. The BBC are the epitome of this upper class paradox socialism that is completely at odds with its true origins in a movement by and for the working classes. Hence we increasingly see unbearable middle to upper class left wingers with zero experience of life lecturing the world on how to behave and who relish hearing the sound of their own voices. A Liberal echo chamber indeed!
I disagree with the post . The BBC staff know that they are trying to social engineer against the wishes of the people . Thats why the BBC is now so sneaky .
Good, disagreeing = healthy debate, but please re-read my post. Nowhere do I state or imply that the BBC are unaware of what they are doing. My point that they pick and choose which movement to rally behind (Islam for example) typifies their socialist/Marxist agenda and relates to the point you highlight when you mention social engineering.
My disagreement is with the webpost in that it says the BBC think they are at the default thinking of the people . I think sometimes they think like that when theyve succeeded with their brainwashing, most times they are pushing their own unpopular agenda in an underhand way .
Actually, I think it’s both. The Beeboids do think they’re on the side of the angels, and have a duty and a right to “educate” the public in the proper direction on various issues. And they also think they’re on the middle ground, have the finger on the pulse of the country.
Naughtie’s claim that his Marxist theories are what everyone is thinking when challenging bankers’ bonuses is a classic example.
Sorry mate I thought you were replying to my post lol. My apologies!
Unfortunately, Newsnight is an example of what will happen if the leftist ‘wimmin’ take over the BBC totally. Basically banging on about a subject that only interests rather dumb women with an article ‘it’s all about me you see’ and blaming men (naturally) for everything going wrong.
Unfortunately, Newsnight is an example of what will happen if the leftist ‘wimmin’ take over the BBC totally. Basically banging on about a subject that only interests rather dumb women with an article ‘it’s all about me you see’ and blaming men (naturally) for everything going wrong.
The BBC has activly employed only like minded people from the left, so it is little wonder that they think they are unbiased. They were doing a piece on the unemployed in Liverpool they of course only spoke to those that have not found jobs. Not one person who had found a job on the new set up. They never give both sides of the story only their own.The remove all hope from people. Evil.
Desperate cynical stuff wasn`t it?
Anybody would think that the BBC has the first clue on how to create wealth…instead of forever leeching it from the rest of us with its compulsory and decidedly regressive(and hence unfair) taxation.
I get the idea that the grievance pools up north are one of the reasons why the BBC wanted to decamp to Salford…a ready reservoir of old socialists stranded and beached on New Brightons sands and in need of the BBCs cold lattes being thrown at them…if only they`d give us a rerun of Toxteth.
I sense thet good kids like the girl trying to get a job are just fascinating and exotic koi carp in a shallow pool for the Beeb hacks to stroke, before they fly back to London.
Desperate stuff…but at least whinging and handwringing uses up less carbon if some local stringer can be trained to care about the young unemployed.
That HS2 line will also take a few minutes off their ability to meet grief thieves “oop norf”-and local BBC can groom them, upto and until a Rowlatt, Mason or Grossman can remember to give a damn once again!
Newsnight is just a pedalo for Paxman to meet a few rough`uns and slebs…scuttle the f666er!
I always thought it was because they want to get out of the cesspit that London has become.
“the BBC – which is still a first-class broadcaster – is so keen to respond to criticism of bias”
If responding to criticism is to continue to use the default quotes of “on balance we got it right” or “The BBC is an impartial organisation” then yes they respond to criticism.
For anyone who was not from the UK who happened to catch the content of any of the BBC news programmes you would come away with the distinct opinion that Labour are in power, that Muslims make up 40% of the population, that the far right are the biggest threat facing the country and that the BBC is the broadcasting arm of the Guardian newspaper due to the amount of journalists from this paper that appear on any political show.
I would also like to take issue with claims that the BBC is a first class broadcaster, a quick scan of the BBC programming shows wall 2 wall cooking, antiques, quiz and housing shows, surely this is not the benchmark of a first class broadcaster?
As to it’s ‘news’ outupt, I would also like to take issue with claims that the BBC is a first class broadcaster, as a quick scan of the BBC news output shows a raft of inaccuracy either through ineptitude or deliberate policy.
“…For anyone who was not from the UK who happened to catch the content of any of the BBC news programmes you would come away with the distinct opinion that Labour are in power, that Muslims make up 40% of the population, that the far right are the biggest threat facing the country and that the BBC is the broadcasting arm of the Guardian newspaper…”
…and also there’s no racism other than white racism and we’re all, of course, going to Hell in a hand cart courtesy of the ‘settled science’ of anthropogenic climate change.
It’s all very simple, once you stop fighting the consensus and learn to see things the ‘correct’ way.
Ed West’s conclusion, comparing ‘FOX NEWS’ which sees itself as being in a battle of ideas, whereas in contrast, the BBC sees itself ludicrously as some purveyor of (hegemonic) default political truth, is a correct comparative diagnosis.
Fox News may “believe they are in a battle of ideas” but, rather, I suspect they are in a battle for profit. Fox News has identified a part of the market that is ill-served by the other MSM and delivers its product accordingly. This means that, as well as the grandstanding of a few commentators (with whose opinions I tend to agree) you have one of the few media outlets encouraging – let alone just allowing from time to time – genuine debate on matters important to its audience. Unfortunately there is no UK equivalent.
OTOH the BBC has commentators with whose opinions I admit I tend not to agree, which might be forgiveable (were it not so boringly predictable) but, much worse, skews the delivery (or non-delivery) of information and then stages faux-debates based on such information. This behaviour shuts down genuine debate on the subjects which are of real concern to its audience. Such subjects are not just confined, for instance, to immigration, CAGW and the EU. Even a relatively esoteric subject concerning, say, women priests in the CoE is skewed to favour the feminists (cf Lucy Winkett’s umpteenth sermon on the subject this morning on TFTD and the endless feminist propaganda on Woman’s Hour). I have yet to hear on TFTD a contributor putting forward a theological (or any other) case against homosexuals and women in the priesthood: there are such reasoned objections and, whether or not you agree with them or not, they deserve a hearing on a self-described “impartial” or, indeed” any “first class” broadcaster.
So I disagree that the BBC (despite the odd good programme which even Channel 5 manages from time to time) “is still a first-class broadcaster”. Still less – as commenters here have demonstrated – is the BBC “keen to respond to criticism of bias” unless that response (as someone further up the thread wrote) is generally to the effect that the “BBC got it about right”. The complaint “system” at the BBC is not worthy of the name: it is opaque and obstructive and, manifestly, designed to be so.
Lets take a subject Ive mentioned before -weather forecasting . In this seemingly most innocent of reprting , the BBC social engineers .
I bet one third of the population was taught only imperial measurements (Fharenheit, if Ive spelled correctly )
One third has been taught in imperial AND metric .
One third in metric only .(ready to be indistinguishable to other Europeans )
The BBC only reports in metric .
Lets take a subject Ive mentioned before -weather forecasting . In this seemingly most innocent of reprting , the BBC social engineers .
I bet one third of the population was taught only imperial measurements (Fharenheit, if Ive spelled correctly )
One third has been taught in imperial AND metric .
One third in metric only .(ready to be indistinguishable to other Europeans )
The BBC only reports in metric .
On the subject of the metric system – the BBC in fact work in a more sinister way than you suggest.
Outside of weather or science reporting Beeboids such as Matt Baker propagandise for the EU by deliberately excluding British measurements from their otherwise chatty and every day speech – even when the effect is stilted and forced.
eg ‘….it was so close, just a few centimeters in front of my nose…’
‘….I must have loads of kilometers to go until my next break on this charity fun run…’
Funnily enough I was speaking to one of my neighbours this morning who is a keen fan of “Countdown” on Channel 4. She remarked that she was irked by the use by this week’s Countdown guest – Kate Humble, a BBC favourite (until her wrinkles get too obvious to ignore) – of the use of metres to describe the height of a “spike” in Utah’s Monument Valley which Kate had climbed. As my neghbour said – and as AISI notes – using metres to describe something almost universally (ie including today’s children) described in the UK in feet is at best “forced” and, at worst, obeisance to the norms of political correctness so beloved of our national (yet strangely unrepresentative) broadcaster.
Strange then that manufacturers and retailers of all things (A Television Set’s screen size) have yet to get on board with the BBC’s preferred VALUE MEASUREMENT.
This is bad: I have lived abroad most of my working life so use metric (and US measurements) a lot and can happliy switch between systems and use m, cm, km etc to talk about distance BUT despite this, when in the UK I never (in fact I would find it awkward to say) say “kilometes down the road” so these people must be making a concerted effort to use that (or have lived abroad longer than Ihave)
I’ve been wondering if there is some sort of concerted effort going on in the media about this ever since I saw a headline in The Daily Mail last week telling us about 15cm of snow. Now, I’m one of those people who still think in feet and inches (and acres, roods and perches rather than those French things) so 15cm means absolutely nothing to me in terms of the snow on the ground and what I can expect to find if I venture out. So I have to do a quick calculation in my head if I can remember what a centimetre is in inches or look it up on my metre rule! Why would The Daily Mail do this, though? Many of its readers will be like me. Why not give the traditional feet/ inches and the metric in brackets? Or even vice versa? I was really surprised at that.
BBC programmes are mind numbingly dull and lifeless these days because we always know what they are going to say. It is not simply that the roads are familiar, the destination is always the same. Vote Labour.
When in the Middle Ages Scholastic philosophers were obliged to end up in the same place (whatever the Catholic Church decided was the truth) European culture began to die. and was only revived by the Renaissance and Reformation, which enabled people to question the authority of the Catholic Church to tell people what to think.
To be alive is to be responsive to reality, not some preconceived version of reality, which happens to suit the interests of the establishment.
To use a single example. The Crusades programmes should have looked at the military expansion of Islam, the adequacy or otherwise of the Koran as a work of theology, questions should have been asked about female subjugation and mutilation, the execution of homosexuals and apostates, the Arab enslavement of black Africans, the conflict between democracy and Islam, and its intellectual failure to keep up with the science and technology of the West.
Not to say how great we are, although confidence in our own culture is no bad thing, but to clarify what we believe in, as well as defend it.
Of course political correctness prevents this, but who decided for us that we wanted political correctness? The BBC? Are they are masters? This is just one example. But there are a thousand others. The BBC (for ideological reasons) completely fails to reflect the realities of life as it is lived in Britain in the C21st.
The BBC is run by and for cultural Marxists who have absolutely no interest in life as it is lived in Britain in the C21st. They just want to supply you with the opinions which it is in their interests for you to have.
One thing that is always missing from BBC explanations of the Crusades is why they started in the first place. We often get the idea that the Pope didn’t like Muslims being in Jerusalem but never explained how the Muslims got there in the first place. It is never mentiond that the Eastern Roman Empire was been overrun by muslim hordes.
It’s always taken as bad old Whitey inflicting his genocidal racism on the pacifists in the mosques.
CPoD, that’s not covered because it’s irrelevant to them. Jerusalem is “way over there, far away”, and so Europeans had no right to interfere. It simply doesn’t occur to them to bring up what the Mohammedans had been getting up to the whole time.
It’s the same mindset that produces entrenched opposition to any British claim on the Falklands, for example. I could go on about how this is the inevitable result of the influence of old-school anarchist thought combined with post-modern relativism, but won’t.
Of course, Beeboids will not actually engage in politcal debate over the key critique which Ed West and many others are making of the BBC-NUJ’s cultural arrogance.
Instead, BBC-NUJ will stick to the slogans of a Gramsci-Chomsky political axis.
Fine critiques above!
Would save us all a lot of ulcers if we were to just see that all the BBC do is send out their pantomine horses, dames and stage villains out before the same damn backdrop…Novosibirsk Poly circa 1954…or 1987 if they`re trying to update the narrative.
Having read these two above, I`m off out for the day…Gramsci/Chomsky dangleberries from Stalins arse-that`s all the BBC seem to employ these days!
Still-at least Hitchens, Murray did a quick smash n grab earlier in the week-but we`ll have paid for the William Morris windows now on order to replace the Pugins!
Bank of England injects another £50bn into UK economy – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16963116
‘The Bank of England has agreed to extend its quantitative easing (QE) programme by £50bn to give a further boost to the UK economy.’
It’s quite clear from this where the BBC stands on printing money… Who could object to a boost to the economy?
Jeff
I think I hear JM Keynes spinning in his grave.
We are not really being told anything. Where does the 50Billion go? Who benefits? Is is to stave off deflation? Is is inflationary?
Keep us in the dark. This is what the BBC is good at. In the end it follows where the money goes and as long as it keeps it’s billions we can go to hell.
I suspect myself this QE is to stave off a rapid deflation and to keep the banks in business by giving them the means to buy government stock. The corporate state writ large and another step along the road to a nightmare future.
Because the boost is in the short term, and the damage in the medium to long term, it is hard for democratic politicians to resist the temptation to debauch the currency. Just like examination grades.
For Leftists if you abolish all standards everybody then becomes equal. Any advantages which accure to people who work hard is eliminated. Better still, it is politicians who get to decide who gets rewarded.
dave s
Actually on BBC News 24, Hugh Pym gave us a little diagram to “explain” QE. According to the diagram:
1. the BoE “creates” £50bn electronically
2. the BoE then lends this money to the banks in return for undefined “assets”
3. the money is on-lent by the banks to creditworthy individuals ot businesses and everybody (except the poor bloody savers/pensioners) benefits
It’s a wonder machine. Why didn’t we do this instead of having an industrial revolution and working for a living?
What is the reality?
1. true
2. true – the paper is government paper which the banks are forced to hold by regulation – so the banks are now drowning in liquidity
3.here’s the problem. What Hugn didn’t say was that the banks are still sitting on bilions of crap assets. Some of that new liquidity might indeed end up being lent as (we are told) intended. The fly in the ointment is that each bank knows that all the other banks are sitting on a shedload of crap assets and consequently refuse to lend to each other which is the cause of the interbank market stasis and liquidity failure (which QE is there in part to “solve”).
What Hugh is also not telling us (he doesn’t know or doesn’t want to know) is that, without QE, it’s not the economy that would necessarily suffer (well it would in the short term), it’s that many of the banks would collapse because without this support they would then have to face up to their basic insolvency sooner rather than later. Accordingly QE is not a matter of short-term liquidity shortages or “getting the economy going”, it’s a matter of keeping the chicken of dishonesty (of the banks and the politicians) being brought home to roost.
The above is my take on Liam Halligan’s recent article in the Telegraph which deals with the results of QE in the US but the argument’s the same over here. I haven’t heard this view put on the BBC. It may have been, of course, and maybe I just missed it. But the Narrative is that QE is good and low interest rates are good (although crocodile tears for the plight of private sector savers and pensioners are obligatory for 2 seconds) so that’s the analysis you’ll get from Hugh and friends.
Thanks for the explanation. The Victorians would have thought us mad.
It is the same mad economics that lies behind HS2.
The promoters of the Great Western Railway raised real capital to build the railway and expected a return on that capital -real money in the form of dividends. They had no time for airy fairy social benefits and the guff that we have been spun by the government. That is how Britain became a strong and rich country and government had very little to do with it. QE is a fraud .
Actually I meant QE IS fraud.
Perhaps “first class broadcaster” means that the picture is in foucs, the lighing is good and sound is clear; but to call the daily diet of predictable soaps, endless cooking shows, infantile trivia quizes, questionable political magazines and biased news first class is silly. The drama is sometimes good, sometimes bad (always it seems independently c0-produced) while the comedy is always offensive. No, Mr West, not first class.
However, the “first class broadcaster” statement qualifies Ed West for an invitation to apear on the BBC. If he hadn’t added it he would have been banned for life. Now he will simply be invited on Question Time/Newsnight/Today etc and humoured.
I think it is an essential default, knee-jerk, muscle-memory bolt-on for the chattering classes, like PBUH or ‘envy of the world NHS’ without which you end up in a world of grief before you even think of straying into what might be felt a critique.
‘the “first class broadcaster” statement qualifies Ed West for an invitation to apear on the BBC. ‘
At which he will bump into my very DP & Newsnight sofa-addicted MP, a man who, though agreeing with all I was trying to raise, still trotted out ‘trusted national treasure’ a couple of times, hence waving away any possibility of him actually doing anything.
Nobody with any sense who earns their living from broadcasting would criticise the BBC. They are too powerful. It is how the Left like it. Agree with us or starve. But did anybody ask our opinion? Press 1 if you want to hear people who live off your taxes telling you how evil it is to have low taxes Press 2 if you want to hear about the tremendous value offered by people who work for the Public Services Press 3 if you are a Labour voter and want to work for the BBC Press 4 if you think the Tory Party is infested with gays, the City is infested with Jews, and Europe is infested with white people.
If only there was an equivalent to the American Fox channel here then we just might get a version of QT that wasn’t permanently rigged and might be worth watching.
“Abu Qatada is an extremist so why won’t the BBC tell us the truth?”
[Excerpt]:
“As the philosopher Allan Bloom explained, it is this view that holds that absolutism and the belief in absolute truths has been responsible for all the evils in man’s history. So instead, a tolerance and openness to all things must become our new overriding virtue. But as we know, the moral vacuum that this creates will all too often be seized upon by those with the most intolerant and authoritarian agenda, with the cultural relativists left with nothing to say in defence of their own system lest they be seen to be making a value judgement.
“Most people are capable of comprehending that this is how liberal democracy risks undermining itself, but not the BBC apparently.
Yet, in many ways, in refusing to label Qatada an extremist, the BBC is only complying with the same political correctness that most of us impose on ourselves all the time. It is, after all, political correctness that says that intolerance and judgements about other cultures and belief systems is a cardinal sin.
“The very notion that something can be politically incorrect, which is really just a less Marxist way of saying ‘false consciousness’, flirts with a form of intellectual totalitarianism that, rather than being imposed by a police state, in fact sustains itself as we police ourselves. ”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/880/abu_qatada_is_an_extremist_so_why_won_t_the_bbc_tell_the_truth_
INBBC’s “NINE”.
In this latest Islamic jihad court case, even the judge call the nine guilty Muslims, “Islamic fundamentalists”.
But INBBC inadequately labels them as “NINE” in its headline:-
“Nine jailed over terror bomb plot”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16968518
‘Telegraph’ headline on SAME court case:
“Terrorism gang jailed for plotting to blow up London Stock Exchange.A gang of Muslim extremists inspired to launch a deadly UK terror campaign by hate preacher Anjem Choudary were jailed for a total of nearly 95 years today.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9072455/Terrorism-gang-jailed-for-plotting-to-blow-up-London-Stock-Exchange.html
In view of what has been written here you will find
The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam a good read. Eric Allen Bell, a self proclaimed left-wing documentary film maker began to realise after the Arab Spring that Islamaphobia is hardly irrational. Read what happened when he made the ‘mistake’ of making his doubts public.
Interesting discussion on Today (in the “dead zone” of course – wouldn’t want to confuse the punters would we) between Richard Portes (of the NIESR) and Roger Bootle (the Telegraph economics columnist). I say “interesting for 2 reasons:
1. You would think (and I suspect that Today wanted you to think) that since Portes is a Labour stooge and Bootle writes for the neo-fascist right-wing press (if only 😉 ) you would get two diametrically opposed views on QE. Surprise, surprise – the NIESR is a big fan and Bootle is, well, a more nuanced fan. Their only disagreement is how much and how long.
2. The conclusions drawn from this discussion were (a) by Evan – giving the BBC line – that “the Conservative cutz are awful” (despite the evidence – not mentioned this morning – that in reality there are no aggregate cuts – the reverse in fact) and (b) that QE translates into a greater increase in GDP (that’s “nominal” not “real” BTW) than replacing one tax (eg national insurance) by borrowing.
In other words, you get two fans of QE agreeing with each other and a BBC economics guru that QE “ain’t bad” and, if you keep the spending going (also not discussed since spending is, after all, a good in itself according to the underlying assumptions of this debate) it’s more efficient to have QE. Wonderful and now back to Chomsky’s point about restriction of debate: no-one mentioned the alternative of turning off the electronic money spigot, lowering government expenditure and lowering taxes and allowing the private sector to do what it does best – creating wealth.
A Today classic!
Earlier on Today we got Barber of the TUC and Fraser from the City of London Corporation discussing the “proper balance” between the UK’s manufacturing and financial sectors.
We were about a millisecond into this discussion when Fraser gave away any debating points he might have made by describing the non-service sector of the economy as the “real” economy. In other words, so frightened have those in the ur-service sector (ie finance) become that they have offered their testicles for sacrifice on the altar of a quiet life from the BBC and the (mostly) public sector (“real” economy ho ho) parasites represented by the TUC. Also undermining his credibility, Fraser exaggerated 10-fold the extent of net job losses in the City.
OTOH, according to Barber, pre 2008 the wicked banks were “investing” substantially in derivatives: no, they weren’t. They might have been “trading” in derivatives – or even creating them – but, as usual, Barber wouldn’t know (and wouldn’t want to know) how banking (let alone the rest of the economy) works: nor does he know or care what “investing” is. As far as he’s concerned, along with the most public sector payees and and their political reps (Labour, LibDems and CINOs), spending and investing are the same thing. He’s paid to be a one-note ignoramus and is worth every penny of what he’s paid.
Another non-discussion, but you can’t lay this one at the door of BBC bias. Rather, it’s an example of the one-eyed low-level of inchoate debate beloved by the politicians because they can grandstand at length on the basis of public ignorance. Of course, it helps the BBC to have a generally ignorant public in order to inculcate the pieties of the Narrative but, as I say, this discussion was not biased in the traditional sense.
If the BBC really wanted to, they could incite riots and violence against bankers. The influence they have on the news agenda is that strong, and the sheer volume of broadcasting output across the spectrum could have a dangerous effect. If they really wanted to.
Unfortunately, they know this, and use that leverage to lord it over people like Fraser. So reality gets twisted to appease their feelings.