Biased BBC favourite Roger Harrabin has been missing in action for a while now from the BBC airwaves. However the ever resourceful folks at Biased BBC have tracked him down and Alan has the goods. Enjoy..
“What has he been up to? Well it seems he has been having a very nice time on an all expenses paid (not by the BBC) ‘Fellowship’…..
‘Roger Harrabin is taking unpaid leave on a Knight Wallace Media Fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/15937222
He is being well paid by the Fellowship….’U.S. fellows receive $70,000 – distributed as $8,750 monthly – from September through April. Stipend details vary for international fellows and are worked out on an individual basis. All tuition and course fees at the University of Michigan are paid for by the fellowship. Spouses and partners are invited to partake in university courses as well.
In addition, all fellowship trips – domestic and international – are covered. Health insurance is provided to fellows and their families, if their employer does not contribute to their insurance coverage.’
…all of which might lead to some amusement as to his study subject:
‘Roger Harrabin, environmental analyst, BBC (London); Scarcity: How many rich people can the Earth take?’
It’s the rich what are causing Global Warming with all their blooming consumption! Get rid of them! He is not the only BBC journalist to have taken this ‘life changing’ opportunity….and many of their subjects are also what you might expect. Maurice Walsh stands out for his perceptive view that the BBC aided the IRA…..’their key victory was in mobilizing public opinion in Britain and the rest of the world.’
‘Maurice Walsh, World Service news editor, BBC, London.
Irish War of Independence.
“The News from Ireland” by Maurice Walsh ’02 has been released in paperback. The Anglo-Irish war of 1919-1921 was a historical landmark: The first successful revolution against British rule and the beginning of the end of the British Empire. However, the Irish revolutionaries did not win their struggle on the battlefield – their key victory was in mobilizing public opinion in Britain and the rest of the world. In his book, Walsh recounts the work of British and American correspondents in Ireland and offers a persuasive assessment of the revolution’s place in world history as well as the role of the press and journalism in the conflict.’
For interest I list the others from over the last decade:
http://www.mjfellows.org/fellows/
Sarah Robbins, senior producer, BBC World News America; The Economy of Brazil.
John Walton, senior broadcast journalist, BBC (London); Data-Driven Journalism and its Uses in Interactive Storytelling.
Roger Sawyer, deputy editor, BBC Radio (London): Reporting science in an accurate, but inclusive and comprehensible manner.
John Cary, editor, “Drive,” BBC Radio 5 Live.
How children are educated – Does a teacher’s gender make a difference?
Joanna Mills, assistant editor, BBC World Service News.
How is the way crime is covered in the media impacting society?
Patricia Whitehorne, senior broadcaster, BBC.
On-Line Social Network Sites.
Charles Partridge, managing editor, BBC Radio Lincolnshire.
What does “Local” Mean in Today’s On-Line World?
Hilary Bowden, duty editor, BBC.
User Generated Content.
Richard Lister, reporter, BBC.
Should the EU Adopt the US Constitution?
Stephen Titherington, editor, BBC World Service News (London, England).
How Science is Covered.
Alicia McCarthy, senior broadcast journalist, BBC (London).
The impact of terrorism on media, politics and people.
Pam O’Toole, reporter, BBC (London).
Migration and asylum.
Andrew Whitehead, editor, BBC (London), “The World Today”.
Origins of the Kashmir crisis in 1947.
Joanne Episcopo, arts producer, BBC (London, England).
Spanish history and Basque culture.
David Edmonds, Current Affairs editor, BBC, London.
German History/Film Studies.
Caroline Finnigan, producer/bureau manager, Havana, BBC News.
Origins of investigative and campaigning journalism in the US and Britain.
Every year the Knight Wallace Fellowship publishes the work of these journalists in its archive…..this years of course is not out….it might be interesting to come back to this at the end of the year and see what Harrabin has produced:
KWF Journal Archives
http://www.mjfellows.org/news/journal_archives.html
Yet another Beeboid contributing to income inequality.
It is people like Harrabin and his lefty BBC chums who are the new rich, they consume at a far higher rater than the average brow beaten BBC viewer / listener. Foreign holdays, BBC expenses, wining and dining, so well paid in fact that increasingly high living costs are of no concern, the BBC lefty aristocracy would never think twice before buying food or drink out, where normal working people have to make careful choices. I suppose Harabin will still be paid by the BBC while on this fellowship thingy (nice to be able to take months off work when it suits you).
Spot on. Think no further than the pigs in Animal Farm. The irony is beyond them, so convinced are they of their righteous cause. On the bright side it gives us a bit of a laugh when something like the Toulouse terrorist episode (the right-wing extremist who never was) brings their crusading army to an abrupt halt – think of Blazing Saddles and the dime-operated barrier in the middle of nowhere.
sorry, got over excited – he is taking unpaid leave from the BBC . What a lovely comfortable stress free life working at the BBC then deciding to go off on this Fellowship thingy, grrrrrrrr!
And this will make Harrabin more highly-credentialed, which is always a career-booster in these circles. Another feather in the cap.
It’s a so-called “sabbatical”, he’s taken and given how left of (even) BBC centre and how tied into the Climategate lot at UEA he has been, he’s found himself a nice little earner with another bunch of eco-loons.
Makes me sick.
All aboard the wonderful lefty merry-go-round learning how to lecture others on why they should pay high taxes amd fret about the poor. No wonder these Beeboids believe the state can provide for every need even when no one actually works.
Mr Jim Dandy is noticeably silent on this matter.
Would that he would remain so. The thoughts of Jim Dandy are something I can do without every thirty minutes. He would seem more at home here:
I’ve been out all day I’m afraid. But even I’m struggling to make an argument out of this.
I see your mum likes you.
‘I’ve been out all day I’m afraid.’
Might one suggest you take longer? It may help the ‘struggle’. Longer the better, really.
Tx, London Calling, as I now have ‘automatic gainsaying’ to treasure in addition to ‘delusional contrarian’.
That, and the notion of ‘toffs causing grievous mental confusion to the Great British viewing public’.
Ahead of their time, truly.
Dear Jim!
This notion of devils advocacy is fine as far as it goes, but I hope that you will respond to salient points regarding BBC selective bias-it gets up our noses because we`re paying for it..and we have not been asked whether the BBCs clear bias is “what we out here agree with”.
Two examples this morning.
1. George Osborne seems to be relaxed about tax details of politicians being released as part of the transparency agenda.
Clearly the BBC are worried about this( any ideas why Jim?)..so it gets described as “being seen as an intervention in Londons election for Mayor”…as if both Boris and Ken are equally tainted ,or personalising private details.
Clearly Ken has much more to fear on this that does Boris-not that the BBC would ever say that-but the idea that tax details of public figures being released is seen not as “shining sunlight on the sleazeballs”…but as a “political intervention”…makes it all too clear what the Beebs position on it all is.
Any thoughts on this Jim?
(note too that the reporter on the 8am news says that this issue “will be seen to be an intervention”..by who Jim…how do they know…and why do they presume to say it?
Any ideas on that Jim?
And one more-the Catholic Archbishop of Scotland wants his flock to wear crosses to highlight the attack on people that wear them in public…the BBC says that he is “shoring up support”..and that he “claims” this to be an issue…but the BBCs position yet again is clear as daylight…look at that language used by the Beeb Jim…check with Orwells checklist-and be afraid, if you don`t laugh out loud at how unsubtle the BBC now are these days.
Oh..by the way…it may be more than a “claim” if there are cases all ready for Strasbourg…which I`d have thought meant it was deadly serious to the BBC…in all other cases of the European Court(prisoner rights, Qatada or whatever)…it seems to be!
Any thoughts on this too please Jim!
Very interesting you should select these two items. I was listening to Today this morning wondering how on Earth b-BBC would spin these two items as anti- government or anti Christianity; and you’ve just done it!
First, Osbourne. Clearly a bit if leaking from him without Cabinet support and yet given prominence by the Today programme without any view arguing against it ( as the Spectator did yesterday, very cogently I I thought). I think Osbourne will be very happy with the coverage it got. And the link with the London election? A statement of fact.
The the good Cardinal. Well the first point is why report the item? Prominent churchman says wear a cross is dog bites man territory. Again there was no contrary view. A puff piece for the Catholic church I thought. In fact this morning we had this, a report on the Pope’s health after his Cuba visit, and a very theological piece by Giles Fraser on TFTD. It was like Christian radio this morning and as an atheist i found it excessive.
Oh and between these items was something about Kate and Wills Barbie dolls, discrimination against a Muslim group in Burma and reaction to the old Greek man’s suicide.
Hardly I suggest evidence of a hopelessly biased broadcaster!
There is more going on here Jim boy than is the BBC biased? It’s emotional.
In this country we have regarded the BBC as something more than just the National Broadcaster. It has been our other parent. It teaches us how to make little animals from old cardboard toilet rolls. It presents children with funny cartoons and as we grow up with Newsround telling us all about the world. It holds entertainment evenings in support of children’s charities worldwide. Then we start to watch the grown up news and we trust the BBC to tell us the truth. It is more than just a media corporation, surely you can see that?
We expect with all our hearts to be able to trust the BBC and because it has been so important to us we. We expect it to be on our side. But times have changed and we now have the internet and blogs. Blogs have ripped the whole trust thing apart. We now get other points of view and that’s what they are Jim, other points of view. The facts are seen differently by differing people and we now question everything. The best example of internet questioning is “did the Americans go to the moon”? It’s just a fact now everything is put under the microscope.
It is a wonderful thing that (at the moment) anyone can set up a blog on any topic (subject to security or racist issues etc.) and if done well it will get supporters. This blog serves a good service to those of us that believe that the BBC is not always on our side and is inhabited by an elite that have lost touch with the ordinary common sense people of this country. It is a fact that some presenters are paid close to a Million pounds a year. That some of them use clever ways to not pay all their taxes. How can they say or pretend to be ‘on our side’?
They also sometimes do not tell the truth or slant issues to suit their view of modern political correctness. We try and highlight that here. It is that simple. We expect the truth, not opinion. We demand that in as much as they demand we pay them or go to prison.
Please do not patronise us with your daft ‘other side of the coin opinions’ we will never give in, as in OUR opinion THE BBC IS BIASED.
Don’t you think a bit of counterfactual helps the site? Mr Vance himself has welcomed this in the past. And I’ve sought to express my views (which are by no means entirely defensive of the BBC) in as clear, factual and non-trollesque as I can muster.
Be a little more willing to consider points that don’t necessarily reinforce your own. You will find the experience invigorating.
I am well able to see other points of view thanks but I think you have missed the point. It’s about trust. I no longer trust the BBC and from what I read from the other contributors on here, nor do they. However if you could send me a pair of your rosy pink glasses I’ll have a look through them but I suspect they will not fit.
‘Jim Dandy says:
April 7, 2012 at 10:37 am
Don’t you think a bit of counterfactual helps the site? Mr Vance himself has welcomed this in the past.
The operative word being ‘factual’ (the default counter in defence of any critique of the BBC being another matter). Sadly, a one liner saying ‘No, it isn’t’ really doesn’t contribute much, especially if associated with ‘I think/believe..’.
Mr. Vance is to be credited for his policies on free speech on this free site. Rather highlighting how the BBC high command do anything in their considerable powers to avoid, suppress or censor free speech, imposed upon those who are compelled to pay and put up with their propaganda no matter what.
When you look like holding them to account on an equal basis as you do any here, I’ll respect your stance more, and believe you may be something more than a professional contrarian with an odd, or at least selective blind spot on when stuff does not add up. Your comments on examples are seldom more than attempted interceptions or personal belief sets that are irrelevant, and you go very quiet when egregious examples of inaccuracy or bias are exposed. And when cornered you either go into denial, dig a further hole or retreat to a bunker muttering about perceived behaviors you seem to think you can engage upon, but no one else.
Hence, a perfect complement to the BBC editorial and complaints systems.
As always, you are to be thanked for highlighting in omission or poor counter the overwhelming weight of BBC bias, incompetence and lack of integrity.
Universal Giles Fraser again! I was only joking the other day that the BBC was trying to resurrect his career for Easter.
It
gets
a
bit
silly
when
everyone
replies
to
the
same
thread
Can someone please tell me what “accurate, but inclusive” means regarding science reporting (Roger Sawyer, third on that list), or indeed in reporting in general?
The jokes write themselves.
“John Walton, senior broadcast journalist, BBC (London); Data-Driven Journalism and its Uses in Interactive Storytelling.”
I’d like to have a fly on the wall during this one.
No doubt, when top Beeboids allow HARRABIN back on his ‘greenie’ political propagandising circuit in Britain, he will regale us with his terror fracking tales from Michigan.
Has he read this?
“Michigan fracking 101: You’ve heard of it. Here’s how it works.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46859678/ns/local_news-anchorage_ak/t/michigan-fracking-youve-heard-it-heres-how-it-works/
Harrabin is supposed to be a reporter. He is supposed to listen to arguments from both sides and present a balanced summary. He is supposed to check facts but leave the interpretation to the experts (from both sides). When he starts doing his own research – and he is not nor has he ever been an academic – then his role of reporting becomes tainted, or a bit more tainted than it was before.
“The first successful revolution against British rule and the beginning of the end of the British Empire.”
Mr Walsh obviously has never heard of that much overlooked event, the American War of Independence. But, there again, the BBC – and its employees – would be the last source I (or anyone with any regard for truth) would go to in the expectation of an impartial transmission of historical facts. Those 18th century revolutionaries were not seeking to overturn the Empire. They were, on the contrary, seeking to reestablish what they saw as the rights of every Englishman as embodied in the then English constitution. That is, of course, anathema to the BBC which only confers legitimacy on “revolutions” if they are left wing (or Islamist, of course).
‘How children are educated – Does a teacher’s gender make a difference?’
What is a teacher’s gender?
All my teachers had a sex. They were either men or women and it was obvious which one they were. If they had a gender they never bothered telling us what it was.
Sex is the lumpy and smelly bits.
Gender is bit you (if you are male) are supposed to be ashamed of – it’s how you see yourself.
So gender not necessarily equates to sex.
The distinction is key to sexual politics.