I suppose when you are a state enforced monopoly this sort of thing brought to my attention by a B-BBC causes little concern;

“There was a freedom of information request 2009/2010 that showed that 94% of BBC staff advertising spending was with the Guardian. in defiance of their market share among quality dailies. I raised this on a BBC “have your say” page in response to some idiot/or perhaps a plant, accusing the BBC of right wing bias, my contribution disappeared just like the unwanted version of history Winston Smith consigned to oblivion. No surprise.”



Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Demon says:

    Some of these idiotd probably really do believe that the BBC is right slanted. Mostly because that’s what the leading lefties tell them and those lower down are normally far too stupid to work things out for themselves, or are so far to the extreme left that some of the rarer, more moderate left-of-centre propaganda looks right wing to them.

    There are those who know differently but say these things just so the BBC can say “We got it about right”. Stooges or just plainly evil lefties it could be either or both.


  2. Jeremy Clarke says:

    A bit of a red herring, David.

    The Guardian is a pitiful comic these days, for sure, but it is the only “””””””serious””””””” newspaper that carries a dedicated section for media jobs. Indeed, many other national newspapers – and broadcasters – advertise in the Gaunad as well. That the BBC opts to place its media ads there is not surprising or particularly sinister.

    Now, one can argue that BBC News and The Grauniad are ideological bedfellows and the relationship between them rather incestuous. A cursory look at Twitter and the constant plugging of said rag on BBC TV and radio suggest the editorial mind-sets are not too far apart. But that is down to the selection process within the BBC, surely, rather than where the corporation puts its adverts?


    • uncle bup says:

      Not a red herring at all.

      There is a dedicated media jobs section in the Guardian because the BBC advertise there, not vice versa.

      In the same way there was a dedicated public sector jobs section in the Guardian because the last government chose to advertise there / bung their ideological bed-fellows.

      Nice to see the said public sector jobs section down to two pages from the 100 odd it used to be under Labour.


      • Jeremy Clarke says:

        “There is a dedicated media jobs section in the Guardian because the BBC advertise there, not vice versa.”

        Interesting point, uncle, and one I hadn’t considered. Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

        The Monday Media section has been around for donkeys and certainly it has been the go-to place for media classifieds for at least the last 25 years and more.

        Your point, namely that the BBC’s heavy advertising there has attracted other media outlets and turned into a de facto monopoly, may well hold true.

        The Telegraph used to run a media jobs section on Thursdays (IIRC) but dropped it, presumably because it failed to get a decent return.

        If I were, God forbid, a middle manager at the BBC and needed staff, I would likely go to The Guardian because media folk tend to gravitate towards it and therefore I will likely attract more applicants. From a purely business point of view, that makes sense.

        I’d still maintain that it is the world-view of, say, BBC News is defined more by its recruitment process than by where its jobs are advertised. But we can agree to disagree.


    • lojolondon says:

      Yes, because if you had 94% of the BBC’s spend you would have a special section too. Likewise, as a print competitor, would you create a media section, knowing that you would get only a percentage of 6% of the biggest client’s spend??


    • Teddy Bear says:

      Jeremy, you write respectfully, and with some reason, so I will reply in kind.
      Is it possible your present stance in relation to the BBC could be wrong, or do you feel, for whatever other motive, you must defend it at all costs?

      I challenge you to answer this for me, as I’m sure you are aware, Thompson admitted recently to a Massive left-wing bias that was present at the BBC 30 years ago.

      Show us what the BBC has done since then to address this bias, in a way that it really can be taken seriously. Otherwise you will have to admit NOTHING has been done, and it still is MASSIVELY biased to the left, which is why they continue to do the majority of their advertising on the Guardian, despite the Telegraph having far more readers.

      Maybe you have to rethink your allegiance.

      It’s a standing joke that the BBC interpreted ‘being independent’ by imitating the newspaper of that name.


      • Jeremy Clarke says:

        “Is it possible your present stance in relation to the BBC could be wrong, or do you feel, for whatever other motive, you must defend it at all costs?”

        TB, I really think you have misjudged my position with regards to the BBC. I most certainly do not “defend it at all costs” and I hope that others on this site will back me up on that.

        To summarise: I want to love the BBC but, like an errant child, I feel it lets itself and me down repeatedly.

        Much of its TV output is infantile and irritatingly didactic, and even the most innocent of programmes can be horribly politicised; and much of its news reporting is simplistic, selective and, yes, biased. In particular, the I-P reporting is quite dreadful on so many levels I don’t where to start.

        There are many things I do like about the BBC and there are many presenters and journalists who are true professionals who don’t sound like Blue Peter presenters.

        Do I support the licence fee? Categorically, no.


        • Teddy Bear says:

          Thanks for your reply Jeremy, and I will admit I may have confused you with somebody else who posts here occasionally. His name escapes me at the moment but I believe he works for the BBC.

          It was a knee jerk reaction on my part, due to answering some comments on the Telegraph articles published recently, in which somebody made exactly the same point that it was because the Guardian had a dedicated column for media jobs and this was why the BBC advertised there, along with a few insults for anybody insinuating that this implied bias on their part, as is the usual nature of this ‘beast’. The reply to this was the same as you got here – that if the BBC threw the same money at the Telegraph as they do for the Guardian they would get a column for media jobs there .

          My apologies to you though, and thanks for correcting me.


          • Jeremy Clarke says:

            That’s cool, TB.

            For the record, I find the cosy relationship between the Guardian and BBC a little troubling, mainly because I do not like what that newspaper has become*.

            *I do post to the Guardian’s Apprentice live-blog, though. It is an absolute hoot and the contributors are terrific.


            • Guest Who says:

              Might I just say, the calibre of exchange you both have had (and will, with luck, have again) sets a high bar in debate which, with a few exceptions sadly only inevitable on a free, independent and unmoderated blog, I find more the norm on BBBC.
              Sadly, with the BBC and its apologists, the reaction appears to err on defensiveness to the point of hysteria or simple denial beyond reason followed by ‘because we can’ closing when it suits.


            • Teddy Bear says:

              Cheers Jeremy.
              My problem with the Guardian started years ago. For a while I was writing to the editor to address whatever particular slant they were putting on a story.
              Then when it came to this particular one, and the fact they were not willing to do anything about it, I decided it was not worth writing them anymore.

              It concerns their webpage for “Israel and the Middle East – Key Events”
              For the year 1994 the only event shown is “1994 – Baruch Goldstein, a demented Jewish zealot in the flashpoint West Bank town of Hebron, goes beserk in the town’s most historic mosque, killing 29 Arabs with his assault rifle. “

              Amazingly ignored as key events are:
              1. May 1994 – The Gaza/Jericho agreement in Cairo between Israel and the PA giving autonomy to the Palestinian Authority in those areas – Surely a Key Event

              2. July 1994 – The Israel/Jordan peace treaty – Surely a Key Event

              In light of the only event that this paper does show, would it not be equitable to also have had:
              3. 40 Israelis murdered by demented terrorists in numerous beserk attacks throughout that year – most following the granting of autonomy to the PA?

              So is it surprising that the Guardian and the BBC go hand in hand?


  3. Pete says:

    BBC/Guardian/Al Jazeera/Press TV/Koran.

    One and the same.


    • Span Ows says:

      No, Al Jazeera is far superior at news (obviously they don’t have the plethora of repeats channels, radio empire, local radio etc.)


  4. London Calling says:

    This is a direct gifting of income to the Guardian from the license fee, and guarantees every bBC job candidate “knows the score” as if they didn’t anyway. The influence of the Guardian on the place where 70% of the population get their news is outrageous. You may not buy the Guardian, but you pay for it indirectly anyway and have its politics stuffed in your face every time you switch on. And the bBC have the cheek to run hourly stories on the influence of Murdoch. Yet not a day goes by without some union leader denouncing the government via the front page of the bBC. “Getting it about right” my arse.


    • Wild says:

      Gifting other people’s money to themselves and their friends is the only reason why Lefties go into politics.

      There is no greed on the planet like Guardian readers and public sector unions in a feeding frenzy of entitlement.

      The multimillionaire Leftist crapologist Jeremy Paxman did not get rich by writing his third rate books. The highly unionized Public Sector pays well if you have absolutely zero moral integrity.

      Paxman justifies his fortune by sermonizing about the virtues of taxation. Well he would say that wouldn’t he since he has become a multimillionaire by living entirely off the taxpayer.


  5. Pacific Rising says:

    With the coverage enjoyed by the BBC, I don’t see why they need to advertise anywhere except their own Website, and perhaps a TV “job spot” of say 5 minutes after the evening news a couple of times a week.

    They must have money to burn!


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘I don’t see why they need to advertise anywhere except their own Website’
      Not a bad point.
      As the world’s largest and ‘most trusted’ media monopoly, it is not as if it would be outside the ken of anyone seeking a job in media, and some might find surfing a well-designed searchable site more amenable without first having to choke on their latte & croissants over Polly’s latest harangue on the iPhone app.


    • Wild says:

      “I don’t see why they need to advertise anywhere except their own Website”

      The Left believe in redistribution of wealth, taking other people’s money and redistributing it to their middle class friends.

      Giving money to Guardian journalists helps the poor you understand.


    • JAG says:

      They have – our money!


  6. The accusations of “right wing bias” are increasing. Of course the reason is very clear. The left will mobilse, like they always do, and stifle debate (through violence and lying as required) and by accusing the BBC of right wing bias, the left hopes to keep the BBC pushing its current leftist agenda. Honeslty, Twitter is fuly of these idiots who both genuinely believe the BBC has a right wing bias, but also those who know full well it doesnt, but think by accusing it of such will help their own hateful cause.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘The left will mobilse, like they always do, and stifle debate’
      By odd coincidence, I just got this plea for money in an email from an outfit called COMPASS, under the heading ‘Our influence is growing’.
      “For a long time now life on the left of British and European politics has been tough. In the UK the wrong type of coalition has accelerated the neoliberal project leaving people desperate, isolated and full of despair, but glimmers of hope may be starting to appear. Can you help us make the most of this historic opportunity by donating today?”
      I was near moved to reach in my pocket in light of such a plight, but then I recalled that a ÂŁ4Bpa fighting fund extorted from me anyway was probably serving their ‘struggle’ pretty well.
      If a Neal Lawson seems oddly pervasive on various ‘guest expert’ sofas, I think I will have a clue why.


      • Wild says:

        “leaving people desperate, isolated and full of despair”

        Maybe this sad hate filled Leftist could do something useful in his life and pay attention to the needs of customers by setting up a business in a capitalist system. Thinking of other people? Creating wealth? Nope. Back to his hate filled narcissism and envy. It is so much easier than being a good person.


  7. Paddytoplad says:

    The beeb is the broadcast media market in the UK!

    Whichever publication took the BBC ad spend would automatically become the market journal.

    About half the media jobs in the UK are with Auntie so why do they need external advertising anyway.

    As has been stated above a BBC jobs site would be a much more cost effective way of using our telly tax pounds.

    The only reason the money goes to the Graun is the BBC executives choose to spend it their.

    Imagine if they moved their advertising to the Daily Mail, there would be hell on and yet the Mail reaches more people.

    I cant see the powers that be advertising in the times or the Torygraph but ask yourself why shouldnt they.

    There is no competition. Placing all your work with one newspaper is effectively voting for a monopoly.

    If auntie took away its subsidy the Graun may fold and that would be a bad thing.


    • Wild says:

      The BBC spend other people’s money on their friends in The Guardian because they can – because they have got your money and you have no choice.


  8. Paddytoplad says:

    oops there not their


  9. Louis Robinson says:

    I commend the BBC for fessing up and finding a creative way of paying for the material they rip off from the Guardian.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘paying for the material’

      Hey, the ‘expertise’ of a Toynbee, White, Monbiot, or that Mumsnet ‘mum’, etc, on instant call in the Green Room, cannot come cheap. And if they are not at the paper working on stories readers feel like buying, the compo has to be made up in ‘other ways’.


  10. phil says:

    The Guardian is kept afloat mainly by the income from its used car ads website and magazine.

    Funny how no eager eco-type at the BBC hasn’t objected to BBC business being given to a company which relies on the trade in CO2 belching cars to stay solvent.

    But that famous in-depth BBC analysis is never used when it is inconvenient. to the cause.


  11. George R says:

    “Taking back the BBC:
    invert the pyramid and give power to the public.”

    by Dave Boyle


  12. Span Ows says:

    I think it’s less, about 86%. Or are these new figures?

    That said, 86% with the daily broadsheet with the smallest (and falling faster than the others are falling) readership means that 86% is going on 143 thousand people or (214 thousand people (of which 30% – the 55 plus age group – aren’t looking for a job) which is less than 0.4% of the working population…hmmm, no reason to suspect their news editorial output really? NOT!


  13. Richard Pinder says:

    No adverts for jobs at the BBC in the Mensa Magazine. For Classified Advertising rates, call the Mensa office on 01902 772771. Not many lefties with art degrees, but lots of Ukipies with science degrees, so could massively improve the quality of BBC staff especially in the area of politics and the science of Atmospheric physics and Solar physics in Climate Change.