“The power of the television networks does not lie in their economic power but in their ability to manipulate opinion. The degree of concentration in television is an attack on democracy. It gives them enormous power to extort.”
A more dishonest appraisal of Europe would be hard to find in an astonishingly partisan piece about a European Referendum on Today with Evan Davis interviewing Peter Kellner…as Davis tells us ‘from the polling group ‘YouGov’.
Kellner told us that although there was a majority in the country for a referendum on Europe and for some form of cutting ties with ‘Europe’ he says we can ignore this…although people say Europe is a major concern…you know what….he thought it wasn’t really…if you ask them what was a major concern in their personal lives it wasn’t Europe.
Well no, if I have tooth ache it’s going to be tooth ache I’m concerned about immediately or the kid’s school etc…but I would still be able to drag myself down to the polling booth and vote on Europe oddly enough.
So he tells us, no one is really all that bothered about Europe…and when they start to really consider what damage would be done to Britain if we withdrew then they all start to be more positive about Europe…Kellner putting words in people’s mouths…doing what the ‘elite’ do best…thinking for us because we’re too ignorant or prejudiced to have considered, well informed views ourselves!
Just as Stalin airbrushed out of history those he fell out with, Kellner and the BBC airbrush out your concerns…‘they’re not real, you don’t really think that…now go away and let us get on with the important work running the country for you but in our own way.’…in fact they don’t just airbrush your concerns they airbrush you as a person, they show utter contempt for you firstly by arranging this charade on Today to try and fool us and then to contemptuously dismiss your views as the thoughts of children…mere whimsy or flights of fancy not grounded in reality at all….based on ‘trying to keep the world at bay’ as Kellner said…what he really meant was you’re all racist, xenophobic Little Englanders.
And all happily endorsed or encouraged by the Labour leaning Evan Davis.
You have to ask why Davis didn’t ask all this of John Humphrys of course…who is part owner of and commentator for YouGov.
What Davis doesn’t tell us is that Kellner is a Labour man through and through….and!!! as pointed out by ‘John in Cheshire’ in the comments…. ‘Mr Kellner is married to that stalwart of the EU nightmare, Cathy Ashton.’…and of course she is a Labour politician.
You couldn’t make this up….failure to disclose such information by Today is, what, it’s just corrupt….the BBC engaging in manipulating opinion and votes by a totally and shockingly dishonest portrayal of someone they present as an ‘honest Broker’, someone completely impartial. And it’s all lies.
What are some of Kellner’s personal views?… a read of this…in the Guardian naturally, soon tells you he may not be all that impartial when it comes to Europe or immigration or how to run the economy.
Here are truths that I (Kellner) believe Labour needs to recognise:
The European Union is good for Britain. Again, Labour should not be cowed by the euroscepticism that YouGov and other pollsters repeatedly portray.(Just ignore the people)
Keynes was right. Governments must support the economy and boost demand when growth has stalled. I agree with Ed Balls when he says that the priority must be jobs rather than pay. Labour should be arguing for job-intensive government spending over the next year or two, such as house-building and road-mending, rather than tax cuts.
Immigration is overwhelmingly a blessing. It brings to these shores new ideas, new enthusiasm and entrepreneurial talent. Those who say immigration does harm, or imply that there is a problem by setting artificial curbs on the numbers coming to Britain are wrong – historically, culturally, economically and morally. But Labour will never win votes by compromising on immigration – the right will always outbid us.
Note that ‘us’ on the end there…’us ‘ as in ‘us in the Labour Party’.
This kind of deception matters hugely…here the BBC have brought in a ‘ringer’, someone who is intent on fixing the game so that the scorecard is always in their favour.
Jimmy Carr was avoiding taxes, here the BBC are avoiding and sidelining Democracy. Its blatant lies, little deceits and omissions are all designed to ‘nudge’ us into quiet acceptance of the European Union or whatever other pet project such as immigration, the BBC supports.
They hope you won’t notice…but who cares if you do? …what are you going to do about it?…complaining will get you nowhere and MPs are too afraid to move against the ‘family favourite’ that is Aunty Beeb.
“The power of the television networks does not lie in their economic power but in their ability to manipulate opinion. The degree of concentration in television is an attack on democracy. It gives them enormous power to extort.”
I think it also needs mentioning that Mr Kellner is married to that stalwart of the EU nightmare, Cathy Ashton.
LOL! Classic. Funny they didn’t mention it.
Yet more reason to sign the ePetition requesting an “in / out” Referendum on the Licence Fee….
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34655
What has the BBC ever been for if not manipulating public opinion? From the choice of agenda in Dimbleby programmes (and allowing some clown to read out the chosen question as if there were some role for the public in all this) to the presentation of a ‘normative opinion’ in news programmes.
So what Kellner is saying is that YouGov polls are a total waste of time as the people they poll do not really have a clue unlike he and his Lefty friends know what is best for us.-The typical socialist ethos.
Surely he has done a bit of a Charles Ratner here ” Why should we ignore this YouGov poll? Because the people we surveyed know sod all and are a load of crap.”
Strange really because when the polls come up with a result which matches the Left wing agenda, the BBC trumpets it as headline news.
Just found this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18644219
Rather like one of those old episodes of Record Breakers ‘how many people can you fit into a mini?’ this is ‘how much bias can you fit into 2 paragraphs?’ (the final 2 of the article). I think I’ve got 5 can anyone do any better?
The 5 being-1. Praise for Obama, 2. Talking down the UK economy, 3. Condemnation of austerity at home and abroad. 4. Condemnation of the government, 5. Implying that Euro will be a roaring success that we will be shortly begging to join.
A case in point (really for he Open thread) but today I read that “Ed Miliband added his voice to calls for an inquiry”…imagine my surprise to read that the headline had changed to “Ed Miliband calls for banking inquiry”
Luckily Newsniffer is on the case!
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/530524/diff/11/12
So – Have I got this right:-
Peter Kellner is president of our premier pollster Yougov.
The media relies on Yougov as a strictly impartial guide on public opinion.
Peter once admitted in an autobiographical article to being raised as a Marxist.
Peter refers to the Labour Party as “us” in his Guardian articles.
Marxist Peter and his buddy John Humphrys were early shareholders of Yougov and made several hundred thousand from its flotation in 2005.
Peter’s missus Cathy Ashton is a Labour Peeress who has never been elected but has become one of the world’s highest paid politicians as the €350,000 plus expenses (tax free) EU “High Representative”.
Peter is invited onto John’s flagship BBC current affairs programme to explain how we all feel about the EU.
Peter explains that polls show we would like a referendum on leaving the EU – but, take it from him, we’re really not that bothered and the EU is a super idea really.
Peter goes home to Cathy and they spend the evening admiring their bank statements while whistling “The Red Flag”.
That just about sums up the mind set of labour. Yet people still vote for them!
And in other news…
‘Utter And Complete Dishonesty From Evan Davis And Today’
That such aspects of context slipped by them only shows how unfit for purpose they are now.
Any cherry vultures care to try and explain how the main spokesperson’s CV may not have been germane enough to include? Or Mr. Humphry’s conflict of interest? (I mean ones who actually have opinions that extend to coherence and detail vs. petty sniping when inevitably pwned, again).
YouGov’s polls are things of wonder, anyway. It can be surprisingly hard to give answers that accurately represent your point of view. I have even wondered if that is an accident.
Personally, I wouldn’t take the slightest bit of notice of any of its pontifications. And I certainly wouldn’t of Kellner’s!.
Funny – in Biased BBC’s usual suspects’ attempts to smear YouGov as some sort of Communist propaganda, they forget to mention that its CEO, Stephan Shakespeare, was a Conservative party candidate in 1997 – and his YouGov co-founder, Nadhim Zawahi, is a sitting Tory MP.
And that in a number of elections, their surveys have suggested greater support for the Conservatives than other polls at the same time – and ended up being more accurate as a result.
Marxists, the lot of ’em!
It’s not that the BBC are citing poll results from Yougov that is the problem, it’s that they portray Peter Kellner as some sort of impartial observer when he openly campaigns for Labour and further EU integration, and so his analysis of polls is likely to be biased. The BBC should make this clear, but they rarely do in such circumstances.
You can guarantee that if Stephan Shakespeare had been interviewed he would have been introduced as a rightwing anti European former Tory candidate, with every utterance met with a derisory snort from Humphries… “Well you’re a Tory, so you would say that wouldn’t you”.
Spot on. It’s what he chooses to report of the poll’s findings and what he chooses to leave out, as well as the usual question of emphasis.
I notice he briefly mentioned people’s main concerns but didn’t say what they were (immigration was top by a country mile not so long ago).
“You can guarantee that if Stephan Shakespeare had been interviewed he would have been introduced as a rightwing anti European former Tory candidate,
Guarantee? Of course not. Only a rabid conspiracy theorist with little in the way of critical faculties would think such a thing.
Of course, if they were a rabid conspiracy theorist, they’d be lauded to high heavens on Biased BBC by people too stupid to know any better.
Scott, I know you have great trouble reading the posts but can you please tell us what bit brings you to the conclusion that “in Biased BBC’s usual suspects’ attempts to smear YouGov as some sort of Communist propaganda”…thanks.
“I know you have great trouble reading the posts”
Does anyone find Alan’s posts easy to read? They resemble an itchy badger trying to sit down on a typewriter.
Or at least they would do if they weren’t quite so demented.
It’s tag-team time.
http://tinyurl.com/d4dnt
Let me guess – you’re the blonde one and Span Owls the hunky brunette ;p
…other way round 😉
wish I was that slim…and I agree with Dez’s point that sometimes it’s hard to read some of Alan’s posts
I am not a rabid conspiracy theorist neither do I listen to rabid conspiracy theorist, I read Biased-BBC because the BBC has earned a reputation of being a bunch of biased morons with inferior intelligence after a complaint to the BBC Trust by the Space Special Interest group of British Mensa, over the scientifically fraudulent abuse of Astronomy in a documentary about Climate Change.
Not talking about YouGov but YouGov’s boss…Kellner.
Kellner who said basically you have to ignore what his polls tell us.
Presumably because they do, as you suggest, give a hint of what the public really think.
I think you just reinforced the point.
There are some right-of-centre people at Yougov, but the Beeb would never dream of consulting them for their opinions – so they trot out reliably lefty Kellner.
If there are “Right wing” people at YouGov I’m damned sure they don’t compile some of their polls!
YouGov shares an interesting trait with the BBC, too. You can complain and it doesn’t take the slightest notice.
Scottie, what are your opinions of Kellner’s admission that YouGov weight their results by the number of admitted Daily Mirror readers i.e. falsely inflate the responses in the socialists/leftwing favour?
How can anyone give any credibility to a polling organisation that fiddles the figures in this way?
Come on Scottieboy, let’s see you defend the indefensible again and rationalise this somewhat unethical practice.
I have wondered after viewing pictures of the gorgeous, pouting Kathy how often her and hubby’s paths cross in the night.
Just imagine!
Then for the icing on the cake, her and the equally gorgeous and pouting Herman Rompuy?
I’m sure there’s a You Tube blockbuster in that lot.
don’t, for pitys sake just don’t.
Beeboids and the RICH.
BBC-NUJ is selectively critical of certain categories of ‘rich’ people, but not of the ‘leftist’ rich such as Soros, and those of E.U, and Labour hierarchy; and certainly not of Arab-Islam plutocracy:-
“Ramadan gold rush: It’s that time of year when the Arab plutocracy descends on austerity London to party and spend. And their shopping sprees are more blingtastic than ever.”
By Tom Rawstorne.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166706/Ramadan-gold-rush-Time-year-Arab-plutocracy-descends-austerity-London-party-spend.html#ixzz1zHLHZIT3
With a bit of luck, they’ll be back to herding goats in a generation or so:
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1361/the_end_of_opec_despotism
Well if Iran gets the bomb, they will be sitting in an irradiated wasteland, watching Israel rebuild, and wishing that they hadn’t pushed the button.
I assume you are still comfortable with comparing the ‘cover ups’ which you allege are perpetuated by the BBC with those perpetuated by Josef Stalin?
I have several friends who lost family members under the Stalin regime.
I am not employed by, or have any connection whatsoever with, the BBC. Yet while they clearly not always perfect, they do at least try to ensure that their coverage is balanced and fair. This is acknowledged worldwide.
I suggest it might be worthwhile you taking a leaf from their book …
‘Balanced and fair’. Perhaps you need to start contributing to the debates on here – then we’ll see how well your statement holds up.
If, as you allege, “they do at least try to ensure that their coverage is balanced and fair” – why do they run all their recruitment advertising in the Guardian?
Why were their corridors “strewn with champagne bottles” after Labour won the 97 election.
Why did dozens of BBC employees immediately then turn up as Labour MP’s , Ministers & spin doctors (I counted around 30 at the time)?
http://bbcpioneers.blogspot.co.uk/
Why did four BBC DGs & Chairmen consecutively turn out to be Labour insiders?
(Birt, Dyke, Davies, Lyons)
http://bbcpioneers.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2008-01-24T20:51:00Z&max-results=7
Are you staggeringly naive or a BBC plant?
Exactly.
S Guettier,
“Yet while they clearly not always perfect, they do at least try to ensure that their coverage is balanced and fair.”
erm…you may not have noticed but the whole point of this blog is to show that this is simply NOT TRUE.
“This is acknowledged worldwide.”
I would change the ‘is’ to ‘was’. With every day that passes the BBC becomes less respected (and rightly so). The only way for the BBC to address this is to BECOME balanced and fair again.
They try to convince themselves that they are succeeding to appear fair and balanced to the public, in the eyes of the ex-politicians that run the BBC Trust. But you try complaining to the BBC Trust. Your complaint will eventually be published in the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee Bulletin, but may not be anything like the communications about the complaint that you actually made to the BBC. They think that the complainant does not have the media influence of the almighty BBC, but the BBC may know that the other side of the story will be published in a small science specialist newsletter with a readership of only 300. But then this is taken up at science meeting at the University of Oxford, and then it ends up with a Parliamentary Committee. Well now that is why I am waiting for the next newsletter, to see what this slow unravelling of the BBC’s Climate policy may entail in the future. In the mean time you could read the book “Can we Trust the BBC” by Robin Aitkin.
You must work for the BBC, how else would you come up with “This is acknowledged worldwide”. Where did this factoid come from? A YouGov poll? Wikipedia? I live in Sweden. I just nipped round for a chat with my neighbour (Fredrik) and he definitely failed to acknowledge the balanced and fair coverage of the BBC. I’ll check with Stig-Erik later but I don’t think he’s even heard of the BBC. As the BBC themselves say when adding “analysis” “Many believe that you are talking bollocks”.
“This is acknowledged worldwide” sounds rather like a globalised version of “We are comfortable in our belief that we get everything about right”.
Got to say, wheeling in a 3rd degree of separation proxy purge victim collection was inspired, along with the odd need to make a claim in denial which is basically pointless no matter how true it may be, or felt of value to make.
Get Mitch Benn to put that to music, whack it into Lithuanian, and there’s a real chance that if it was entered into Eurovision it may not come last.
So he’s a supporter of the unelected EU uber-parliament yet makes his living canvassing the public’s opinion on issues which, well, are usually decided by a democratic process.
I’ll go and have a lie down and think about that one.
Not disclosing vital background & context is a key way the BBC skews discussion. After Hamas took charge in Gaza the BBC invited Bevereley Milton Edwards to give her appraisal of how Hamas would be in govt. Her sanguine expectations astonished me until I discovered that, as well as being the ‘lecturer in politics’ of the BBC intro, she co-founded Conflicts Forum, an organisation that pushes for governments to engage with such terror organisations as Hamas & Hezbollah.
I hardly comment, but i did a few searching and wound up here Biased BBC -.
And I actually do have a couple of questions for you if it’s allright. Could it be simply me or does it give the impression like a few of these remarks appear like they are written by brain dead visitors? 😛 And, if you are writing on additional online sites, I would like to follow everything fresh you have to post. Could you make a list of the complete urls of your community pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
Even the automated spam-bot is passing judgement on Scezz & Dotty
E.U referendum.
Compare and contrast, in terms of analytical substance,
the following articles:-
1.) Melanie Phillips:
“Weasel words, broken pledges and U-turns. Why should this new talk of a vote on the EU be any different?”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2167429/Weasel-words-broken-pledges-U-turns-Why-new-talk-vote-EU-different.html#ixzz1zRiIgEJe
2.) BBC-NUJ Nick Robinson:
“What’s the real reason to hold an EU referendum?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18668860
‘Very few, in my experience, simply want to know what the public thinks.’
‘Experience’ being the new ‘wot I fink’, eh, Nick?
No wonder this blog post has gone broadcast only again. Speaking at the nation and telling them what they should be thinking vs. asking. Given the topic, ironic.