I was listening to the BBC report on yesterday in the Lords on Today. It was tucked away around 6.45am but what struck me was the incredible pro-Labour spin the report. Combined with the sneering tones of the presenter, there was little in this report to suggest balance. It’s all part of the pro-Miliband riff that the BBC is playing and it is 24/7.
HOUSE OF LABOUR
Bookmark the permalink.
Has anyone else noticed the “new” Labour communications strategy whereby “MPs” demand this or warn that, and the bBC willingly serve up the headlines?
MPs are not neutral, they are intentionally biased. Today we have “Get a grip on Olympics, MPs urge” (a politically motivated attack on Group Four), We had the spectacle of a one man vendetta against Murdoch by Tom Watson, referred to as as “MP”, not “Labour MP”. Parliamentary committees holding show trials of Murdoch and NI, broadcast non-stop by the BBC. Bankers hauled before “MPs” to be grilled, so maintaining the political narrative “its all the bankers fault”. Cue BBC.
I have no recall of so much airtime being given on national news to the utterings of such tainted source as “MPs”- often Labour MPs on manouvres.
During the forthcoming recess I expect there is a conveyor belt of “Leading (Labour) Think Tank” reports and “Campaigners say” stories awaiting us.
Does anybody remember this number of Parliamentary Committees sticking their arrogant noses into everything when Labour were in power? Or was it just that the BBC chose not to report on them because it might have embarrassed their comrades?
They do make me laugh, though. Jumped-up public purse lifers, most of them, puffed up with their own deluded sense of importance yet have never lifted a finger to contribute to the wealth of the country.
This story concerning non News International journalists interests me. The current version has been edited and I am 99% sure that the original made no reference in its headline to the papers involved. Perhaps someone could let me know if it is possible to locate the original version.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18796837
A related story concerns the photographer Matthew Sprake who gave evidence to Leveson that he had been employer by The People to follow the McCanns. No News International connection so clearly not worthy of comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=matthew%20sprake
You are right and I posted a link to it on a previous thread. the papers involved were not mentioned at all, just that Journalists had been arrested in the Operation Elveden investigation, leaving the casual reader to assume it was Murdoch media.
…And I believe David Gregory reproduced the original information release from the police, which contained no personal details about the arrested journalists or the papers they worked for. The original BBC report ran with what information they had, and once further details emerged they were added to the story.
You can believe that it’s some great conspiracy if you like: but, as always, the truth turns out to be rather more prosaic.
It was tucked away around 6.45am
…in the usual spot for Yesterday in Parliament, then?
what struck me was the incredible pro-Labour spin the report
Well, it was mostly about House of Lords business. It was not about government policy, but whether the announcements should have been made first to a sitting house. Complaints were raised (in inimitable House or Lords style), responses were made – and both were covered.
I’m sure David Vance will be able to explain why this is “pro-Labour spin”. Unless this is another occasion where he makes assertions without having anything to back them up.
Perverse, and devils advocate as usual Scott!
I heard it-it was clearly targetted at one Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint , who I gather is the HSBC bloke deemed culpable for the Mexican drugs cartels getting thei money laundered over there.
Green was not in the Lords-which allowed the hideous Lord Foulkes(Labour toadie and Mick Martins bag carrier and ermine ironer) to make political points about Green( a Tory).
The Today programme gave us Foulkes and Foulkes again…and I clearly got the BBCs direction of travel.
That you didn`t ,Scott ,speaks volumes for your cloth ear…deliberately obtuse as well.
That Foulkes wasn`t given any context…and Baroness Royall got her quotes without any correction from the Speaker or any Tory as far as I could tell…would indicate systematic sustained bias and nit-picking.
Pro-Labour spin 24/7-you know it as much as I do.
Why no mention of Obamas role in the selfsame drugs scandals in Mexico…Operation Fast and Furious.
Why were both Israeli victims in Bulgaria…and terrorist suspects in London only described as people…not Israeli or Pakistani etc?
No-don`t reply Scott-we all know, but you`ll never address such issues…see you next month!
A report on the previous day’s activities in Parliament reports on what was said in Parliament. If somebody isn’t there, it can hardly report on what they didn’t say, can it?
Baroness Royall got her quotes without any correction from the Speaker or any Tory as far as I could tell
What, despite the report including responses from the Government front bench, the Lords equivalent of the Speaker and a clerk of the House?
That’s hardly “no response”.
Why no mention of Obamas role in the selfsame drugs scandals in Mexico…Operation Fast and Furious.
Funnily enough, it’s not the responsibility of Yesterday in Parliament to respond to whatever Fox News have regurgitated to their undemanding, politically illiterate flock…
I agree with the point made about ‘MPs’ without reference to their party. To be honest that has gone on for a long time but that doesnt excuse the underhandness of it. There is another example with the quotes from the (Labour) MP who runs the committee who look at road deaths. They are up, marginally, but we are still the safest country in Europe in which to drive (unmentioned). Que however for sniping by the MP about ‘govt cuts’ and against the 80mph motorway limit (the safest type of roads).
To be honest, do we need to pull together a forensic exercise on this (it might need to be funded) to go back through web postings and radio / TV broadcasts and analyse some simple quantifiable propositions about the ‘balance’ of reporting. Tie it to the BBC Charter and analyse the bias in non-debatable terms. Take a years’ TV / radio / web output and analyse the language used, the balance / time given to party views, the level of ‘aggression / intimation’ in the interviewers body and physical language – are they implying disbelief etc. ?
If this debate is to move on, I think we need to propose a set of standards on which to assess the BBC output that tie to its Charter and ‘prove’ their bias.
The point made re the committees is a good one too ; it gives opposition MPs air time – was it run at the same level in 2009/2010 to give Conservative MPs the same ?
The 05:30 news headline choice itself is usually pretty dodgy … God knows what goes out on the World Service … but always & absolutely to be avoided is anything touching on immigrant crime levels – now sky high …
More Beeboid censorship.
BBC-EU-Labour does NOT lead on this report of IMF on E.U:
“IMF loses all faith in the euro project”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100018882/imf-loses-all-faith-in-the-euro-project/
Instead, BBC-NUJ only has space for this on IMF:
“IMF: UK should slow budget cuts if growth does not return”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18908882
The Toady show is full of cucking funts
Are you Tohn Jerry?