From Guido Fawkes
‘The days of Big Media’s gatekeepers deciding what is news and what is not news, are long gone. We decide tomorrow’s news…
And so it turned out, as the “Guardian of Beeb“ story not only made the Sun but was also the subject of blogs by Dan Hannan at the Telegraph and Roy Greenslade over at the Guardian themselves. Greenslade asked “Why is that so surprising?” It wasn’t to Guido.
Greenslade was on the money when he wrote
“There are so many similarities between the BBC and the Guardian aside from assumptions about politics. Both organisations are free of commercial ownership, with the corporation funded by licence and the paper owned by a trust.”
Which isn’t an unbridled good. It imbues both with an anti-profit ethos bordering on anti-business as well as anti-capitalist. The shared mindset of the two organisations is most clearly visible in their coverage of America and Israel. The Republican party is extremist because they don’t subscribe to left-wing nostrums and Israel is the primary cause of trouble in the Middle-East. These are axiomatic truths for the Guardian-BBC axis of “progressiveness”…’
The BBC has survived for a long time shrugging off numerous attacks and complaints, relying on its historic reputation for fairness, balance, truth and accuracy to maintain its position and the support of politicans and others well placed, and inclined, to shield it from destruction.
That reputation is jealously guarded, the BBC willing to fight through every court in the land and at huge cost to hide wrong doing by its journalists. It has become a massive operation, one of the most powerful and influential media machines in the world. It has given itself a wide remit and there is not an area of the media in which it does not have a major presence. Despite being a publicly funded and supposedly independent organisation it also has the enormously successful BBC Worldwide which generates a revenue of over £1.5 billion…..
‘BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC, a fast-growing media and entertainment company designed to maximize BBC profits by creating, acquiring and developing media content and media brands around the world. It has annual revenue of approximately $1.5 billion.’
It is a monolithic and overpowering presence in the media world, able to crush competitors at will…not only able to but willing to use that power….in conjunction with the Labour Party and the Guardian it of course launched an assault on Rupert Murdoch’s own media empire, News International…the BBC’s commercial and ideological rival or opponent.
Its web presence essentially puts out of business many other news providers who rely on advertising for their revenues, its local radio and popular culture stations such as Radio 1 and 2 all compete against commercial stations who of course are at an enormous disadvantage in not having the ability to force people to pay for their services whether they use them or not.
It publishes a large number of magazines, again massively distorting the market, it provides educational services to schools and the Open University, it of course provides services to climate change propagandists and works in conjunction with them…as at the CMEB….and the University of East Anglia.
The BBC is an ever growing monstrous presence that has far outgrown its basic remit to entertain, educate and inform. It uses its size and power to influence Party politics, it manipulates the news and what appears as ‘stories’ so that the Public are given versions of those stories that are designed to influence their thinking and change their perceptions rather than allowing them to make up their own minds.
The BBC has become something that is at complete odds with everything it was set up to defend…democracy, liberty, freedom of thought and speech, an exposition of truth, accuracy and honest reporting.
It is too big, too corrupt politically, too arrogant and too unaccountable.
It is no longer fit for purpose.
It is time for a change. A renewed ethos, a renewed thirst for truth, integrity and genuine journalism, a renewed urge not to be the biggest and best but just to be the best.
If a man named George Entwistle can’t get back to basics who can?
“in conjunction with the Labour Party and the Guardian it of course launched an assault on Rupert Murdoch’s own media empire, News International…the BBC’s commercial and ideological rival or opponent.”
Surely some mistake here. It was Murdoch’s son who launched the attack on the BBC in 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2009/aug/28/edinburghtvfestival-jamesmurdoch). TThis resulted in substantial BBC budget cuts when the Coalition took power. Murdoch is hardly some poor defenceless gent.
In fact I’d use your own words to describe News International as has been recently exposed:
News International has become something that is at complete odds with everything it was set up to defend…democracy, liberty, freedom of thought and speech, an exposition of truth, accuracy and honest reporting.
It is too big, too corrupt politically, too arrogant and too unaccountable.
It is no longer fit for purpose.
Which is why Murdoch is on the ropes and not the BBC.
Really? Murdoch’s fault?
‘There will be no increase to the TV licence fee in 2011 after the BBC Trust offered to freeze it at £145.50 for the next two years.
Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt said he was “pleased” with the proposal and that the government had decided to implement it next year.
In a statement, the Trust cited “the exceptional pressures that the current economic climate is placing on licence fee payers” as the cue for the move.’
‘The government has accepted the BBC Trust’s offer to freeze the TV licence fee – but only for one year. Why not longer, when the BBC Trust was offering a two-year freeze?’
And what did Blair do to the BBC?
‘New Labour takes revenge on BBC
The recent announcement by BBC Director General Mark Thompson of some 2,500 job cuts and 1,800 redundancies at the BBC is a massive attack not just on broadcasting workers but also on public service broadcasting itself.
Finally, the Government has yet to forgive the BBC for the latter’s perceived criticism of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and it continues to punish the BBC – both in political and economic terms. ‘
And News International is set up to make money not ideological points.
Sounds like Big Brother’s excuse for taking over society, complete with Murdoch cast as Emmanuel Goldstein. Had your two minute hate yet?
Murdoch fools people in public relations and therefore politics, that he is a king maker, but it was Blair fooling the people into thinking he was the heir to Thatcher that made Murdoch switch to Labour, because he though that would sell the most newspapers. Murdoch goes with the flow, that is his unique strategy for selling newspapers. Murdoch is morally superior to the BBC because people voluntarily buy his newspapers. You can go to prison for not paying the compulsory subscription fee, which has not even been cut by the coalition, a fee freeze is not a cut. If we lived in a free society it would be cut to zero. I do not read Murdoch newspapers, I read the Mail because it has more content than the Express or Telegraph, but I also buy the Express occasionally. I would like these three publications to have a radio station or TV station as well as Murdoch, or preferably a TV channel with Libertarian free speech with the principles of Voltaire, not the principles of the BBC, which are to censor the truth if it is Politically Incorrect and therefore nasty and right wing, I would prefer to live in a country where Journalists hack the phones of politicians, than in a country were the politicians supported by the BBC, hack the phones of the people. The BBC is a weird organisation, what other organisations other than the Labour party and Guardian newspaper, do you have a dominance of middle-class Labour voters, voting the same way as people in the inner-cities. I am a Mensa member, the only middle class Labour supporters I come across seem to have an inbuilt inferiority complex, that drives them to blame everyone else for the failure of themselves and their friends, friends who are only friends because they do not challenge their selfish inferiority complex. That is why the left continue to push progressive education, because it creates failure, failure produces victims, and the left need victims, because victims vote Labour. JAH is obviously a Labour voting BBC employee. The reason why Murdoch could get into Mensa and you could not is (1) News International was set up to sell newspapers. (2) It is too big because it sells a lot of newspapers. (3) it is perceived as too corrupt politically by the elite because it keeps switching political parties, depending on which party Murdoch thinks will sell the most newspapers. (4) appearing too be arrogant against the elite sells newspapers. (5) he is accountable to the people who buy the newspapers, otherwise they may not buy his newspapers. (6) only fit for purpose if he sells a lot of newspapers.
Murdoch goes with the flow, that is his unique strategy for selling newspapers.
Richard, this is an interesting point. It’s 180 degrees away from how the BBC, and the Left in general, portray what he does, so I find the underlying meaning fascinating.
Giving people what they want is not the same thing as telling people what to think. Even if nasty Uncle Rupert has forced a specific political perspective upon the media outlets he owns, he can only tell the people what to think so much for so long. At some point the majority of the people are going to seek out what they actually want. Otherwise both the Guardian and MSNBC would have a much, much larger audience.
It’s not so much telling people what to think but giving them correct information to form an opinion.
Murdoch gives out only the info that he requires people to have to form the opinions he thinks will chime with the current mood.
It is no mistake that despite Labour failing at everything it did from 1997 to 2010 they were re-elected twice. Why? Because despite there been many voices out there screaming about the coming disaster(s) the press kept it quiet. When both Murdoch and the BBC are spinning the same lies there is no hope that the public will ever learn the truth and act on it.
That’s why the BBC is in such a snit now with Murdoch, because he broke ranks. If there is one thing the left hate more than the right it is a ‘splitter’.
hey, mate, they invented the paragraph for a very good.
Reason,
hey, Richard Pinder, mate, they invented the paragraph for a very good.
Reason.
I learnt English at a state comprehensive school. Did not like it, but managed to go on to higher education, to learn about Maths, Physics, Astronomy, History and Geography. So what is a paragraph.
Paragraph?
A disabled German female tennis player?
IGMC. 🙂
I agree with JAH that it was a shocking (and possibly illegal) example of freedom of speech for James Murdoch to suggest that the BBC is “unaccountable” and “out of control”. Where does James Murdoch get the idea that a near monopoly of television and radio political reporting by a broadcaster that supports the Labour Party is a threat to democracy?
Only a swivel eyed Tory lunatic would dispute that the BBC report that Rupert Murdoch is a Satanist was fair and balanced.
Without money extracted from the taxpayer how else is the Public Sector going to put its case that competition for customers is inherently unfair?
When was the last time The Sun held the Conservative Party to account for their intention (as revealed in The Independent last week) of sending children up chimneys? Murdoch unwittingly reveals his hand when he says that
“The right path is all about trusting and empowering consumers. It is about embracing private enterprise and profit as a driver of investment, innovation and independence, and reducing the activities of the State in our sector.”
He fails to mention that all profit is evil? The free press in this country is an affront to totalitarianism! It should be regulated out of existence.
James Murdoch may find the scale and scope of the BBC’s chilling, but how else but via a universal hypothecated tax is the BBC going to choke off competition by all other providers?
His claim that it is essential for the future of independent journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value makes the quite unwarranted liberal assumption that plurality is desirable.
If we want fair and balanced reporting of how marvelously cost effective our local council are do we not all turn to our free local authority newspapers? Did not the editor of the Guardian declare that it would be rational for local newspapers should be funded by the State?
This is the inspirational message of George Orwell. Only through uniformity and central direction comes strength.
Let us all join JAH and salute tax funded dominance of the independent and fair Labour Party supporting BBC.
Excellent !!!!
‘ Don’t aspire to give the public what it wants, tell it what it wants and if that means omitting facts, misreporting truths and downright lying, then it is in the public interest.’
‘Which is why Murdoch is on the ropes and not the BBC’.
On the ropes from…… whom exactly? The BBC/Guardian? Please explain how Murdoch’s media empire ‘has become something that is at complete odds with everything it was set up to defend’. Set up by whom, exactly, and under what regulation? Are you unable to tell the difference between a taxpayer-funded, allegedly impartial public service broadcaster and one that is completely independent? Are you suggesting the BBC and Murdoch are on some kind of par? Are you suggesting any privately-funded media organisation should abide by the same rules as, theoretically, the BBC does?
News International would certainty be on the ropes if it was around in the time of the creation of National Socialist Germany or Soviet Socialist Russia. Read some George Orwell novels for an idea why, and also why Murdoch does not sell any newspapers in North Korea. If the BBC/Guardianistas have their way, Lord Leveson will make sure that, as in North Korea, only the British government will hack your phone, thanks to the Mini Dowler effect.
and who’s Mini Dowler?
You know full well Uncle Bup that he means Milly Dowler, the murdered girl about whom The Guardian made up the story about her phone messages being deleted by a News of the World investigator.
The BBC repeated this claim about 62 and a half million times (not the bit about The Guardian making it up obviously) as part of their campaign against Rupert Murdoch.
Needless to add journalists from The Guardian were also involved in phone hacking, but on public interest grounds global warming sceptics have no right to privacy because (as you would know if you have ever watched or listened to the BBC) they are dangerous thought criminals.
The Guardian was always first with the news about which NoW hack would be fingered next, thanks to its *cough* special relationship with the Met.
The CPS felt that it wasn’t in the *cough* public interest for these Guardian bribes to bent coppers to be exposed in the courts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18401624
Somebody should also ask the head News
Beeboid if there’s any significance to the fact that Beeboids make up nearly 25% of Guardian takers. Do any other papers have similar demographic champions?
I think you’ve misunderstood the numbers David and confused yearly sales with circulation.
Annual Figures?
59,829 copies of the Graun From the FOI reply.
22,000 beeboids.
Assuming that 10% of beeboids take the Graun (very low IMHO) then the annual purchase per beeboid is 27.195.
Does not compute.
The figures are for 10 months so over 70,000 copies in a year: 1380 per week.
The point is the circulations:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=49500&c=1
National newspaper daily sales May 2012:
The Sun : 2,611,838
Daily Mail : 1,931,135
Daily Mirror : 1,080,544
Daily Express : 597,885
The Daily Telegraph : 575,132
The Times : 395,752
The Guardian : 214,703
The Independent : 93,983
The point is that the Guardian has almost the lowest circulation of any newspaper and yet the BBC in a year still get 8500, 10900 and 14300 more than the Times, Telegraph and Mail respectively. (independent even worse) , the BBC ‘taste’ is totally opposite of the national ‘opinion’….and, as my comment on the Commentator says, the BBC does 70% plus of its advertising in one of the least read papers: this is probably why the bias is getting more blatant: the “genetic pool” within the BBC is getting more concentrated.
So overall the BBC purchases more papers from the right of the spectrum than the left. Which doesn’t really support your position.
As for the Guardian itself. Well it’s no surprise the paper with the best media section is the one people in the media read. (We do like reading about ourselves) And of course it has a big media jobs section too. Similarly you’ll also find the BBC purchases rather more copies of Broadcast than is average in the UK too.
But it’s certainly not 25% of all copies of the Guardian. Back of the envelope calculation shows it’s around 0.09%
Personally I think a full set of newspapers is still useful for newsrooms, libraries and the offices of senior managers. But the days of the BBC paying newspaper bills for hacks are long gone so I am surprised other staff seem to be getting papers bought for them. I think there are clearly opportunities for savings here.
There are lies, dammed lies and then statistics, and this Guardian debate is starting to go round in circles.
The facts are however that:-
1. In the opinion of the BBC it is the best paper. Thank you David Gregory – BBC, I think that is called bias by the way.
2. It (the Guardian) receives an unfair proportion of the state advertising revenue for jobs, including the BBC. Would not the highest circulation papers give better results and are they (the Guardian) the best bidder on price? If not it is a waste of tax payer/licence fee cash which should be stopped. The other point that arises is that the selection of employees comes only from a particular section (or should I say sect) of society. A self-perpetuating unrepresentative part of society of course.
3. That it is generally the first paper on the list when the BBC do a paper headlines review. Spot the Mail if you can!
4. When the Salford Palace of Truth becomes a self-supporting commercial enterprise we may start to believe in its integrity?
a full set of newspapers is still useful for newsrooms
Can’t argue with that, though post-invitation equine beverage preference metaphors still rather come into play.
The net result of this fun little distraction will, I suspect, merely see the following pop up soon in the Sits Vac on the Graun media pages:
—
Wanted – Quality Broadsheet Newspaper ironer and scummy right wing rag and/or Non Mirror tabloid crumpler.
Skills required will be to ensure perfect creases to those from key publications borne on velvet cushions into the edit suites. Once this role has been fulfilled, the rest of the day will be spent making the rest of those papers delivered look at least as if someone has had a flick through.
£70,000 + generous index linked + perks + London Weighting + Salford to and fro-ing. No time-wasters. Or DM readers (swivel-eyed or not).
And as the subject has come up, and pure numbers are being now openly discussed, I too would be interested in a breakdown of number of times which publication (or its employees) has featured across the BBC ‘news’ and ‘views’ estate in quote or comment, and in what context, so an accurate assessment of how well representation of said news and views actually speaks at the nation, and which for the niche views of a small, unaccountable minority, by ABC’s.
These figures do, I trust exist? Not back of envelope. But cross-indexed archive-wise per any outfit keen on keeping lists to ensure ‘balance’. Or are they for some reason behind an exemption of some sort for no clear reason? Or something not under remit. Or ‘about right’ before a closing and/or moving on?
That’s a, pretty simple, question I’d like to ask of a well-resourced, powerful media monopoly entity or its representatives with which none should have an issue being held to account upon, surely?
‘That it is generally the first paper on the list when the BBC do a paper headlines review. Spot the Mail if you can!’
And the Guardian hacks are grossly over-represented on BBC news and current affairs programmes – an even bigger example of bias given the paper’s tiny circulation figures.
In the opinion of the BBC it is the best paper
No. What he said was “the best media section”. I work for neither the BBC nor the Guardian, but you won’t find anyone in the media who disagrees with that. (Everyone also reads Street of Shame in Private Eye)
Would not the highest circulation papers give better results
No because if you want to recruit people you go to where your target audience are. If you want to recruit hacks or public sector employees you go to the Guardian. Time was everybody in the media — from the Morning Star to the Daily Star — read the Monday Graun.
If you want to recruit executives you go the Sunday Times. If you want to recruit teachers you go to the TES.
At least you used to — frankly their job sections are all shrinking to nothing.
The Telegraph attempted a media section for a while, but it was flop and they canned it.
It’s the same reason you find a higher percentage of solicitors and lawyers take The Times. It has the best legal pages.
I find it bizarre the argument that only those who read The Guardian out of choice can find the media jobs section. I wouldn’t be much of a journalist if I hadn’t worked out for myself that breaking into the industry would involve reading up on it. Getting the Guardian for the Media section on a Monday was just something media workers did. Stay across the industry and keep an eye on jobs.
As you’ve dropped back in, on the subject of arguments, bizarre, cherry-picked or ignored, any chance of feedback on the % of Graun staff and/or quotes chosen to front BBC headlines and discussion pieces, given an ABC representation that hardly seems as representative as others with, one is sure you will agree, equally strong focusses in other areas beyond that of ‘media’.
However, since newspapers serve as a primary source the assumption that such-and-such a newspaper will take this position may-or-may not be bourne out. To defend the BBC in such a way means you confirm they suffer from ideological preconceptions, and lack the intellectual rigor to adresss them.
Morover, to assure the public that the BBC is not biased it should at least make the pretence of buying all major newspapers in similar quantities. It is important for them as journalists – never mind for us as the poll taxed public – that through a full reading of all the papers, they can point to differences within your conceived ‘ideological specturm’ and even surprising similarities between newspapers which you might have assumed to be idological opponents.
Also with reference to the Guardian media section then it does say a lot about the quality of all BBC journalists that they are desperate ‘read about themselves’ which strongly suggests they see themselves as centre-stage ‘C’ list celebrities. And this ignores the ideoligical drivel of the Media Guardian section which should be anathama to any fair-minded person.
David, your first paragraph is a non sequitur. The rest I agree with, especially a range of papers for the news rooms. However my point still stands otherwise all papers would be bought in the same ratio.
not a non sequitur but irrelevant, sorry.
Since David Gregory is a BBC employee I think it can be taken as read (so to speak) that the anti-Semitic Guardian is his paper of choice (his admission confirms this assumption) the point he fails to address is what does that tell us about the BBC?
That all the best journalists just happen to be Labour supporting Statists who believe that redistributing wealth via the tax system into the pockets of Middle class Leftists (such as David Gregory) is social justice?
I have never knowingly read or listened to David Gregory’s work on the BBC, but if his disingenuous efforts here are anything to go by I would not trust him to give me a reliable account of the back of his hand.
Remind me again why I am forced to pay his wages – because he thinks he deserves it? He does not even try to address the issue of bias on the BBC.
It is a case of who is kidding who – he pretends that he and his chums at the the BBC are not biased to the Left, and we pretend that his defence of the BBC is wholly unconnected to the fact that the taxes which are extracted to pay for the State sector it is how he earns his living.
Mr.Gregory… You stated.. `Well it’s no surprise the paper with the best media section is the one people in the media read. (We do like reading about ourselves)` …. I strongly disagree with such a statement asjust last year on Halloween my next door nieghbour was a victim of what is known as the `shit parcel` prank… I clearly remember him telling me that after he had stamped out the flames he noticed that amongst the warm sticky exrement parts of the wrapping was still visible….. It was a masthead for a copy of the N.O.T.W. …. How ironic that although it was wrapped around about a pound of shit, it still somehow in my mind held more substance within its pages than your favourite read!!!
Best Media Section: I thought the Sun has the best Media section, because that is why I do not buy it, I am not interested in the private lives of BBC personalities. I did not know the Guardian had such a low circulation, but it shows why the BBC and the Guardian are appearing to be more and more an inbred, out of touch group of people as regards the increasingly odd Guardianista mindset. In contrast to the enclosed world of BBC, I find that, despite the obviously biased Russia Today, they are far more likely to take a risk by giving people a free and direct interview. Unlike the BBC, where you mainly get the employees giving each other their opinion, and an ever increasingly biased opinion. Especially the weirdly biased “Enemies of Science” opinion and recommendation for the BBC to be ever more biased against scientists who do not agree with the Guardianista mindset on Climate Change. In contrast, there has been an explosion in support for the so called sceptics from debate in Astronomy at Mensa and at Oxford, especially due to the CERN CLOUD experiment and the Unified Theory of Climate paper.
All the BBC needs is a scientific investigative journalist to compare notes between the effects of low energy Cosmic Rays in the rebuttal on warmist websites, and the higher energy Cosmic Rays in the work of Kirkby, Svensmark and Shaviv, and then ask what the Unified Theory of Climate can tell the BBC about the calibration of CO2 warming at the Earths surface, and to follow up this, the BBC could employ the worlds best female journalist, Donna Laframboise, to investigate how political interference in Climate Science by the IPCC, has produced this almighty, insane, politically induced cock-up.
Very informative post, Richard, and one that exposes yet again the fraudulent position the BBC holds on this issue. One for David Gregory to get his teeth into and give a BBC response, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I don’t entirely agree with your ‘cock-up’ theory. Yes, there are some useful idiots in the political sphere who have been seduced by the propaganda, but increasingly the likes of Donna Framboise have exposed the AGW movement for what it is – a front for the environmentalists to impose their eco-fascist agenda on every human being on the planet (ably assisted by the UN, of course).
You’re right, DG, I have misunderstood the figures. Now that I do understand them, I see that the Guardian sells you 2.7 copies per Beeboid (using Number 7’s estimate of 20K) over that 10 month period, while only 2.33 per of the Times, and 1.95 per head of the Sun, and so on.
I’d still be more interested in finding the real figures for actual departments. It’s possible there are situations similar to Jane Bradley’s.
So over a year the BBC pays for an extra 0.3 of a Guardian for each member of staff? As near as 0 as to make no odds? And certainly less than the number of papers from the right it buys for staff. I have to say it’s the least convincing smoking gun ever.
Apart from Wild’s contribution. Which may be the funniest thing anyone has every written about me on B-BBC.
(PS Dave, I am drinking from my Sarah Palin mug even as we type, is there a Paul Ryan one too?!)
David G, I accept that this appears to be a tempest in a tea pot. As I’ve said twice now, the only real numbers that would prove anything would be who reads what in which departments. These overall figures don’t tell us much of anything except that the BBC takes the Guardian in a much larger proportion than the rest of the country.
The fact that more non-Left papers are purchased doesn’t convince me of much of anything, as those papers don’t feature anywhere near those numbers when headlines are read out on air. I’d be more convinced if there was a book or article by an ex-Beeboid who said he lost count of how many times a producer handed him a copy of the Times or Telegraph and said, “It’s all in there.”
As for a Ryan mug, it’s a bit too early for anything good. Saturday Night Live hasn’t done him yet, and Hollywood and their media buddies haven’t figured out yet how to lampoon him. Give them time.
But surely you don’t see him as anything like the extremist, frightening, shockingly stupid, horror show of a human being that is – according to your colleagues – Sarah Palin.
In terms of numbers it works out at 29 copies of the Guardian a day. In an organisation of around 20,000 people.
As for Mr Ryan I note one of the most popular search terms for him on the web is “Paul Ryan shirtless”. You don’t get that with Jo Biden. Thank goodness!
Ah, of course! Preferably with a big ol’ gun, right? 😉
Now, as the number-crunching still persists, about the question of how the Graun and its employees keep getting top slots to review, comment and ‘analyse’ somewhat in excess of their paper’s ‘speaking for the nation’ ABC ratings?
Or is this a ‘questions not getting answered’ deal as some powers don’t ‘do’ being held to account?
HASAN’S BEARD: not INBBC news.
As an example of a current new item which INBBC definitely does not want to run:
“Fort Hood jihad mass murderer’s trial halted over judge’s threat to shave him forcibly”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/fort-hood-jihad-mass-murderers-trial-halted-over-judges-threat-to-shave-him-forcibly.html
Reluctantly, better late than never, INBBC has:
“Beard row halts trial of Major accused of murder”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19279983
Why is this even worth the BBC’s time? There’s so much out there that’s more important that they’re ignoring.
Oh David… such wit… touche!
Much appreciated:)
Well, maybe not by everyone.
Planet Earth to JAH
Thank you for laying out so concisely – every prejudice, every half tuth and non-truth, the complete reversal of truth – to explain why the Left is obsessed with Murdoch. Now run along boy.
BBC-NUJ takes on role of Press Officer for Ecuador Government:
“Julian Assange: UK ‘threat’ to arrest Wikileaks founder”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623
I may not understand the diplomatic niceties of all this, but the way I understand the situation is as follows:
1. Unlike the bonkers claims from the Ecuadorian Embassy, there is no way for the UK to invade the embassy without it being considered an act of war. So that won’t happen.
2. The UK could tell them to leave and then close the embassy down. But all Ecuadorian diplomats would be given Diplomatic Immunity so they would be untouchable.
3. Assange may be given Diplomatic Status by the Ecuadorians but he would have to go to Ecuador with them. Otherwise they would have to hand him over to the relevant British authorities.
The Ecuadorians are not coming out of this too well to be honest. Assange is a criminal and needs to be tried and (presuming that he is found guilty) sent down for a long time. But the BBC will support this left-wing rapist.
I also have no idea as to the particularities of the system, but it strikes me that a nation can call someone a diplomat, but doesn’t the host country for a foreign embassy have the right NOT to accept credentials ?…. and so, if Julian Assange tries that route, and he has not been accorded diplomatic status, and has no immunity, the minute he steps off the embassy grounds, he is still a fugitive from justice in this country, and subject to immediate arrest. Perhaps someone with better knowledge can elucidate.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Assange had been framed for these alleged crimes – his real crime being wikileaks.
I am reminded of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, still living in legal limbo. Immediately prior to the sex allegations – and his consequent replacement as IMF chief – he had called for the dollar to be replaced as the world’s reserve currency.
This kind of background plot cuts no ice with the beeb because both Assange and Strauss-Kahn are blokes, therefore guilty as charged.
The fact that Strauss-Kahn is a yiddo doesn’t help, either, as per beeb antisemitism.
‘invade the embassy’
Good comments.
In my ‘to be fair’ mode, all the MSM (well, SKY) seem to be keen on the ‘storming’ meme without, as such, bothering with the realities or accuracy.
Yup. My understanding of the information provided so far is that the government thinks it can legally remove the embassy status from the building, rendering it a normal building in the UK, and then walk in and arrest Assange in the normal manner. That would categorically NOT involve ‘storming an embassy’. They could then re-instate the position of the embassy. Job done.
Now, whether that would be legally challenged or not, does not matter – the UK has not ‘threatened to storm an embassy’, no matter what the Ecuadorian’s claim.
‘the UK has not ‘threatened to storm an embassy’, no matter what the Ecuadorian’s claim.’
Or as claimed by elements of the UK MSM, which makes you wonder what various folks’ priorities are.
Anyway, seems he’s now been granted asylum, so I guess that makes him the Ecuadorians’ problem now, though I guess macho diplo BS means many sabres get rattled. Frankly I’d just leave him there. Saves further bills.
Can’t help but feel the FO could have steered the PR a bit more cleverly.
As the Falklands rattles on, and with Prez Kirchner still savouring her country’s awesome showing at the Olympics, especially after her pre-show stunts worked soooo well, it should have been evident that some tinpot mates of hers would play the ‘colonial oppressor’ card…. and lo… it came to pass.
Still must be nice for some on the BBC’s misunderstood list to know there’s a safe haven if ‘no doesn’t really have to mean no’.
If unclear on how the sisters think this one is ‘different’ to those that get both barrels usually. And also the wimminolk, of course.
All rather smacks of double standards really.
It is the fact that the BBC are sympathetic to someone wanted for trial for a sexual assault – one only had to hear the way that Fiona Bruce read the news on the 10pm news last night. (the intonation rather than what was said).
And there are dozens more in support of him. I would ask the question “Do the left support all rapists equally, or are some rapists more equal than others?”
JAH you could try enlightening us on that one please.
Although they were also supporting the child groomers in Rochdale recently too, so I suppose for once there is some consistency in the Left’s position.
Just seen some old git, an Assange supporter, who was given free range to lie on the BBC without any sort of robust questioning you might expect if it had been a supporter of justice (ie against Assange). The last thing he said was eye-watering in its dishonesty “He [Assange] is a very brave man!” If he’s that brave why did he not go back to Sweden to face the trial that’s awaiting him! He’s a coward, lie most lefties seem to be.
Speaking of which, where are those brave lefties, like Pah, answering my question about the double standards the Left apply to different rapists?
Is this unusual? BBC have allowed comments to their Assange story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492
Can’t help but notice that the ‘Editors’ picks’ in favour of our white-haired Aussie visitor’s antics tend to have a common theme: Anti-US sentiment. Go for it lefties….let’s all play stick-it-to-the-Man !
It rather tickles my irony bone that one of the top ‘Editor’s Picks’ is this one…
1241. Mike Chambers
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Seems even controllers of the edit suite are in turn subject to unseen control.
Creepy much?
So they picked a vicious or somehow offensive comment, which a reader subsequently flagged, forcing them to remove it later? Funny.
The “old git” you’re referring to is, I think, Vaughn Smith who was given a very deferential ride on BBC News 24. It’s heartwarming to know that Smith faces a loss of £20,000 because Assange skipped bail.
Speaking of which, where are those brave lefties, like Pah
WTF? I demand a retraction!
Otherwise it’s handbags at dawn!
Implicit in BBC-NUJ ‘reporting’:
1.) anti-UK Coalition Government;
2.) anti -NATO;
3.) pro-irresponsible security activity against the West which puts lives at risk.
we, of course, not meaning we the people, but we the bloggocracy
Being co-protagonist, sort of, I sought out the Graun’s ‘take’ on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/14/bbc-guardian-most-popular-newspaper
What was interesting was the recommends for various comments, with this one looking pretty high up in the 600+ mark… from the CiF crowd:
‘Cockneytranslator
14 August 2012 6:19PM
But seriously, I’m not convinced that The Guardian is in tune with its readership. This is a newspaper which lost £75.6 million last year, after all.
Most Guardian readers I know are ex-Guardian readers now. I’m on another board at the moment, filled with journalists. One has just described every issue of The Guardian as “a daily 100,000 word suicide note”.
It is pretty well known that there was open revolt against Comment is Free by the news staff, in particular over Syria and the love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood (which appears to be continuing). So even The Guardian’s own staff is falling out of love with your editorial line.
Unfortunately this “sense of duty to the reader and the community” has kind of mutated into “being at the vanguard of the revolution”, for some of this newspaper’s more prominent activists/journalists. Well, let’s see if that works as a business model.
My bet is: it doesn’t.
Or, this, less ideological analysis…
‘Openline
14 August 2012 6:24PM
Two odd things:
(1) Why is the BBC, corporately, buying so many papers? That works out at over 330 print copies of the Grauniad per day. OK, the BBC’s a big news organisation, but 330 copies? What’s the business need?
(2) Why different numbers? You’d expect a news organisation to buy all the papers, to compare and contrast, but different numbers – going on twice as many Guardians as FTs – looks like personal preferences instead of work needs. Quite a lot of perks for quite a lot of people. Let them buy their own.
So beyond the issue of the actual numbers, there is still the perception of illegitimate representation, especially given the Graun undoubtedly has a disproportionate level at the BBC which, as we are often told, in turn ‘speaks for the nation’.
So, as far as I am concerned, a lot still isn’t adding up that questions need answering on, at least if such questions are not viewed as good reason to close out comment threads or retreat to the bunker until its safe again.
I leave the last word to the same Graun reader above in reply to a Graun trolling cherry vulture, which also seems to have garnered a fair level of support from the overall readership (of which I am one, which is why I find ‘DM-reader’ to ‘Graun-reader’ swipes by some who should know better self-defeatingly daft on simply a logical basis if not associated with a proper argument on the argument ball vs. ad hom person distractions):
Cockneytranslator
14 August 2012 6:35PM
Response to GotTheSwagger, 14 August 2012 6:25PM
“Rupert!
How is the wife? Sorry to hear about NoW.”
Yes, that’s very funny. But I’m a long standing Labour Party member and activist, was my Branch Secretary, worked at a human rights pressure group, and bought The Guardian faithfully until the middle of the last decade.
You might think that it is very funny to suggest that I’m Rupert Murdoch. It is pretty much what The Guardian does, when it ignores the increasing horror of its readers, even as its circulation drops.
But you can’t run a business on pissing off the people who used to give you money. Murdoch found that out in Liverpool.
The only thing I’d add in caveat is to this bit:
‘you can’t run a business on pissing off the people who used to give you money.
OK, it’s not ‘running a business’, but £4Bpa compelled funding, even from those well pissed off, does let you run, and run, and run….
Hi!
I wished to submit a story to you about another Beeb-related foible.
Unfortunately your “Contact-us” page is broken, and I was unable to pass along my information(It won’t let me send).
Is there any other way to do so?
Do you accept outsiders’ tips?
Most Thankful, and beholden for your attention!
Sorry, apparently there’s a folder missing or corrupted. But that’s a server issue, for which I have no access.
In the meantime, you can contact David Vance via his A Tangled Web blog.
“A Shooting and Media Silence”
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/a-shooting-and-media-silence/2/
Not for BBC-NUJ/Guardian:-
“Swedish rape-jihad: ‘police reported an average of five rapes a day in Stockholm'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/swedish-rape-jihad-police-reported-an-average-of-five-rapes-a-day-in-stockholm.html
The average actually went down when Assange escaped to the UK. 🙂
BBC-NUJ & SOUTH AFRICA massacre of blacks on blacks.
In the following report (which understates the numbers murdered)
BBC-NUJ does NOT mention the fact that virtually all the people involvesd, from two trade unions and from the police are BLACK.
BUT, in the last paragraph of its ‘report’ , BBC-NUJ manages to insert this anti-apartheid moralising conclusion:
“The violence has shocked South Africans, with many finding the scenes reminiscent of how the apartheid regime dealt with protests, the BBC’s Milton Nkosi* in Johannesburg reports.”
(*Ethnicity not mentioned.)
“Deadly clashes at South Africa’s Lonmin Marikana mine”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19286654
‘Sky News’:
“South Africa Police Open Fire On Miners.
“At least 18 people have been killed after police in South Africa opened fire on striking workers at a platinum mine, it is reported.”
http://news.sky.com/story/973409/south-africa-police-open-fire-on-miners
I wonder how all these murders of black miners in South Africa, in the current era of the ANC Government, compare in the BBC-NUJ political mentality with the confrontations between miners and police in the days of the Thatcher Government?
This ‘refugee’ story censored by BBC-NUJ, on political grounds.
‘Daily Mail:-
“Jobless refugee mother-of-seven whose family trashed £1.25million Victorian townhouse are to be given ANOTHER free home.
“Manal Mahmoud appeared in court after trashing £1.25m taxpayer-funded home.
“Judge told mother-of-seven she faces jail if children do not behave.
“‘Family from hell’ agree to leave area as council admit ‘legal obligation’ to find them new free home.”
By ALEX HORLOCK.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189249/Jobless-refugee-mother-seven-family-trashed-1-25million-Victorian-townhouse-given-ANOTHER-free-home.html#ixzz23jIhwDxB
“Here’s why Julian Assange is the most annoying and arrogant person in the whole world.”
By Brendan O’Neill .
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100176958/heres-why-julian-assange-is-the-most-annoying-and-arrogant-person-in-the-whole-world/
Islamic EGYPT.
Now if INBBC reported the following, without self-censorship, the Muslim Brotherhood Mursi government might ban INBBC:
‘Jihadwatch’ –
“Muslim ‘Gang’ Torment Christian Copts for Jizya-Money”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/muslim-gang-torment-christian-copts-for-jizya-money.html
Everyone at the INBBC has just closed their eyes to that report, and went stand in the corner, fingers in ears, chanting: “cant hear you, cant hear you!”
Will INBBC run this?:-
“British Muslim convert found with bomb-making manual when he was arrested by Kenyan police with ‘white widow’ fugitive.”
By REBECCA EVANS
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189417/British-Muslim-convert-bomb-making-manual-arrested-Kenyan-police-white-widow-fugitive.html#ixzz23mZFmFar
INBBC and partiality on SYRIA.
Is INBBC prepared to politically ally with people like the following jihadist, while at the same time censor what is going on in Syria?
“British convert to Islam vows to fight to the death on Syrian rebel front line.
“A British Muslim convert from east London is fighting on the front line of the battle for Aleppo after joining rebels in their struggle against Bashar al-Assad’s regime.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9481246/British-convert-to-Islam-vows-to-fight-to-the-death-on-Syrian-rebel-front-line.html
“Are London residents fighting in Syria?
“Sheikh Abu Baseer Al-Tartousi has been photographed in Syria. But what does this London Islamist taking up arms tell us?”
(inc video.)
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1535/are_london_residents_fighting_in_syria_
BBC-NUJ’s political infatuation with ASSANGE.
BBC-NUJ ‘Today’ programme this morning is scheduled to have THREE separate items on him, thus:
a.)
07:09 – 07:15 am –
“Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, who is inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London having been granted asylum. Presenter James Naughtie went to speak to a group of supporters of the Wikileaks founder. Claes Borgstrom, lawyer for the two Swedish women who are making sexual assault complaints against Julian Assange, gives his reaction.”
b.)
08:18 – 08:22 am-
“Julian Assange fears that if he is sent to Sweden it may lead to him being sent on to the US to face charges relating to Wikileaks. Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson, who is regularly in touch with Mr Assange, explains why he believes a fear of extradition to the US is a valid one.”
c.)
08:49 – 08:55 am –
“The decision to grant the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, political asylum was taken high up in the Andes, in the Ecuadorean capital, Quito. The BBC’s Will Grant has travelled to Quito to find out what people there make of the country’s president Rafael Correa’s decision.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9744000/9744906.stm
On c.) above, the BBC-NUJ decision to go to QUITO, ECUADOR to ask locals what its Mr Assange can expect there, is a particularly lavish use of the BBC licence fee.
Talking of lavish uses of the BBC licence fee:
“BBC executive on £328,000 pocketed £2,500 in taxi expenses in just THREE MONTHS… and reclaimed £2 cash machine fee”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189430/BBC-executive-running-new-Director-General-328-000-pocketed-2-500-taxi-expenses-just-THREE-MONTHS–reclaimed-2-cash-machine-fee.html#ixzz23mVBV8fJ
Well it is a story, and the MSM is playing it for all it can get, for their various reasons, ratings, tribal or both.
I don’t know how UK keeps ending up as the venue for such sh*t fights. He’s an Aussie. It’s the Swedes who have a rape accusation to handle against him. The Yanks have an oar in. And a tin-pot country from a bunch of Malvinas stirrers in South America has decided to make a name for itself.
SKY is just as bad, if only to keep the Eliot Carver levels high. They are still talking of ‘storming’ the embassy. Heck, it’s their mot du jour, as they also decided 3 girls ‘stormed’ a church… to sing a song and post it on YouTube.
Mind you, they also cheerfully trotted out earlier that Ian Brady has been on a hunger strike.. since 1999. Isn’t that more like, a diet?
The UK media is risible.
But only one am I forced to pay for, even when it appears dedicated to championing the interests of those I do not believe have the interests of the country at heart. The name of which our national broadcaster claims, along with trust and treasure status no longer deserved.
So weak is Assange’s case that even Naughtie at his emmolient best made mincemeat of Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson on Today. Hrafnsson tied himself in knots and comprehensively failed to answer Naughtie’s point that, if the US wanted Assange’s extradition, the go-to place is the UK since we will extradite anyone to the US under almost any circumstances you care to mention (thanks Tony for signing up to that one, and thanks Dave for not renegotiating the agreement).
Certainly there might be difficulties for the UK in deciding which would take precedence, a removal under the European Arrest Warrant or an extradition under the UK-US Extradition Agreement but, whatever the choice – and, remember, as I write, there is no choice since the US has not applied to the UK for Assange’s extradition – legally and, but for any influence (and it’s considerable) his lefty friends can bring to bear, practically Assange is f*cked.
BTW for anyone in the media to treat
ToytownEcuador as a serious country, let alone one that has any democratic credentials is absurd. Of course, the FCO has to pretend that Ecuador is an adult member of the family of nations (and the reported threatening to discard its diplomatic immunity is the epitome of the FCO’s loss of any shred of negotiating competence) but that’s no reason for the rest of us – particularly the MSM – not to treat Ecuador like dog turd on your shoe.BBC-NUJ: pro-ECUADOR, anti-BRITAIN.
As a matter of uncritical representation of Ecuadorian political opinion, BBC-NUJ’s Mr Grant describes his country as ‘imperialist’. Mr Grant does not describe Ecuador as pro-Argentina and pro-Cuba, which is what it is.
And in the last few minutes of ‘Today’ a final political propagandist puts in a final pro-Ecuador, anti-Britain salvo. (Check last minutes of ‘Today’.)
I’ll have to check if it was one of those that ‘expired’ because I was daft enough to tell CECUTT I was away and they set a reply limit during that period, but this brings to mind the Gavin Esler Dateline London on the Falklands sabre rattling, which host and guest all agreed it was the empire-obsessed Brits who were solely responsible for. They then got in a tangle on the panel composition, with the bloke who comments on guest selection saying his remit did not cover what they said, and another bloke, in charge of what is said, claiming this was not his call as it was down to who invited them. So they agreed it was no one’s responsibility that the panel was rigged to say exactly what might be expected, by a ratio of 4 (5 including partial host) to 0. Against the British case.
I remain hard pressed to understand why I am compelled by law to fund an entity that I consider too often serves against the interests of my country and family with propaganda backed by censorship. The latter in turn propped up by a ‘what are you going to do about it’ attitude borne of total lack of independent accountability.