Clare Balding mounts defence of BBC with some black propaganda…..or a distortion of the truth…or a lie if you like.
The photo below was presented to us by Balding as if it were a picture taken in secret by a paparazzi in the bushes and published without consent by a newspaper for dirty old men to ogle…..the truth is entirely different and puts another, completely different, perspective on the story.
The BBC are rattled, very rattled. They are being subjected to the sort of inquisition that they normally dish out to others whom they perceive to have committed some form of misdemeanour.
We have long been witness to the defensiveness of those working for the BBC when their integrity is brought into question….just how prickly does Humphrys get when challenged about BBC reporting…or Campbell or Derbyshire?
There is an unwillingness to accept that the BBC can do anything wrong or to challenge their own perceptions. Which BBC journalist has dared to investigate the Balen Report? Any journalist worth his salt would be digging away at that one….it has the potential to be absolute dynamite if it says what many think it might say.
Rather than fully accept that they maybe got things badly wrong they are lashing out and trying to divide up the ‘guilt’, pointing fingers at others, so as to lessen the BBC’s own part in this saga.
The latest ‘Have I got News For You’ sold its soul and became a mechanism to channel the BBC’s propaganda. Even the doughty Hislop toed the party line, taking the BBC shilling, and rather disengenuously defended the BBC by claiming no one was examining the NHS’s role or that of the Press……the BBC is hard done by and innocent of all wrong doing.
They claimed no one knew about any of Savile’s actions or those of other people….but again that’s not true….as senior staff were informed of ‘goings on’, just as with Liz Kershaw, and they decided to ignore them…..former BBC director David Nicolson told The Sun that a BBC boss had said “That’s the way it is” and “That’s Jimmy” after he reported that Savile was having sex with a young girl in his dressing room.
Hislop said that no one knew the allegations were true…since when has that stopped an investigation into ‘allegations’?…as a BBC journalist himself says…..
“In most newsrooms if you are not quite there [with a story] you would just keep going.”
Did the Press do anything?…..In 1971, according to the Sunday Times, the News of The World ran an expose of the ‘goings on’ off camera at ‘Top Of The Pops’ and the partying and procurement of girls…..nothing was done.
Such behaviour, not just Savile’s, seems to have been pretty endemic, but accepted or brushed under the carpet.
They knew but chose to ignore it.
The fact that similar behaviour by Savile was happening under the eyes of the NHS doesn’t let the BBC off the hook one little bit….and the NHS has come under considerable scrutiny from the rest of the media over this business and so the claim of the BBC being singled out does not stand up at all.
Clare Balding dug out a photo from the Daily Mail Online…from its sidebar…which she calls ‘its sidebar of shame’. However looking at it now the sidebar is entitled ‘Femail Today’…..stories about women for women.
Balding tried to assert that the Mail showing a 14 year old girl in a bikini was somehow tantamount to procuring young girls for the likes of Savile……the reality is that the only readers of that part of the Mail Online is likely to be women…..I’ve read the Online Mail hundreds of times and never once bothered to click on anything on ‘the sidebar of shame’…..so the photo was for women’s eyes only.
What Balding doesn’t reveal is that the photos were on the girl’s Twitter page….on which she has two million followers….and the fact that she is one of the stars of the US show about the Kardashian family.
The choice of photo is also questionable….the BBC chose a shot that looked as if it had been snapped in secret with a hidden camera…..rather than taken as it was by a family member or friend. The reaction from Merton et al said it all….shock….because they weren’t told the full story of course.
The BBC could have chosen these shots of kylie’s sister, Kendall, from two years ago….taken when she was 14 by a professional photographer as she launched her modelling career….but that wouldn’t have looked half as seedy as the one BBC picked to present the Daily Mail in a damning way…so they chose a very particular photograph in a particular style and presented it with a particular spin.
Balding tries to claim the moral high ground by saying the Mail is peddling stories that are only interested in what women look like….is this from a BBC that mainly employs young, good looking women to front its programmes? Balding is a sports reporter….so exceptions can be made.
The girl in the photo shown by Balding is Kylie Jenner who has a column in 17 magazines giving her (and her sister’s) expertise on ‘fashion, beauty and style’….are those columns all ‘columns of shame’?
I think Balding needs to recognise that there is a big difference between the Mail publishing shots of your cellulite and wobbly bits and the BBC ignoring sex abuse going on on its premises by its employees.
That is an example of the BBC counter attack….using its own programmes to launch a bitter attack on a paper it disdains anyway. The Daily Mail is the bete noire of BBC presenters who all pretend not to read it but undoubtedly do so avidly underneath copies of the Guardian. That photograph did not appear from nowhere….the BBC had to dig around to find that…..and clearly did so with a purpose…..and that is to try and paint others in such a bad light that the BBC comes off better….nowt but BBC black propaganda at work.
However under the slightest scrutiny Balding’s story comes flying apart and it can be seen to be a mess of half truths and deliberate smears that sounded good on the night but turn out to be pretentious, pious, posturing rubbish….however mud sticks and the BBC knows that and are quite happy to have put the boot into the Mail whether the attack was merited or not.
To round off this sad little episode of HIGNFY Merton dragged in Thatcher….Savile spent a Christmas at Chequers with her….or ‘always spent Christmas at Chequers’ as Merton put it. Apparently that might be the answer as to why Savile got away with it for so long. If you were thinking maybe it was the BBC hiding anything sordid that might damage its reputation you’d be barking entirely up the wrong tree!
So then, that’s it, the answer…..Thatcher is to blame for Savile’s long career of abusing young girls and getting away with it.
So that’s three boxes ticked….Defend the BBC, blame Thatcher for the ills of the world, and launch a clearly well planned assault on the Daily Mail.
Comic Gold.
Am I getting too old or is that picture beyond the pale? A link to it would have been enough?
I don’t want to look at 14 year olds in bikinis. If I wanted that I’d watch the BBC or find an appropriate site. Could you please remove it?
How on earth is that picture ‘beyond the pale’? It’s a girl in a bikini by a swimming pool. On holiday, or meant to be on holiday. So what?
Maybe you’d prefer it if all females above the age of 12 wore burkas?
There is nothing remotely sexual about that image. But if you don’t like it, don’t look at it.
It’s called context.
That photo, this context.
Pretty bloody obvious really.
Yup, you’re getting too old.
It is the kind of thing you can see in any public swimming pool or on any public holiday beach. Shoch horror, a 14 year old girl in a bikini. Sorry to shock you, Cattle Prod of Destiny, but ladies stopped using Bathing Machines to go into the sea at the seaside a century ago and seeing a fourteen year old in a bikini wouldn’t have shocked my elderly maiden aunt whilst she was still alive fifty years ago.
Yes that is true, if you wish to misrepresent what I am pointing out.
My point is very simple but I’ll re-iterate in case you missed it. Using such a photograph in the context in which it was used (the ‘all grown up’ Mail search schtick) is dodgy to say the least. Do you really see nothing wrong with the ‘look chaps she’s almost ready’ motif that runs through that strand?
To me that is exactly the sort of attitude that perverts like Saville got off on and used it as an excuse. AFAIK Saville was only interested in post-pubescent girls …
It has nothing to do with 14 year old girls wearing bikinis per se but the use the photograph is put to. In the Daily Mail it is used for sexual gratification – why else would they show it? As a warning against sunbathing too much?
My objection to it being at the top of this post is that, as the photograph has been used for sexual gratification previously it would have been wiser to link it rather than display it. Baldings argument could have been countered just as easily without it.
I hear that Clare Balding is a really woman.
She has a woman in twice a week.
I notice Claire Baldrick is beginning to morph into Sandi Tosswig.
Is it time to stop genuflecting to this particular woman and expose the BBC cover up. The cabal are pulling out all the ‘big guns’ and feeding them this self-righteous tosh over the air waves to deflect the blame from their own door stop.
Even on that dreadful ‘comedy’ News Quiz, they cowardly pull the subject at 7 minutes http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n6vnw and blame ‘the lawyer’, pathetic!!
Sorry Should learn to proof read:
I hear that Clare Blading is a really clean woman.
She has a woman in twice a week to clean.
For sure, that was a classic BBC attempt at smoke and mirrors.
I don’t know who Balding is, but I found her very unappealing in just about every way.
Surprised how Hislop and Merton jumped on board.
Perhaps they were thinking about future pay cheques?
Nothing quite like working for an organisation that is impervious to the chill wind of reality (so long as you are devoid of morality yourself).
~
It’s a shame, because I used to quite enjoy seeing the great and the good taken down a peg or two by these two cheeky chaps. Remember Angus Deayton?
The last I heard, Hislop and Merton were picking up £7000 an episode. They would hardly rock the boat with that sort of cash at stake. Merton doesn’t matter, he’s just a comedian. However, Hislop is the editor of Private Eye. If he can’t see the conflict of interest between his day job and his lucrative sideline at the BBC then he really is a banana.
For years now Paul Merton has looked completely bored by the show. He seems to spend most of an episode staring blankly into the distance, only occasionally jumping into life for a quick quip as if prodded from behind to wake him up, only to fade out again.
If I may qualify that:
Merton does sometimes look detached, but it seems to me it is almost invariably when a ‘liberal’ or ‘left-wing’ target is being attacked, when he deliberately says nothing. He never criticises lefty targets, but quite happily attacks ‘the tories’, ‘the republications’ or ‘Boris’, or ‘Thatcher’ (as he egregiously did in the last programme). Personally, I find his contributions dire – his ridiculous off-the-cuff flights of fancy, for example – and I would be happy to see him depart from HIGNFY altogether.
Bravo Alan.
You`re rapidly turning into the daily Mail of this site.
With clear discernment in regard of the likes of Balding and the “Slash the Mail” onslaught of her fellow-travellers at the BBC-you`ve got them banged to rights.
Yet, like the Mail-you draw out the vultures and quibblers in fury.
Keep it up lad….your cause is true!
I like Clair Balding – she’s one of the more accomplished and likeable presenters amongst a pretty awful bunch, but that was a quite desperate example of moral relativism.
When they’ve come to suggesting that publishing a photo of a teenage girl in a bikini disqualifies that publication from holding to account a serial pedophile who allegedly preyed on the sick and disabled, you know they are worried. They ought to be. With so many people now coming forward who claim to have been fully aware of this man’s ‘proclivities’ for decades, there appears to have been a culture of ‘looking the other way’ in regard to these crimes, in order to not cause the kind of problems that the BBC now face. This culture has enabled the long term abuse of many victims, with the perpetrator apparently assuming an enormous degree of impunity. To appear to defend the organisation’s handling of these allegations, directly or indirectly, is shameful.
The phone hacking scandal appears considerably less malign in comparison, and it would seem that a public inquiry is as necessary (if not more), to find out who knew what, and when.
I think that the spectre of Jimmy Savile will be a little like Lady Diana to the BBC. To have had such an alleged prolific sex offender on the pay role and to have had him there for so many decades, whoops! The photos of him with children and Jim I’ll Fix it will haunt the BBC and they won’t be able to refer to it like the Black and White Minstrel Show either. JIFI and TOTP are tarnished goods. Just as I was delighted that somebody here had never heard of Balding, I actually didn’t know that he had died late 2011, and to be honest it’s as if he is still alive right now, there are so many images of him. If you watch the BBC film made by Louis Theroux, it’s as if he has already died and has returned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBC4JNrybKo
I heard talk of the police interested in his house, Louis had documented it, no computers, he didn’t even have an oven in his kitchen. He looked upon himself as if he was the pope of pop culture. So just like Lady Di (and there is an iconic pic of him talking to her), let’s keep him alive, no doubt the BBC would like to treat this all as if it was a “blip”, one of those “periodic events” as Sir Michael Lyons has said today. I hope that Jimmy Saviles camper-van parked outside broadcasting house will acquire mythological status. PS are there any pictures of it?
‘it would seem that a public inquiry is as necessary (if not more), to find out who knew what, and when’
——————————————————
Nah, no faith in them. Corrupted by B Liar cf the conclusion by Hutton that if Scarlett overcooked the evidence he could have done so ‘subconsciously’.
If ever I see Hutton and chin him, I’ll use the ‘subconsciously’ defence when I appear in court.
Police enquiry led by someone who will go where the evidence takes them, (and a little bit further along the route than Yates managed)
You’re probably right re public inquiries, but it would FORCE every media organisation in the country to cover it, especially if some very senior managerial types or household names at the BBC were called to give evidence publicly.
It all needs to be placed in the spotlight in the same manner as the hacking scandal, so that we can all see those who looked the other way and helped to enabled the abuse justify their inaction.
The episode was a disgrace, yet, as I commented on my blog, the audience were not buying it. Where the panel were expecting laughter or applause there was instead silence.
Curiously the Beeb has acted just like the Catholic Church when it shielded priests.
More on this in “They Fixed it For Jim” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
I disagree. The Catholic faith has taken steps to acknowledge, and prevent further abuse from taking place in it’s name. In an organisation the size of the catholic faith, with hundreds of thousands of Priests worldwide, there will always be some perverts, just by the law of averages. As their are in every large organisation, including the BBC, the NHS, social services, schools, nurseries, etc… The real test is how do these organisations react to finding actual examples of such wrongdoing?
The Catholic Church failed thousands of children for centuries. Now they are changing their ways.
The BBC are acting like the Catholic church USED to act.
Worse, the BBC did not accept the exact same excuses that the Catholics used to defend their old abuse, yet this is pretty much the same excuse that the BBC has now reverted to.
“It was a long time ago, a different age, there was a different sexual politics, the girls were groupies and liked it!”
The BBC (rightly) never accepted such excuses from Catholic priests… so why are they falling back on that excuse now?
The BBC are applying an entirely different set of Moral’s to their own trusted high priests of entertainment, than they apply to everyone else.
The BBC is a sick organisation. Very very sick!
Claire Balding is one of the best of the BBC’s presenters in her specialist field; excellent insight and knowledge about horse racing.
However, take her out of her comfort zone ( as the BBC always tend to do with presenters) as in the case of HIGNFY and her shortcomings are all too apparent.
She has a very thin skin regarding criticism ( remember the complaint to the Press commission ref. “Dyke on the bike” comment by AA Gill?)
Nevermind, she ticks the BBC’s diversity box with her sexual orientation so irrespective of her age and looks, whatever she alleges she’s fireproof as far as her employer is concerned.
To be honest, when I watched the 6 mins of HIGNFY that discussed the JS thing, it wasn’t as bad as I was expecting and some – some – valid points were made. But there was also a lot of bollocks; my particular favourite was Balding saying that the Mail’s female section should leave women alone because ‘some of us don’t really care and are having a nice life actually’ (or similar).
I bet you’re having a nice life, Clare, as a sporting has-been still raking in a six-figure pay check to get the Beebs diversity figures up; some of your less financially secure ‘sisters’ out there could probably spend the £145.50 pa on ‘having a nicer life’ of their own, if only they had the choice.
the reality is that the only readers of that part of the Mail Online is likely to be women…..I’ve read the Online Mail hundreds of times and never once bothered to click on anything on ‘the sidebar of shame’…..so the photo was for women’s eyes only.
You’re either being hopelessly naive or mendacious. There is only one reason a website publishes generous amounts of young female flesh – to gain page impressions from men. The online version of the DM is little more than rehashed YouTube videos and soft p0rn, and I say that as an admirer of their print offering.
And you are being overly dismissive the daily rag neither bothers me or my morals don’t read then don’t get offended! but when the BBC takes it upon it;s self to declare war on a commercial rival of it’s own pet rag then I take notice especially when it is a distraction to hide it’s own sick staff!
So you think that when blokes want to knock one out they go online and head straight for the Daily Mail sidebar rather than the tens of thousands of free porn sites catering to every ‘taste’ imaginable?
Burka Times, page 3 for me.
Does she get her face out?
(Copyright Mr B Manning, I think…)
In ‘one’, RCE.
With our latest sage on what constitutes ‘hopelessly naive’ it would appear that the TinTin School of reporterism has cranked out another, as it were.
Bollox.
The photo was in the equivalent of the femail section.
If you have ever read closer or hello or any of the women’s gossip weeklies you will see plenty of flesh and Kardasians and yet their readers are exclusively female.
As vogue has shown female flesh sells to females
Stirringtroubleinternationally.com has a good dig at the BBC:
“Laughably, we now hear some of the lefties talk passionately about the danger of the public trust in the Corporation being ‘eroded’ as a result of the paedophile cover-up scandal. What f..king trust? Who on earth watches the BBC these days, apart from the leftie nutters and plebs, yes, plebs, who’ll watch anything as they have nothing better to do? Are you going to tell me that Strictly Come Dancing is not for plebs? Or the Graham Norton Show, or Eastenders, or all those pathetic so-called comedy and satirical series?”
http://www.stirringtroubleinternationally.com/2012/10/13/lefts-reaction-to-the-paedophile-scandal-at-the-bbc-has-blown-the-corporations-cover-to-shreds/
Strictly Come Dancing may well be for plebs but it also keeps men of a certain age, like myself, very happy indeed.
Ah, Graham Norton. A man never known to make jokes aboout having sex with young boys.
It would only take a small percentage of license payers to stop paying and the BBC would go bust, me and my mate have recently stopped paying this criminal organization that’s another £290-00 they won’t get anybody care to join us?
I already have!!
Wow…
Stuart Syvret former health minister in Jersey said he “would be profoundly surprised if there weren’t a paedophile ring within the BBC”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/savile-abuse-claims-span-six-decades-8210431.html
Oh, I get it now: the BBC Radio 1 boss had no idea this was going on, never heard a peep from staff or saw anything himself on Savile’s dressing room floor, but Mrs. Thatcher knew all about it and willingly allowed someone she knew to be a criminal to hang out at her place.
You guys should come over to NYC to see this awesome bridge I just bought……
Current bBC headline in which to try and regain the moral highground:
Boss ‘asked Savile about rumours’
Derek Chinnery: “Jimmy , about these rumours you like to rape little girls”
JS: ” Nah, no substance behind them what so ever”
Derek Chinnery: “Ok case closed.”
At the very least the BBC are culpable in trying to cover up this sordid case. Newsnight were investigating, had evidence and interviews with some of the abused women who were later seen on ITV. Then the programme was pulled for the most spurious of reasons. Instead they ran an hour’s tribute to the bloke.
It stinks!
I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of John Simpson’s thinly-veiled outing of Uncle ‘goodnight children, everywhere’- Mac as a paedophile, in this connection. According to him (hardly a source hostile to the Beeb), the Director General’s office used to cover for the pig, if parents of children interfered with when they visited Broadcasting House, complained.
His case shows that not only has the BBC previous form for covering up this sort of thing , but given the status of both Savile and McCulloch, built up as national treasures, they’ve also succeeded in tarnishing our entire culture.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/10/john-simpson-alleges-sex-abuse-cover-up-at-bbc/
thanks Alan, at the time it seemed a very odd photo of HIGNFY to choose – now I know why.
I just raised a compliant about HIGNFY via the BBC website. It’s probably not worth the effort, but hey – it felt good.
Complaint was :-
“I found it incredulous that you allowed the rant about Jimmy Saville to be broadcast. I have no concern about the subject, more about the very tenuous link to Margaret Thatcher as a “protector” of the aforementioned individual.
Why was this? Why not mention the Pope who was also apparently taken in by the BBC employee, or the previous director general of the BBC who it transpires probably protected Saville from prosecution more than the prime minister of the time did.
The picture of the 14 year old in a bikini – it transpires that your researchers had to do some fairly hefty digging to find that… It was definitely not on the Daily Mail website as your host – Claire Balding – suggested and rightly so.
This program actually disgusted me – which is a shame as it used to be one of my favourites.
Time to put it out to grass I think.”
DoE
Do share the reply you get.
I suspect it will be a fair while coming, as that department probably is experiencing a further surge in incoming communication that will see delays as they ‘deal’ with them to maintain their 110% ‘got it about right’ record to take to the next funding hike demand with credulous pols.
Was this deliberately missing the point of the complaint? The reply, in full:-
Reference CAS-1726275-xxxxxx
Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Have I Got News for You’.
I understand you feel it was inappropriate for the programme to discuss Jimmy Savile in light of the allegations during a recent episode of the programme.
We have contacted ‘Hat Trick Productions’ who are directly responsible for the programme, they have provided the following response:
” ‘Have I Got News for You’ decided to cover the Jimmy Savile story for two reasons. Firstly, it was the biggest story of the week. The programme has dealt with many subjects over the last 20 years, including war and natural disasters, some of which may seem distasteful to some viewers. The programme has lasted for so long because it has a good idea of the right line to tread when dealing with these stories.
Secondly, the programme had been directly involved in the story because of the widely-circulated internet rumour, backed up by a fake transcript, that claimed Paul Merton had exposed and attacked Jimmy Savile as a paedophile on-air when he was a guest on the series in 1999.
The producers, as well as Paul and Ian, wanted to make it clear that the ‘transcript’ was a fake and they admitted that they too had been taken in by Savile when he appeared on the programme. Graham Linehan and Ian Hislop expressed this very clearly when they said that Jimmy Savile was “hiding in plain sight”.
Some people have argued that Ian Hislop was using this opportunity to defend the BBC, but we don’t believe he did anything of the kind. In fact he made the point very early on that he was surprised the BBC were allowing the story to be discussed at all and that he fully expected it to be dropped from the show and transmitted later on ITV. This was a clear reference to the BBC dropping the ‘Newsnight’ report. He also said that anyone who did know about what Savile was doing should be prosecuted. That is not a defence of the BBC.
Claire Balding also went on to point out that the newspapers like the Daily Mail, who are most vociferous in their criticism of the BBC for allegedly sheltering a paedophile, are also themselves guilty of perpetuating a culture of a leering over under-age girls through their website MailOnline. We believe it is absolutely right for ‘Have I Got News for You’ to point out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
For over 20 years the programme has been bringing information to the public which they might not otherwise know and which might change their perception of things. Jokes can also achieve the same thing and we make no apology for bringing perspective to and expressing revulsion over a story like this through humour.
We are very proud of the way the programme handled the Savile story and we believe we steered the right course through a difficult week.”
We regret that on this occasion you felt the need to complain and I’d like to assure you that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Tanya McKee
BBC Complaints
‘Was this deliberately missing the point of the complaint?
Tx for you patience, and share.
Let’s see.
You complained on specifics.
They immediately opted for generalities:
I understand you feel it was inappropriate for the programme to discuss Jimmy Savile in light of the allegations ‘
They then passed the buck.
We have contacted ‘Hat Trick Productions’ who are directly responsible for the programme’
Why then, is there no compalints function to ‘Hat Trick’? Why are we paying for a BBC complaints system that points at folk who simply point back? (All rhetorical).
” ‘Have I Got News for You’ decided to cover the Jimmy Savile story for two reasons. Firstly, it was the biggest story of the week.’
No sh*t. The 3rd reason being… even they could not avoid it, so they opted for Plan Smear.
‘The programme has lasted for so long because it has a good idea of the right line to tread when dealing with these stories.’
This being… blame the Daily Mail and Mrs. Thatcher whenever the BBC is in a corner?
Have to love Hat Trick mirroring the ‘we are right because we say we have been right’ attempt, too.
‘Secondly, the programme had been directly involved in the story because of the widely-circulated internet rumour’
Which, I, and near no one I know had heard about. So niche navel-gazing based on twitter rumours is OK… if it suits… to form the basis of nearly an entire comedy show, with zero comedy?
‘Some people have argued that Ian Hislop was using this opportunity to defend the BBC, but we don’t believe he did anything of the kind.’
There’s that belief thing again.
The fact is most people with a brain saw Mr. Hislop flush his credibility down the river to retain his employer’s paycheque.
‘In fact he made the point very early on that he was surprised the BBC were allowing the story to be discussed at all
Knowing full well it would have to be.
‘He also said that anyone who did know about what Savile was doing should be prosecuted. That is not a defence of the BBC.’
No, that is the law.
.’Claire Balding also went on to point out that the newspapers like the Daily Mail, who are most vociferous in their criticism of the BBC for allegedly sheltering a paedophile, are also themselves guilty of perpetuating a culture of a leering over under-age girls through their website MailOnline.
But not facilitating statutory rape on the premises and covering it up yet? This being the point. Hers being scripted diversion backed, it appears by a bit of BBC ‘enhanced editorial’ to help that narrative along. Whilst also missing out that The Indy & Graun were already savaging the BBC, along with the Mirror, not above the odd legal t&a in public.
‘We believe it is absolutely right…
Hahahahahahahaa..
‘… for ‘Have I Got News for You’ to point out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.’
Not exactly what was complained about, Ms. McKee.
‘For over 20 years the programme has been bringing information to the public which they might not otherwise know..
‘Information’? Is she deranged? It’s a highly-selective, fully-scripted and carefully editted entertainment show that picks targets for satire according to remit from on high. What and who goes in… what and who gets left out… or defended.
‘…and which might change their perception of things.
No argument, love. Propaganda backed by £4Bpa can do that. And when there’s also censorship in the mix, it is a huge concern. Ask anyone who has complained to BBC CECUTT and gets expedited for refusing to take dross replies like this for a non-answer.
‘…we make no apology…’
The BBC has, does and almost will never do so, unless forced. Neither do its sheltered production companies, which seem to have folded into the BBC’s embrace here.
‘..for bringing perspective to..
Make that ‘unique perspective’, where the whole thing is shaped to suit the BBC narrative. As with its ‘news’.
‘We are very proud of the way the programme handled the Savile story
Woo.P. Doo.
‘…and we believe we steered the right course through a difficult week.””
3rd time’s a charm, eh?
Sorry, but ‘belief’ in one’s rectitude is not actually of any value in defence of one being right.
Try it in an an actual court; not the kangaroo variety with judge jury and evidence controlled by the BBC.
“I do not believe I am guilty”
‘Ok.. next!’
And the final insult…
‘….I’d like to assure you that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.
Who laugh that anyone thinks they read it. Or it matters. Because this log is not the one that matters.
Escalate!
Get it past the hapless Tanya, who is just a drone sticking a template top and tail to a cookie-cutter from a one-degree of separation production company they happen to pay on our behalf.
Be specific. Cite facts. Avoid ‘bias’,
Then push it through the endless ECU directors who also will be comfortable or won’t believe, as they avoid what you are specifically referring to. And mutter darkly that if you persist, or tell anyone, you will get banned… because they are the BBC and a public sector power above being held to account or asked questions. Your original has a few highly specific ones…which they have avoided. Demand answers. Offer what we now know about their methods.
Then it will get to The Trust, who will take a year to tell you they believe they got it about right. Again.
Or… maybe… now… not so much.
A little off topic, but did anyone else listen to Any Answers on BBC radio 4, this Saturday.
When they briefly discussed the Savile story, no one was put on live on air. The presented made some inadequate excuse about having received lots of emails and texts ,but that no one was prepared to go live about it. I noticed that this was different from saying that no one had called in about this matter.
Is it me, or do I notice a contrast between the coverage of the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal and this one?
Does anybody know which copy of the Daily Mail Clair Balding managed to find that picture in because I’m sure, had the wished to show a picture of Kylie Jenner in a bikini, they could have easily found a far clearer one. None of the Jenners, or their relatives the Kardassians, are exactly known for being shy and retiring when it comes to displaying their bodies for the cameras. One thing which isn’t required is a paparazzi sneaking round in any bushes with a long angle lens to get a photograph to publish.
This is typical BBC’s propaganda crusade against any section of the media which dares to contradict the BBC’s political agenda.
” they could have easily found a far clearer one.”
One of the panel (can’t remember which one) actually declared that it looked to have been taken on a mobile phone! to add a salacious effect?
c7.15am BBC Radio 5 this morning.
BBC presenter to spokesperson from Childline:
‘So tell me, by how much have the number of calls you’re getting gone up since that ITV documentary?’
Says it all really, doesn’t it?
So I would say to defenders of the BBC, it is just as well you guys don’t have a complete monopoly.
As “revenge is a dish best served cold “could there be a little bit of interest in this saga that could lead to News International ? I think the BBC is under enormous pressure and there will shortly be other scandals emanating from the dark corners of the BBC that will rattle it to the core.
So many across MSM now it’s hard to keep count, but the Mail seems to be keen to keep the daily pressure up with on record witness testimonies vs. the BBC and its supporters’ snide allusions, un-named sources and grandees claiming ‘they couldn’t do such a thing… they are the… BBC!’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217746/BBC-sex-scandal-We-groped-Dave-Lee-Travis-claim-BBC-women-sex-abuse-scandal-deepens.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-mailonline
I’d just love to know why, considering all else going on, with this one ‘Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons.’ ?
The 6-minute rapid descent into Leftist ranting on HIGNFY had obviously been planned. It was so contrived and desperate (even Dave Spart would struggle to link this topic with Thatcher) it could almost have been a right-wing satire, especially as it involved Livingstone – battier and more unhinged than Anthony Wedgewood Benn ever was.
As for the audience, I can only assume they are recording HIGNFY and Question Time back to back.
A quick image search on “Jimmy Savile and Tony Blair’ turns up this (WARNING: dubious lefty site) image as no. 1 in the hit parade.
Is there something we are not being told?
This sequence from a media/PR/press forum was really rather sweet, I thought I’d share…
* Hi List,
Does anyone know of a charity who would like a donation of rape alarms?
My client has about 1000 to give away.
* “They’re not a charity..but maybe you could try the BBC.”
* Not sure that would go down too well. But thanks for the thought 😉
I’d say Aunty has a bit of a cred problem still.
From a post on Guido..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vILQhDGO8Xg&feature=player_embedded
They were laughing then.
What changed recently?
I suspect they won’t be laughing now either.
Now here’s a sign-off line to treasure…
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2012/10/preposterously-the-bbc-has-taken-my-advice/
‘The BBC has become like one of those forlorn nematode worms which stabs itself to death with its own penis.’
Yet, uniquely, at least for the foreseeable future, ‘we’ get to still be forced to fund it.
Who’s laughing now?
How many pictures of 14 year old boys lounging by pools can be seen in the Mail? The Mail obviously publish these types of photos because they know what their readership want to see. It’s disgusting that a so called “reputable” paper feels the need to lower itself to such antics. Although of course no where near as bad as the BBC Saville scandal, there is no denying that men who enjoy looking at 14-16 year olds in bikinis (to whom The Mail are catering to) are just Jimmy Savilles without the fame and opportunity. “it’s no different than what you would see at a local pool” puh-lease! You know you can’t ogle at teen girls at the pool because people will know you are perverts, so the Mail prints pictures for you to ogle at for as long as you wan in your own time. Bbc’s scandal does not change the fact that what the Mail is doing is disgusting. Pointing at the BBC and saying that they are worse is not a defence.