Astounding statement by Paxman…..complete lack of perspective and awareness……and again this shows how the BBC great and the good are completely unprepared to accept that they are in the wrong.…the ever present shadow of Hutton that they refuse to acknowledge as a truthful indictment of their journalism is something that they continue to try to rewrite in the history books or blame for present bad practise.
Was it ‘cowardice and incompetence and cuts’? No, it was stupidity and anti-Tory sentiment that brought them down as well as massive management incompetence.
Paxman claims it is cowardice? How so? They broadcast to the world a claim, completely unsubstantiated, that a Tory politician was a paedophile….that was either very brave or very, very stupid.
What did Paxman say in 2007:
“In this press of events there often isn’t time to get out and find things out: you rely upon second-hand information-quotes from powerful vested interests, assessments from organisations which do the work we don’t have time for, even, god help us, press releases from public relations agencies. The consequence is that what follows isn’t analysis. It’s simply comment, because analysis takes time, and comment is free.”
TIME IS SHORT, NOT MONEY, TIME AND COMMON SENSE.
How soon we forget.
This was out and out bad journalism, bad practise, bad management…nothing to do with the BBC being cowed by the spectre of another Hutton like inquiry, nothing to do with cuts in budgets……everything to do with incompetence at all levels of the BBC.
If Paxman is upset now perhaps he should wait awhile.…because surely the bloodbath is not over yet. Entwistle was at fault because he knew nothing and did nothing…he did not make those decisions to broadcast the accusation.
So who did…who was it that decided the BBC news narrative was that ‘a leading Thatcher era Conservative politician’ should be the phrase used throughout the BBC?
Who was it that decided that they would name the accused politician…only at the last moment deciding not to because of threats of legal action?
If they are still in a job at the end of the week I would be surprised.
Here is Paxman’s statement via the News Statesman:
The statement was tweeted by Paxman’s agent, Capel & Land:
‘Statement from Jeremy Paxman – “GeorgeEntwistle’s departure is a great shame. He has been brought low by cowards and incompetents. “The real problem here is the BBC’s decision, in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry, to play safe by appointing biddable people. “They then compounded the problem by enforcing a series of cuts on programme budgets, while bloating the management. “That is how you arrive at the current mess on Newsnight. I very much doubt the problem is unique to that programme. I had hoped that George might stay to sort this out.It is a great pity that a talented man has been sacrificed while time-servers prosper. I shall not be issuing any further statements or doing any interviews.” ‘
“I shall not be issuing any further statements or doing any interviews.” ‘
So saying, she flounced out of the door to chorus of yawns.
Paxman is a pantomime dame. A puffed-up and padded caricature of the real thing, fed almost to bursting on a diet of his own self-regard..
Yes, Paxman’s comment is inadequate to the situation.
He refuses, or is unable to analyse the way the BBC’s political ethos, monopolistic broadcasting position and structure, and public financing affects BBC journalistic methods and output.
Paxman is now a complete joke without any credibilty
anyone with an ounce of ability could tie him in knots in one of his “controversial style” grillings on Newsnight and sit back and laugh
oh,I forgot
might not be a newsnight LOL
‘Lord Tebbitt and John Redwood to interview Paxman’.
One can only dream.
It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. I can never forget Paxo’s smirking face as he asked Tony Blair in mock incredulity, “Do and George Bush kneel down and pray together?”
God has a sense of humour and he’s smiling right now.
Perhaps if the BBC didn’t have so many channels and was not committed to long leases on property at high rents they would have had the money to print a photo of Lord MacAlpine to show Mr Messham or to make a phone call to Lord MacAlpine.
Don’t be silly, that might have blocked their anti-Thatcher vendetta.
I agree with Jeremy. I have been sobbing into my gingerbread latte all morning about the resignation of this great man- who has been been forced to resign after a wicked witch hunt organised by the Murdoch press and the Tories.
I console myself with the fact that the BBC remains the most well respected and most loved organisation in the world, trusted by every single living being everywhere. Nobody could ever doubt our commitment to fairness and impartiality.- especially not with me scrutinising them in my trademark fair and impartial way.
ps:
‘… there will, of course, be no questions permitted. Unique* bestows many privileges’
*[I was going to use ‘rnak’ but that really was too close for the vapour fit-prone ladies of the cherry vulture flock]
Playing devil’s advocate for just a moment, why is McAlpine in the frame anyway? An innocent politician, with no connection to anything of that ilk, apparently, it seems odd to me that his name should surface out of the blue just because his photograph may have been considered to that of another person. Has he an honest, blameless, clean, and, er, “healthy” past? Or is there really something lurking beneath the surface, and someone have something of a murky nature on him?
Just interested…
I’ve read stuff on blogs implicating him in desperate activities-truly desperate
if he can connect the bbc to this in any way-well,let’s just say if it was me,i would be suing for somewhere around the £100 million mark
it’s that bad!!
Anyone who has taken the Phillip Schofield Three Minute Investigative Journalism Course can tell you……
PS: Elton John got £1,000,000 for being wrongly associated with rent boys and that was some years ago.
He happened to share a surname with a James MacAlpine (who I think is related to Alaister) who was involved.
Have a read of this :
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/the-sunday-splash-5/
john in cheshire: yes, John in Dorchester is always worth a read!
The BBC hired the Bureau of Investigative Journalism to help, ran with it even though they knew it was dodgy enough to redact McAlpine’s name, all because they were treading more carefully because they were being bullied by the Tory Press and BBC haters? Don’t think so.
dont like such a cretinous post. The site is slightly deranged.
This is precisely the kind of reaction the BBC seem to have wanted. You are not alone Old Goat, there’s millions out there who “are curious”. The man in question’s reputation will now be forever tainted.
Looks like this is going to be the new BBC line: it was the system wot done it, guv.
You can have as many or as few managers as you like but the truth is blindingly obvious. This was not accidental. Politicians raised entirely legitimate questions about the BBC protecting a sexual predator, then the BBC decided to smear a political figure in retalition.
Short of Paxo actually standing in an MPs office telling him ‘nice reputation you got ‘ere, pity if something were to ‘appen to it’ it couldn’t be more obvious.
Hence why the cherry vultures are grounded. It’s not about journalistic misconduct any more, a very big, very powerful corporation tried to intimidate MPs into turning a blind eye to misconduct. This is what the left used to claim to oppose, but now its their ox being gored, paedo smears are a nifty way to hit back at those nasty right-wingers.
At the risk of being boring…..
The BBC fell upon those allegations from Tom Watson in the House like desparate men looking for a life line. They were so desparate they couldn’t be bothered to investigate the story properly.
Take the heat off the BBC and turn it on favourite target number one – the Conservatives. What joy there would have been in the BBC news rooms and current affairs departments if it had all come true.
They must be sick. No wonder Paxman is sucking a lemon.
There is a real story here. Proving allegations against paedophiles is going to be very difficult after so many years. But finding out who covered it up – at various councils – might really reveal something.
As Eileen Fairweather has recently written – it crosses party lines.
But the BBC seem to be like Watson. Only interested in abuse when it implicates the “Tories”.
I gave up trusting the BBC twenty years ago. Now many others are seeing them for what they are.
Andrew Neil gave Harriet H a hard time on the Sunday Politics about Watson , the deputy chair of the Labour party, making allegations to the police of yet more filth at Number 10 years ago, and her not asking him if there was any substance to these allegations. Neil did a good job and showed just how out of control Watson is and how the Labour party let him make allegations right, left and centre without checking that there is something in them. If it turns out that there is no case to answer at No 10 then Watson surely has to be got rid of by Labour. A rare example of the BBC giving a Labour politician a hard time, if only they did this as often as they do to the Tories.
But having watched and listened to several programmes today about Newsnightgate, there doesn’t seem to be much appetite amongst the Tory leadership to break up the BBC. This is a golden opportunity to sort the BBC out , or at least the News and Current Affairs , they can leave the ‘entertainment’ stuff alone if they want so as not to upset too many of the public.
Why are the Timid Tories so reluctant to seize their chance? Have they more subtle ploys in mind to deal with the BBC. I hope so. But it is frustrating to see this chance go begging.
Finally somebody questions Labour about Watson. No wonder defenders of the indefensible like to claim that Neil practically on his own balances out the other thousands of Leftoids at the BBC.
Watson and Harman are members of a political party who, when in government, took lies and smearing to a whole new level. They are still at it because it is now ingrained in their culture and they believe they can still get away with it – as well as Watson’s behaviour witness Balls’ denial of the deficit he and Crash left behind. It is the politics of shamelessness that must leave Frank Gallagher open-mouthed in astonishment sometimes.
In some ways I respect Cameron for not stooping to their level, in others I think unless he gets down and dirty when an open goal beckons – well, the electorate will decide.
Watson was also part of the “Brown mafia” that included Damien McBride – and we can all remember what he was up to.
Watson like Brown and the rest has no moral compass, no concept of right and wrong,
For him (and most of the rest, Hateman, Chris Bryant, Angela Eagle, Balls, Mrs Balls etc ) the ends justify the means. It’s in their DNA.
In my latest post I have wondered if this ‘outing’ was one of the ‘other stories’ that Tom Watson was supposed to have had during Smeargate:
http://owsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/only-one-observation.html
Why are the Timid Tories so reluctant to seize their chance?
I, too, don’t understand this. Cameron has reportedly said that he does not believe that the BBC is facing “an existential crisis”. Why not?
This is the perfect opportunity to break up the behemoth. Get rid of the TV tax. All the programmes competing for the chav market can go to the private sector, or be dropped. The small number of good documentaries (nature, science, history, etc) could be broadcast by a subscription channel, like PBS in the USA. Perhaps have a tiny ex-BBC News channel, provided that they only report what has happened. Not what is ‘expected to happen’. Not ‘we dug around to try to create some news’. Just real news, impartially delivered.
I can only think that Cameron believes the BBC hype that everyone loves it and that it would be political suicide to break it up. Who is feeding him such drivel?
Even the documentaries, which used to be a sort of safe haven from political bias, are now liberally sprinkled with references to ‘climate change’.
BBC programming, of any genre now, is pretty well riddled with Leftist dry rot.
In fairness Neill does give politicians of all colours a tough time.
Which is all we are asking for – impartiality.
This has probably been mentioned already, but blatant bias by Pattern having a go at ‘Murdoch’ this morning on various outlets. There was me thinking they were supposed to be impartial… 😉
Murdoch and phone hacking (by Murdoch – not the Mirror mind you) are their comfort blanket in these times of despair.
well it’s not going to work anymore
it just won’t cut the mustard now
people can see right through them
I hope you are right.
Any bets that Tom Watson will be making some further statement in the House soon?
Paul ‘Guido’ Staines has written an article in the commentator about how Piers Morgan was into phone hacking up to his neck with abundant evidence to prove it. He also says that Cameron was a fool to allow Levenson to be given a remit to focus on the NoW and News International. Don’t remember the Beeb having much to say about the Mirror’s involvement in phone hacking.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2021/morgan_mensch_the_daily_mirror_and_me_proof_we_don_t_need_more_press_laws
” Cameron was a fool ” Nothing new there then!
I agree that Paxo’s statement was ill judged. But the role of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is significant here. The reason they were involved in the first place is that Newsnight lost a very large chunk of its budget a couple of years ago. This was controversial at the time and Paxo was one of several senior figures to question it in the press. This meant they no longer had the resources to undertake complex investigations without outside assistance. This doesn’t excuse anything that’s happened there, but it’s doubtless the reason he’s had a pop at the bosses and blamed budget cuts. And he has a point – but it’s definitely not the main cause of these events. Incompetence and bad decision making is.
Complex investigation? They didn’t even show the victim a picture of his alleged abuser and then failed to pick up the phone to question the alleged abuser. And is it really cheaper for a massive broadcaster with 3000 journalists on the books to sub-contract a job like this? If the answer is yes then I would say that there is yet another serious issue that needs to be looked at.
How amazing that the result of these cut backs, incompetence and bad decision making just happened to have backfired on a story about paedophilia at a time when the BBC is under intense pressure for enabling one or more paedophiles to operate within its premises – oh and the alleged perp happened to be an evil Tory with a strong connection to the hated Fatcha. Yes, an unfortunate co-incidence.
The bad decision making was to think that trying to smear the government was a better option than actually cleaning out their own stinking laundry.
I can see that “incompetence” will be the meme du jour of the fairtrade coffee class for quite some time but I, for one, certainly do not believe it. Maybe, finally, the BBC’s gigantic arrogance will finally be its undoing.
Would you like to explain how it can be cheaper to sub-contract journalism to a third party, than to use all those thousands of highly trained journalists that the bbc likes to boast about employing ?
For us simple souls who do boring things like run companies providing services in the private sector, would an analogy be outsourcing manufacturing footballs in Bangladesh ?
None of these pesky problems with elf n’ safety, minimum wages, or checking facts and showing the putative nonces’ photo to the attention seeker du jour ?
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. How much budget is required to interview one man? Further, how much budget is required to print out a photo from the internet and show it to him? There was no journalism involved in this *at all*. This was not journalism, it was pure propaganda.
The issue is not child abuse at all.
No-like Millie Dowler, the cause always turns out to be
1. Keep the licence fee
2. Vote Labour or Liberal
3. It`s ALWAYS about stuffing the Tories or anything in the way of Guardianland policies to be arranged.
Dowlers shroud, Jennifers ear, MacAlpine smears…the BBC is the story!
Listen to them today-wind turbines, Derra, OFQUAL and Obamas triumphant stuffing of the GOP….hardly a peep, once they`ve read us their contracts, their emails and how Entwhistle wasn`t the man they wanted after all.
Self absorbed, narcissists, solipsistic self righteous, self-indulgent…see it`s all about SELF and self-preservation for themselves only.
Dowler and kiddie fiddling means nothing to them, unless it smears a Tory, trashes a Thatcher and makes the country all trussed up for Brussels of for a Eurotroika of Toynbee, Hutton and Mandelson.
F*** em…get `em out of thaier buildings, bulldoze the lot abd beg forgiveness from Uncle Rupert.
He was right all along was he not?…AND he closed his rogue operations immediately…how come Newsnight`s still in business?
redwhiteandblue – So its the cuts to blame?
Does the ‘Bureau of Investigative Journalism’ work for nothing?
Does City University also pay their salaries?
Why then does the BBC still need to employ 7,000 journalists?
And are you aware that the BBC has just diverted £1billion from licence fee income to the BBC Pension Scheme?
That’s the reason for the cuts, that and paying for the vast redundancy settlements like George’s will be.
And they just happen to sub-contract to an organisation funded by an ex-Labour Party donor.
Coincidence or magic? You decide……
RBW nearly has a good point about the use of the BoIJ. However, unless a good portion of their work for Newnsight until now has been shoddy and questionable, Paxman’s blame doesn’t hold water. If the farmed-out work had been causing problems for Newsnight for a while, then the Nasty Tory Cutz defense would be valid. I’m not seeing that as the case. A one-off like this (which it is at the moment) does not mean the general concept of farming out the work caused the problem.
In fact, the last time Newsnight had to apologize, as far as I can tell, was this summer when ex-Guardianista and now Political editor Allegra Stratton misrepresented that young mother on housing benefits.
Unless Paxman and other BBC defenders can point to other BoIJ work that was faulty and caused headaches for Newsnight, I’m not buying the Nasty Tory Cutz excuse here. I am, of course, open to such evidence and will change my mind if presented with such.
Having said that, Paxman’s moaning about a saint getting crucified is a joke. Entwistle was obviously a coward (“I didn’t ask, nobody told me, and I didn’t order anyone to inform me if Newsnight was going to run another controversial story on the exact same issue that caused problems last time”), and was one of the management incompetents who have been bringing the BBC down for years. Paxman’s just soft on him because they used to work together. Maybe Incurious George will come out smelling like a rose if a proper investigation shows that Boaden or someone deliberately kept him in the dark for whatever reason, but how likely is that to happen?
If Paxman should be angry about anything, it’s management surrounding him with Left-wing editors and producers and presenters.
Exit question: Would Newsnight have run with this if it was about a highly-placed Labour figure? This isn’t about Iraq, remember.
‘The reason they were involved in the first place is that Newsnight lost a very large chunk of its budget a couple of years ago.’
If the British Army farmed out some ‘hearts & minds’ wet work to some Calley acolytes, even if they ‘worked’ pro bono, I rather doubt the BBC and its fellow travellers would be in much slack-cutting mood if they exceeded their remit.
If you know you can’t do a job properly, then don’t try and do it. And if money was problem Jezza has a million ways to offset what would have gone a long way to avoiding this little mess, and still have £999,999.90 in the bank. This year.
There have been no cuts, just a freeze in the license fee….big difference.
If the beeb cannot keep their fiances in order, more fool them.
If they were a private company, like, I dunno, say “Sky” and were raising the yearly fee, year, after tedious year, yet standards and output was both slipping, and becoming more biased, do you think they would have any customers left?
Ask yourself this:
What is left, that is actually watchable on the BBC?
Answers on the back of a fag packet, you can use the rest of the space for your shopping list.
I rest my case for the prosecution M’lud.
Unless you live in the arctic, you may have noticed that inflation exists. In the real world prices are rising but the BBC has a 16% cut in its income. To keep its finances in order it is cutting…
Except revenue outside the license fee has been increasing. The profit from Worldwide alone is enough to cover the cost of absorbing the World Service.
And claiming that a license fee freeze means no more money comes in assumes that no new households have bought new TVs for two years, and never will.
Mark Thompson got the NY Times job because of his genius at finding new sources of revenue, not for any journalistic integrity.
…..all the wrong things. It is cutting programming spend (it’s manufactured output) while maintaining top heavy management and extortionate relocation and rebuilding costs. This is flawed strategy and no commercially self sufficient company would do this. It is why Fleet Street shut down essentially and decentralised. There was no guaranteed income, you see.
I hope you don’t mind me finishing your sentence.
“Newsnight lost a very large chunk of its budget a couple of years ago….This meant they no longer had the resources to undertake complex investigations without outside assistance.”
Boo hoo. A wrong fact is a wrong fact. A misleading statement is a misleading statement. Do you actually believe that if the Newsnight budget had been £1m a show the producers would have broadcast a different story? Would a budget of a mere £100 a show have had a different result? Of course not. It was the journalists duty to check ALL the facts before making a serious allegation. How much is a phone call? Did they make that phone call – the one to the accused? And then that extra phone call to check and check again? How eager they were to run with the story. Why? We know the answer to that, don’t we? To widen the net, implicate people outside the corporation, muddy the water, obscure the Savile angle. Don’t give me budget cuts! Please!
H Boaden. “I can say in all honesty that once I have been sacked the BBC will have got it about right.”
what a prophetic post sir!
Good post, Alan, and you do make a very salient point: Entwistle was booted out the door because he claimed to know nothing about what his indoctrinaire drones were doing; but what of those (slightly beneath him, but up a floor or two in News Management) who’s decision it was to actually broadcast the slurs, to promote what looks like a deliberate lie?
Paxman can posture and preen all he likes; tacit complicity is a stock-in-trade of these BBC apparatchiks. The toxic, biased, left-wing, anti-Tory, pro-CAGW, anti-Israel BBC agenda is suddenly laid bare precisely because of this smug hubris.
What a fool Paxman looks. What a mug. His journalistic ‘integrity’ spilled all over the place, like a drunk throwing up all over the sidewalk. Spare us your blushes and you faux indignance, Mr Paxman. Spare us your weasel words. We all know what the real, underlying, institutionalized problems of the BBC are. Why don’t you?
But what ‘journalistic intergrity’ does Paxman have? He went straight from Oxford (where he was a member of the Labour Club – what a surprise!) straight to the BBC, under whose wing, and in whose ‘culture’, he has sheltered ever since.
This isn’t someone who has worked for newspapers or magazines, breaking stories and doing the hard graft of his trade. This is an over-inflated Oxbrdge oaf who has spent his career in the spoon-fed environment of the BBC having his ego massaged by those who think being rude to people on television is journalism.
But it ain’t.
Quite agree but just wait for the tidal wave of bile from the angry whitemen to descend.
Some basic journalistic practice was a fault here as is clear in this Daily Mail article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231210/Director-General-turned-blind-eye-BBC-meltdown–paid-ultimate-price.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Amazing they ignored a shrewd operator like Crick who rightly tipped off McAlpine.
‘Amgry whitemen’?
Shouldn’t someone report this racist abuse to the old bill?
Prole, you are a bigot. As well as a hypocrite.
I’m in good company here then!
yeah
but dez and co haven’t showed up these past few days,so you’ll have to struggle on alone
Failing to resist the temptation to remain in the armoured bunker was perhaps not the latest great decision from some quarters. Especially with that gem.
Not amazing at all. Crick burned his bridges, and the petty, territorial Beeboids at Newsnight certainly weren’t going to listen to him.
But how did Crick know it was about McAlpine?
The giveaway is here:
A BBC News source has told The Mail on Sunday that on that day there was ‘a lot of shouting in the office’ between deputy editor Liz Gibbons, currently in charge of the programme, and two other journalists over whether to run the story.
It appears Adrian van Klaveren, the controller of Radio 5 Live who was last month drafted in to bolster the BBC’s news management structure, signed it off.
The Independent has different details:
Liz Gibbons, Newsnight’s acting editor who signed off on the doomed 2 November report, could face “disciplinary action”, Mr Entwistle had indicated earlier. Ms Gibbons is understood to be on holiday in America, after covering last week’s elections. She was overseen by Mr van Klaveren, the Radio 5 Live controller.
The person behind the report itself?
Mr Stickler, an award-winning reporter who previously worked at the BBC for 16 years, will have to explain why he did not show Mr Messham a photo of Lord McAlpine, the man he had named as his abuser.
Explains it all, really. The following is not meant to be in chronological order but is just connecting the dots of infection:
Ex-Beeboid becomes head reporter for a Left-leaning BoIJ.
Said BoIJ is subsequently (for budget reasons) brought in to do investigations for Newsnight.
Former executive editor of the Review Show becomes deputy editor of Newsnight, then becomes acting head when Rippon – who is looking better and better by the minute, isn’t he? – steps down over not running an accurate report.
She then approves a story knowing that it’s so problematic they can’t actually name anyone.
The man who thinks the very Left-leaning Richard Bacon and Victoria Derbyshire are quality impartial broadcasters then rubber stamps it, and away we go.
And nobody thought it important enough to tell Entwistle (unless he’s lying).
This is only the tip of a very sick iceberg. The mess that is Newsnight didn’t happen in a vacuum, and unless a lot of people involved in creating it are thrown out, nothing will change other than making the few people with integrity left feel even more crushed and demoralized.
These phrases of the BBC are the memes that go out and do their evil – at the time of the first report I was stunned by the constant repetition of “Thatcher-era”, as if this was the bloody cretaceous or something. I have a vision fo some BBC production office with a wall chart stretching from ‘noble savages living in harmony with each other and the land” right through ‘vicious imperialism” and “wicked industrialists” through to “glorious soviets” and then “Thatcher-era”.
They are poisonous half wit socialists, in the main, with a few of the brighter sparks coming up with these catchy phrases that spread throughout the media. But the general level of intellectual ability at the BBC, as is evident from their programming and the piss-poor performance of their staff when place on the live spot, is just pitiful.
Nine tenths of this is down to the licence fee, and the complacent nepotism that produces. A fierce meritocracy would force the political Kommisars out – if the BBC needed to chase viewers, needed to respond to the market, needed to distinguish itself in that marketplace, then the political activism dressed up as programming would wither.
Now the BBC is reeling, this is a good time ot really stick the boot in. The licence fee must end, any ‘review’ MUST be forced to consider if the licence fee itself is a corrupting factor.
Love your summary of the BBC’s historical timeline there, Frank, and I’m just amazed we’ve not seen it on our screens yet.
Hang on, what’s Marr prattling on about over there…..
‘They then compounded the problem by enforcing a series of cuts on programme budgets, while bloating the management’.
Ah, so that’s the reason investigation of this particular story was contracted out to a journalistic organisation funded by a former Labour donor?
If the BBC insists on involving itself in the shadowy network of Leftist activist groups and subverters of the world political system, such as those revealed in a link from Old Goat in the Harrabin thread, it is inevitable their claim to impartiality might be held to scrutiny every now and again.
BBC News 24 reporter to Polly Toynbee (who just happens to be passing by Broadcasting House)
‘….thank you Polly’.
I assume the Beeb are now going to spend the rest of the weekend trying to raise a few friends.
“She is a social democrat and broadly supports the Labour Party, while urging it in many areas to be more left-wing. During the 2010 general election she called for tactical voting to keep out the Conservatives with the hope that this would lead to a Lab-Lib coalition’
[ie BBC political and corporate policy for the up coming 2015 General Election]
“Toynbee worked for many years at The Guardian before joining the BBC where she was social affairs editor (1988–1995).”
“In 2004 the Islamic Human Rights Commission awarded Toynbee the ‘Most Islamophobic Media Personality’ title in the Annual Islamophobia Awards a claim she strongly contested. She claimed that she is simply a consistent atheist, and is just as critical of Christianity and Judaism”
[ie BBC religious affairs policy]
I was passing by on my way to Heathrow to catch a flight to my Tuscany villa.
Indeed. and the following ringing endorsement was splashed over the imbeciles’ ‘News’ front page an hour or so ago:
“Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee says “BBC journalism is second to none. This was a bad mistake but it doesn’t suggest that all BBC news is rotten.”
Polly Parrot supporting her fellow travellers at the Beeb? Whod’a thunk it!?
Hopefully it will be more akin to the sentiments of Polly Put the Kettle on; when they’ve all Gone Away.
Toynbee and her fellow socialist mouthpieces are like a comfort blanket to the Beeb in its hour of need.
All say ‘Awwww’.
“second to none”, yes: even in a race with nothing it came second!
she’ s imply a sour faced lefty old cow
Get it right:
I’m a extremely rich sour faced lefty cow.
A simple check on the group who apparently spoon fed the story to the BBC should have set their alarm bells ringing, or were the BBC already aware of the mindset of that group but were so intent on spreading unsupported rumour and innuendo that they didn’t care?
THE BBC WILL CONTINUE TO DECLINE UNTIL IT EMPLOYS MORE HOMOSEXUALS AND ETHNIC MINORITIES! FACT!!1!
Earls Court, you’ve already been told to stop doing this sort of thing.
Few rules are as sure as this one.
1. Look at whatever Harriet Harman is saying that day.
2. Your moral compass is to be set at 180 degrees to whatever “direction of travel” that Hatties ” logic” leads yo towards.
Therefore, when Hattie says that we`re not to pile into the BBCs issues and make any political capital out of it…opportunist, populist etc…then this is the ONLY way to take this.
Harman is hells` handmaiden…a spiritual leper…keep away!
you know-i just said exactly the same thing to the mrs while watching the vile old harpie on free bbc
Harman? Toynbee?…and some pliant ex-Childrens Minister( really?) who`s a Tory(really?)…being placed as sandbags to avert the tsunami of filth.
When you`ve got Polly and Harriet on your side….boy, you`re in deep doo!
And Patten hangs on in…who needs comedy?..but the BBC have been saying that since Gervais walked on them!
BBC staff cannot help themselves.
Thatcher bad, Murdock bad, fake green tosh good, republicans evil, enforced equality good, more immigration always good. any one who disagrees or points out the disaster that is the EU is labelled a racist or a child molester.
The words Daily Mail or Daily Mail Reader are the punch line to about 10% of the “jokes” on radio 4 “comedy” with the usual sneers at anyone who points out the insanity of wind farms and the like.
I concur wholeheartedly; it is the BBC love of the green drivel that bemuses me.
They say that a turkey does not vote for Christmas, but apparently the BBC turkey does.
If energy is to get so expensive that we must change our lifestyles, the TV will be the first to go and the BBC will logically follow.
After all £145.50 of BBC Poll Tax will not heat your home, cook your food, run the fridge or take you to work anywhere near as effectively as £145.50 of gas, electric and petrol.
Paul, you’ve been reading the BBC Charter again. Now put it down….
Cameron is backing BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20286193 13:14
A few hundred angrywhitemen go beserk on twitter and BBBC.
Haha!
The BBC is in deep do-do.
Suck it up Prole!
Like a moth to a light…
Cut the racism, snippy. Or I really AM going to turn you in to the cops on the ‘sauce for the goose’ principle.
Then we’ll see how your ‘progressive politics’ really appeals when they start hammering on your front door at 6 am.
The BBC is now like the worst kind of anciens regime Aristocracy: inbred, privileged, irresponsible, arrogant, entitled and vindictive. Even now, when one would expect chastened humility, it is still full of itself. The outrage of Claire Balding and HIGNY was outrage at the critics, not the actions, of the BBC; the sanctimonious tweet of Paxman, at a time when wisdom would keep its counsel, blaming everyone else apart from the Beeb; the surreal coverage on news 24 where they manage to interview only the BBC’s own staff members- someone should tell them this is part of the problem.
Well to me Entwistle’s departure just goes to show that ‘lack of curiosity can kill the Cat’ or should that be the Journalist?
If it is the case that it can kill the journalist when can we expect to see the demise of Jeremy Bowen, Orla Guerin, Roger Harrabin; hell the list is just too long, fill it in yourselves, some time soon?
Joining the dots…spotting the bias.
Unlike the private sector, where senior executives more often than not are brought in from outside to bring some fresh thinking (and sometimes apply a long overdue rogering), all 4 of the above are BBC or ex-BBC.
Jobs for the boys, Leftie inbreeding at its worst.
Somebody get a grip, and I don’t mean you, Patten.
That BBC article about Thomson contains a little white lie. She didn’t exactly leave her post: the first thing Entwistle did after beating her in the DG sweepstakes was to eliminate her job
I’m sure now somebody will decide that a women needs to be DG, and Thomson isn’t tainted like Boaden is. But if she thinks Entwistle has “all the right values” to run the BBC properly, there isn’t much hope for her.
Ohhh….I dunno….whats the link…
Just cant seem to see it…..
Ah, there it is…
SOCIALISM = GOOD
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231288/Sally-Bercow-tried-Lord-McAlpine-man-falsely-accused-botched-Newsnight-investigation.html
Oh please let them be sued for libel… oh the deliciousness of it all 😛
oh yes
please!!
The self-serving updates on the Corporation’s proaganda page (sorry, I meant ‘news page’) today show how trustworthy it is: a string of defences from BBC lovers and highly questionable reports from BBC correspondents trying to pretend there’s nothing to worry about.
Roll-on the Curse of Murdoch!
Just as an aside, it makes you wonder whether the BBC were so keen to see Murdoch skewered over the phone tapping because they were a tad nervous about what he might find by tapping their phones – and those of the Guardian – and Labour MPs.
Only a thought, of course.
Good article, Alan, but I have to disagree with you about the findings of the Hutton enquiry. You seem to have fallen for the Labour spin, still being pushed by the likes of Ben Bradshaw last night, that Andrew Gilligan broadcast a completely inaccurate story of the then Labour government claims about Iraq’s WMDs.
The fact is,despite Hutton’s discredited judgement, Gilligan’s report WAS correct in so many ways. Don’t forget also that the report resulted in Alistair Campbell’s hounding of David Kelly which eventually led to his death.
You have referred to the Hutton enquiry in previous posts as a way of criticising the BBC’s journalistic standards. Out of all the stories and reports, and there are countless, you could choose to highlight political bias and outright malice towards the Conservative Party, Gilligan’s report about “sexing up” of the dodgy dossier is one of the few that proved to be correct.
Subjects that it would be nice to have a totally free public inquiry into (yes, I know about the costs, but let’s just wish):
1. The BBC cover up of Savile 1964 -1995
2. The death of Dr Kelly and the Governments Case for the Second Gulf War.
3. The Islington Children’s Care Homes Scandal and the subsequent Council cover up.
Part-time PATTEN sets future BBC political tone by guaranteeing continued enmity towards News International.
‘Spectator’ piece by David Blackburn –
“Chris Patten claims he has a ‘grip’ on the BBC’s crisis.”
[Concluding excerpt]:-
“And he [Patten]renewed his assault on the Murdoch press, saying: ‘I’m not going to take my marching orders from Mr Murdoch’s newspaper.’ This hectoring tone was a reference to the Sunday Times’ leading column this morning, which says ’If [Patten] has any sense of honour, should take responsibility for promoting his creature and go too. He made great play about defending the corporation’s independence against a perfectly innocuous inquiry by Maria Miller, the culture secretary, over the Savile affair. Yet her concern has been amply vindicated. The corporation is out of control.’”
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/chris-patten-claims-he-has-a-grip-on-the-bbcs-crisis/
Patten hopes that another BBC public expression of hostility to ‘the Murdoch press’, done in an ‘impartial way’, of course, will continue to have considerable political support among the BBC-NUJ ranks.
Attacking the Dirty Digger has considerable support in the entire nation. What was Levison about if not the undue influence wielded by Murdoch over politicians? And as Murdoch junior went out of his way to destroy the BBC, why should Patton pay any notice?
Murdoch has lost his judgement and he’s now backtracking on the silly positions he took on the US. The more he criticises the BBC, the stronger it grows!
I know the angrywhitemen think it would be great to have Fox TV here so they could confirm all their prejudices. It isn’t going to happen.
No, Fox TV might bring a bit of balance, which wouldn’t be needed, of course, if the BBC stuck to its charter obligations, which is all this site is asking for.
PS You were very noticeable by your absence on the Harrabin thread, Prole. Any particular reason?
Most certainly I don’t want Fox. The first time I saw it I thought it was a bad left wing satire. It’s appalling!
All I want is an honest, open UNBIASED BBC.
Too much to ask for…?
“Former culture minister Kim Howells: ‘Lord Patten should resign'”
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a437286/former-culture-minister-kim-howells-lord-patten-should-resign.html
Oh you are a laugh Prole.
That really was a chuckle.
Talk about getting it arse about face.
Murdoch DOES have considerable support in Britain.
Patton IS taking notice, in fact he seemed obsessed with Murdock this morning.
The BBC IS LOOSING strength as this debacle continues.
The calls for its break up are not just coming from blogs now but from the MSM, politicians and the public. We The People cannot be side-tracked by the kerfuffle around Newsnight and Entwistle, it’s irrelevant, we know the truth now. The BBC is not only BIASED but WAS complicit with Saville in his perverted actions and is incompetent at rooting it out even now. Well, not without getting into an even bigger mess by trying to blame The Thatcher Era Conservatives. It is simply pathetic.
By the way Fox TV IS already here and very refreshing it is too.
As for ‘angrywhitemen’ we are cheering up no end lately thank you very much. The BBC car crash along with you and your ilk trying to pretend it’s not happening is most amusing.
X X X
The guy is obviously losing the plot as the BBC get pummeled – hence the silly use of “angreywhitemen”.
And why is it that lefties believe that should the BBC licence fee disappear everything will turn into “Fox News”?
Truly Bizzare.
…and if The Guardian isn’t subsidised by a broadband tax all print media will turn into The Daily Mail. 👿
” Attacking the Dirty Digger has considerable support in the entire nation.”
Two word answer: Fuck off!
give him the rubber ear
he’s an idiot
Paxman is lying. Lyes Ducet’s lecture on the revolution of social media, the Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture(2012), interestingly revealed the existence of the BBC “UCG HUB” (User Generated Content) a team of 20 or so journalists & editors who’s job it is to check the veracity of BBC news stories. According to one site it was formed in 2005 by the BBC “thought-leader” Matthew Eltringham (http://uk.linkedin.com/in/mattheweltringham1 )I had never heard of the UCG Hub. But the obvious question is what did they have to do with the Newsnight story? The BBC would have used this team of specialists to check that the story was true, this is their job, according to Eltringham it is “…an innovative team that since 2005 has developed industry-leading expertise in community engagement with social media and ‘user generated content’ [and] has changed the way the BBC covers most stories.” The fact that they didn’t run it, when they said they would, means that the UCG Hub told Newsnight it probably wasn’t true, so don’t run it. Thus the BBC editorial decisions are already run by teams. Max Hastings, Lord Patten and now Paxo make out it’s all too much for one man to do, etc., the BBC have bloody teams of specialists (paid for by the British tax payer) already doing such jobs! As if it was done by one person or editor! Like in academia, a professor is only as good as his/her assistants. So what the former chair of BBC Governors Sir Christopher Bland has said, that “plain human error” was to blame for the “Newsnight peado slur” is simply not true, it was “a systems failure” and brought about by political impartiality. I’m sure after Savile they all wanted to believe it was true.
Do you know what user generated content is?
It’s where they get more reliable stories than from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, apparently…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20286198
4th most popular story headline- “”Why the rich look down on the poor”
‘Features’ further up changed to “Haves v have-nots, Historian Mary Beard on why the rich look down on the poor”
Heard some of this.
Isn`t she some tenured trustie who speaks Latin in a cloistered ivy-clad quad in Oxbridge or London?
Who better to squauk from a suitably chic minaret about how class based , anti wimmin we all are…why we`re just as bad as the Romans…and not even an ash tree to crucify a criminal upon anymore.
This woman Beardy is a weirdy as they come…a bluestockinged gels tutor who gets Warnocks dotty mad bat pass whenever she wants to use it at the BBC.
Did the Romans dumb down so fast as to allow a Mary Beard to train their best minds then?
Katie Price writes more sense in one Sun article that Beard has ever managed-guess who gets the BBC gig though?
Interesting that the comments on that BBC article about the BBC you link to, the most recommended are heavily favouring a defence of the BBC.
It should read ” Haves versus Have yachts”
“Do we trust the BBC Trust?”
By JOHN REDWOOD.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/11/11/do-we-trust-the-bbc-trust/
Unlike my ‘but they are a national treasure’ DP sofa-addicted MP, this guy sounds like he may have more than his next golden handshake and parachute in mind.
Form the comments, a few agreeing with him.
Redwood is a complete nutjob. Almost guaranteed to make people change their opinions if he agrees with them. Known as Vulcan as he appears to have beamed down from USS Enterprise.
Read the article, Parole. There’s nothing nutty about it. Perfectly sensible, in fact.
the troll is really agitated today isnt it?
That’s how the left work. Look, look, look, he looks odd so he must be mad! Look, look, look, he doesn’t know anything about football so his views are worthless. The left throw ridicule at those on the right BUT if anyone dares to point out an oddity about one of their own – racist, hate-speech etc.
Make me sick they do!
Having said that: Don’t feed the troll.
Every comment you make refers to the colour of someone’s skin or their physical appearance. I suggest you have issues here.
Redwood has more intellect in a single one of his nose bogeys than the entire shadow Labour cabinet combined.
If ‘but they are a national treasure’ shouldn’t they be buried in a field somewhere or stuck in a museum?
Just a thought.
This is the number one obstacle to sorting out the BBC. I’ve said it a million times most people are unable to separate the News & Current Affairs stuff from the sitcoms and the orchestras and the documentaries and the costume dramas and all history and the deep-rooted cultural connection spanning generations.
Cameron can’t do it, the edgy-comedians who line their pockets with license fee money can’t do it, Toynbee can’t do it, defenders of the indefensible can’t do it, not even Lord Tebbit is doing it. So every time someone says there’s a serious problem with the News & Current Affairs, the reaction is a defense of David Attenborough and Pride and Prejudice and the Proms and beloved Sitcoms.
Until the argument separates the News & Current Affairs from everything else, there isn’t much hope for change.
What’s more, David, I bet the BBC gets (and keeps) the credit for ITV shows.
Louis, BBC America shows ITV content, more or less passing it off as BBC unless one sits through to the small print at the end of a show’s credits.
You’re absolutely correct, David. I think this would be the best solution – to separate the news department from all other parts of the BBC, similar to the suggestion for Sky News when Murdoch was looking to secure ownership. That way, any criticism of political bias in their news output would be directed at and specific to a self-contained part of the BBC. This wouldn’t solve the problem of bias, of course, but it would neuter the cries of ‘leave our national treasure alone’ whenever it faces severe criticism.
Now…what to do about all those horrid leftie comedians etc in the ‘entertainment’ section…
I would just like the official State Broadcaster of a foreign country to quit trying to “spread influence” in my country. And to quit misleading my friends and business acquaintances in Britain. If it was a private organization I wouldn’t care.
“Et tu, Paxo? Then fall, Patten.”
By Tom Chivers.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100189013/et-tu-paxo-then-fall-patten/?
They’ve lost Chivers?
It’s all over.
That said…
‘their rolling news channel is interviewing Polly Toynbee, of all people, asking her whether the BBC can survive. A BBC journalist asks her “Is the BBC too big and cumbersome?” You would think, really, that he would be in a better position to answer the question than she is.’
…doesn’t quite sound like how it has been reported making it to the BBC front pages via places now with a bit more cred than their £4Bpa has bough them.
Beeboid EASTON’s profundities.
More profundities from Beeboid Mark (‘what does he do’?) Easton…about the BBC:-
“Trust is key to understanding Entwistle’s decision”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20285481
What ‘statistical’ Easton doesn’t mention are the recent (pre-Entwhisle exit) poll numbers on increasing lack of trust in BBC –
http://news.sky.com/story/1009809/bbc-fights-to-retain-viewers-trust
and the party line of “the bbc is a well loved and highly trusted institution”
half the staff should be IN an institution
propaganda overload alert
Oh dear, oh dear!
We all know the old saying “It started in America”. A phrase so favoured by a Mr Gordon Brown of ”I saved the world” fame. What ever happened to him by the way?
Well this time the BBC Mess (not quite as palatable as Eton Mess) may have started here but our cousins across the pond are picking up on the story now. I wonder when Dave’s chum Barry will stick his nose in, he is after all such a close friend of Britain and would not want the BBC’s interests in the USA to come to any harm now, would he? After all he was so supportive when BP’s US contractor spilled that oil in the Gulf.
It would be awful if anyone thought the BBC was a corrupt organisation and not fit to sell programmes to those innocent good old boys and girls across the pond.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/10/bbc-abuse-report/1696563/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/world/europe/george-entwistle-resigns-as-head-of-bbc.html?ref=britishbroadcastingcorporation&_r=0
http://uk.wsj.com/home-page
Funny how Fox News isn’t basking in Schadenfreude. I guess they’re just unaware just how much the Beeboids hate them. Or maybe they just have little more integrity than the Beeboids who never pass up a chance to snipe at them.
Of course, Fox News is too busy right now trying to follow the unraveling nightmare that is the Benghazi debacle to care much.
If Nadine Dorries can get the Tory whip withdrawn for taking a few weeks off to top up the old pension fund and kickstart a new career why can’t Labour do the same to Brown for being almost perminantely AWOL?
…or Tom Watson slandering an old Conservative.
Oh yeah – parliamentary privilege – that ‘get out of responsibility’ card for cheap shot merchants and low rent attention seekers.
Now stop taking advantage of a poor son of the manse!
Macdoom is busy at his other job of…errrr….ummm…….dunno!
Oh I know, saving the world!!!!
Of course, ‘The Guardian’ (Beeboids’ paper) gives over considerable space today to Marxist, Tariq Ali to pontificate on what the political left should demand of the BBC.
His concluding sentence, no doubt intended as a rallying call to ‘Occupy’, could have quite different results to what Ali hopes for:
“Time, perhaps, for licence-fee payers to occupy.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/11/bbc-reform-trim-managerial-monster-freedom
How about all licence-fee payers stop paying the licence.
Then we can see how long Satans Maxist BBC last.
Reading the comments on that thread I was…very pleasantly surprised.
As usual, Lord Tebbit has it right:
The plot to smear Lord McAlpine was a disgrace. Time for a thorough clean-out of the BBC
The resignation of George Entwistle should not be the end of the clean-up at the BBC. There has been more than one man involved in this affair.
Tebbit reminds us of some vital historical context.
We need to keep reminding ourselves that this fiasco is merely a symptom of the sickness at the BBC, and that this one journalistic failure is far from the only reason why a purge is required.
First they ask Polly Toynbee, then Ben Bradshaw…now Harriet Harman – safe, pro-BBC lefties. Have they asked for the opinions of any Tories, considering it was one of their own who was disgracefully smeared?
“…we must not allow the next victim of this debacle to be the independence of the BBC”.
…about 30 years too late, love.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20288734
It’s interesting how many Labour MPs have suggested what the BBC should do next. It’s almost as if their words carry some sort of weight.
It might be best if MPs butt out of trying to run the BBC now.
…and getting BBC to butt out of trying decide who should run the government!
Diane Abbott will be along in a minute……
In my day the only fat women allowed on the BBC was big fat mammy’s.
Tosser.
Mrs Mills?
No.
OMG an attack of the libtards
You don’t get it, do you?
We feel your pain
Any other underground stations you’d like to mention
I liked the mammy in Gone With the Wind. Hattie McDaniel was her name.
She was the first black person to get an Oscar?
A triumph of intellect.
Yes indeed fellow of All Souls College I heard.
So the stories of lowered standards are true, then. Quite like the choir, though.
Pity the Confederacy didn’t win.
Um, no. Go back to the KKK, please.
Hmm, thanks for your input.
Eyes a popping Diane Abbott.
Hattie McDaniel’s love child.
the only way to get the desired result with the bbc-as the tories clearly haven'[t got the swingers to do it themselves-is to stop funding them
withdraw from the tv tax process
hit them where it hurts
Here’s what BBC management is telling the staff right about now:
…and here’s the verdict on Patten’s selection of the outgoing DG…
ccording to Paxman George Entwistle’s departure is a great shame. He has been brought low by cowards and incompetents.
In reality he has been brought low for cowardice and incompetence.
First by failing to show Savile for the scum he was because it would have also highlighted BBC complicity in ignoring it for so many years, then by claiming he was unaware of what really was going on with this report.
Fact is, he’s only one of a few that should be following in his footsteps. Better still, make them all look for jobs in the private sector and cease financing this insidious bloated organisation.
Kirsty Squawk has come out with a terse statement.
What a cow, we pay your wages, Luv.
All these Beeboids crying about how unfair it all is, but why aren’t these impartial journalists with the utmost integrity going after the people directly responsible for the shoddy journalism? Where are the Beeboid tweets criticizing the Bureau of Investigative Journalism?
I wonder who will be presenting Newsnight on Monday ?
My gut feeling, my chakras tell me it will not be Paxman or Squawk, cos they’re cowards and don’t want to face the music.
Expect a sock puppet to present the show.
Richard Madely has just said on BBC Radio 5
” Newsnight is stupid.”