“I have fought three elections against the BBC and don’t want to fight another against it.”
Margaret Thatcher
You have to grin when you hear the BBC great and the good running round with their fingers in their ears shouting about tight budgets, Hutton and top management being to blame….where have we heard similar before?
‘The Daily Star, though quite accurately at the time, and possibly the only time I have found this awful newspaper interesting, mentioned the fact the BBC had blown millions of pounds on substandard American miniseries while cutting back on home-produced drama, wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on German luxury cars for executives instead of cheaper British cars, and was dominated by a culture of bureaucracy and waste.‘
And look…..the BBC making up accusations based on flimsy evidence, badly researched, badly edited and libellous programmes.…history is repeating itself.……
‘The Panorama documentary, ‘Maggie’s Militant Tendency’, about the threat of National Front infiltration of the Conservatives, caused a furore.…the documentary, after discussing some of these groups, then decided to accuse both Neil Hamilton and Harvey Proctor of flirting with fascism and dressing in fascist uniforms in their young days. While Proctor in particular was known for his racist views, as well as being outed as a homosexual in his later years, accusations against both men were flimsy and led to a libel case against the Corporation. Mrs Thatcher was furious, though I do believe on this occasion the party’s anger was justified, was turned into a badly-researched and badly-edited programme which was libellous.’
So what’s new? So the BBC has always been suspect professionally and ethically.
Looking back you can see that every time the BBC has got itself into hot water it is because it has tried to change the political landscape by broadcasting highly politicised messages aimed at contradicting and challenging the government of the day…
….or hiding inconvenient facts…such as Labour’s mass immigration plans and the effects that would have on British society or that there has been no global warming for nearly 15 years and there is no proof that CO2 causes it…indeed the ‘proof’ suggests no link….something even the infamous Prof Phil Jones from the CRU admitted.
John Humphrys has usefully illustrated the BBC attitude:
“If we were not prepared to take on a very, very powerful government indeed there would be no point in the BBC existing — that is ultimately what the BBC is for.”
Actually no, that’s not what the BBC is for, it is not some sort of unofficial, self proclaimed opposition…its job is to ascertain the facts not to pass judgement on the rights or wrongs of any situation.
The Falklands are a classic example of the BBC getting the narrative wrong….adopting a stance suggesting that the Argentine invaders were perhaps equally right in their actions as the British.
This is still reflected today in BBC coverage…here is, again, John Humphrys on Today suggesting we hand the Islands over:
‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.’
As you can see, still deciding government policy for us.
Here is what the BBC admits itself about its coverage:
‘Initially the problem was over the tone of the BBC’s reporting of the combat, and particularly its presentation of information issued by the military. Peter Snow, on Newsnight, began one sentence: “If we believe the British…”. Casting such doubt on official sources enraged the Thatcher Government, and John Page MP described Snow’s remarks as “almost treasonable”.
Panorama [ran its own anti war feature] under the title Can We Avoid War?
There were misgivings about the programme inside the BBC too. Presenter Robert Kee told The Times it had been one-sided. He was promptly dropped from Panorama, and resigned from the BBC later that month.’
Here is what Thatcher thought was at stake…perhaps everything the BBC hates…..
‘Much was at stake: what we were fighting for eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic was not only the territory and the people of the Falklands, important though they were. We were defending our honour as a nation, and principles of fundamental importance to the whole world – above all, that aggressors should never succeed and that international law should prevail over the use of force.
The significance of the Falklands War was enormous, both for Britain’s self-confidence and for our standing in the world. Since the Suez fiasco in 1956, British foreign policy had been one long retreat. The tacit assumption made by British and foreign governments alike was that our world role was doomed steadily to diminish. We had come to be seen by both friends and enemies as a nation which lacked the will and the capability to defend its interests in peace, let alone in war. Victory in the Falklands changed that. Everywhere I went after the war, Britain’s name meant something more than it had. The war also had real importance in relations between East and West: years later I was told by a Russian general that the Soviets had been firmly convinced that we would not fight for the Falklands, and that if we did fight we would lose. We proved them wrong on both counts, and they did not forget the fact.’
The BBC weren’t above ‘manufacturing’ its own narrative…such as Thatcher only fighting the war to win an election….nor was it above banning anything from the airwaves that was deemed to show Thatcher in a good light:
‘The Falklands Play is a dramatic account of the political events leading up to, and including, the 1982 Falklands War. The play was written by Ian Curteis,
In early July the new Head of Plays Peter Goodchild (whose background was in documentaries, rather than drama) requested considerable modifications to the script, amongst them objecting to the portrayal of Thatcher’s “private and instinctive self” – as opposed to the “bellicose Iron Lady of the public scenes” – and requesting the inclusion of discussions between members of the government about the possible effect of the War on the 1983 general election. Curteis declined the latter on the grounds that none of the relevant people he had interviewed had alluded to such conversations, and that there was no other record of them. In addition, he considered that attributing such fictional dialogue to real people could be libellous.’
The BBC continued in its anti-Tory vain and its coverage of the extremely political miner’s strike (Scargill trying to bring down the government) and the IRA were highly controversial……eventually resulting in the sacking of Alisdair Milne (whose son is Seumas Milne….over paid, over promoted Guardian …well, troll, might be a fair description).
In 2001 the BBC once again took upon itself the role of peacemaker and set its cap against the Afghan War despite its obvious rights.
This is the ever forthright, yet again, Humphrys on Afghanistan:
‘…..the lives lost were a pointless and avoidable sacrifice…..The cynical view, perhaps the realist one, is that they might as well have stayed at home.
NATO will pull out of Afghanistan because the cynical view is, they have fully come to recognise all of that [Afghan is complicated, backward, tribal place.]. The truly cynical view is that all these soldiers, more than 320 of our own, who have died, have effectively died in vain and why waste another 4 or 5 years for still more to die on a hopeless mission?’
The BBC carried this anti-war stance over into its coverage of the build up to the Iraq War and of the war itself.
The BBC made false allegations about the government lying in its Dossier which set out the case for military action and as a result Greg Dyke, BBC DG, lost his job.
The BBC have never accepted they were wrong and continually rewrite history so that now they openly state that they were right and Hutton was wrong. They are wrong.
I would contend that the BBC’s stance on Iraq and Afghanistan has cost British soldier’s lives, Afghan civilian lives and has extended the war immeasurably by turning public opinion against it and made the government reluctant to spend the money to provide the necessary kit to protect the troops and to provide the necessary number of troops to do the job and see it through to the end.
When the BBC decides to play politics it has real consequences. It costs lives.
Moving on into more recent events the Savile affair saw the ‘open and accountable’ BBC attempt to cover up a scandal…and failing miserably….resulting in the debacle we have now.
Whilst that was about ‘internal’ politics if you like….to do with the image and reputation of the BBC, the later Newsnight programme that intended to ‘out’ a Tory politician as a paedophile can only be judged as once more the BBC entering the political arena…..it’s judgement went out the window as it saw an opportunity to not only attack the Tories and smear them but also to taint Mrs Thatcher’s image if only by association.
It was a chance they couldn’t resist and threw caution to the wind.
The BBC has of course other strings to its bow when it comes to political intervention….tackling ‘Austerity’ and government ’cuts’ as well as promoting Labour’s Plan B, seem to be top of the agenda at the moment…..along with quiet encouragement to strikers and rioters to ‘protest’.
The BBC spending £300,000 hiding the Balen Report which reveals if it had any anti-Israeli bias in its reporting hardly shows a nature that regards ‘openness’ and ‘accountability’ as a necessity.
Is BBC News killing Jews? Does its coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict incite anti-Semitic attacks? We’ll never know what Balen concluded…because the BBC hid the report. Why? Just what did it say that’s so bad?
Its refusal to reveal who attended a meeting run by the CMEP, which is essentially a pro AGW advocacy group run by the BBC’s Roger Harrabin and climate activist Joe Smith, hardly demonstrates good faith….the BBC’s complete coverage of global warming was radically altered to adopt a ‘pro man made global warming’ stance was effected by this meeting….so just who attended?…what were the vested interests?…..because they certainly were not the ‘scientific experts’ that the BBC claims they were…being environmental activists, businessmen and media types.
The whole raison d’être behind the BBC’s existence is that it provides impartial, accurate and fair news and information to the Public…essential in a democracy…even more essential in a time when the internet makes so much unsubstantiated information available.
It should have been the BBC’s job to quash the rumours about McAlpine…set in motion by the irresponsible, showboating Tom Watson (even though he is making claims about someone else apparently…though he remains silent on the matter for now), instead it fanned the flames and indeed intended to place McAlpine on the bonfire themselves.
The BBC is a left wing organisation through and through…regardless of Mark Thompson’s announcement that that is no longer the case, it still is….anti-Thatcher, anti-Tory, pro-’progressive’ social policies:
“But we were not just anti-Macmillan; we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.” Antony Jay, Telegraph, July 2007
Can anyone say anything has changed?
If the BBC is failing to be impartial and balanced in its reporting then the very reason for its existence disappears….We may as well have a commercial station that pumps out whatever its owner orders it to.
Can it’s attitude be changed? Can it be made to broadcast impartial news?…if not why should anyone be obliged to pay the license fee any longer for something that they can get from Sky by choice, and a lot more choice at that….or ITV or a myriad of other options on the Internet? Adverts? Have you not seen how many adverts the BBC puts out for its own programmes?…even ‘Today’ becomes a ‘trail’ for Panorama or Newsnight or similar programmes more often than not.
As Patten says…time for a ‘radical overhaul’…though probably not what he had in mind.
So at the end of the today who are the heavy hitters who have come out to support your line.
The Murdoch Press; already totally discredited by its far greater crimes. Dead kids mobile for starters.
Mail. So biased itself that views routinely ignored
John Redwood: Utter fruitcake
And that’s it. A few disgruntled ex staff or competitors and of course the right wing loons.
But no greater public rising. In fact utter boredom. Sky gave up after 10 minutes tonight and by Friday this will a dead story.
Yip the BBC made a mistake. The DG paid for and a few more heads will roll. But the BBC will learn and improve.
It is a British institution (spare me the obvious leaden jokes) and makes mistakes. But none of them really amount to much in the bigger picture which is why the vast majority are so happy with it. Nearly 12m watched Strictly on Saturday. Hardly turning away to the commercial channels are they?
And how many are watching Newsnight?
Let’s see….’BBC bosses have become increasingly concerned about flagship news programme Newsnight after discovering that it can be watched by as few as 166,000 people.’
Perhaps we need more items by Paxman on female grooming!
Alan, in my experience there’s no reasoning with socialists. Best to ignore them and expend ones energy in neutralising their pernicious effects on our country. Getting rid of their mouthpiece would be an enormous step towards normalising ourselves as a nation.
And in my experience don’t worry about angryoldwhitemen – they are going to be dead in a few years.
If you really are Nicked I would be far more worried about the angry young ones. Out there in the shires they are , as the English have always done. holding their peace and biding their time.
Really? Who are these people? The knuckle draggers in the EDL? The sub-cretinous supporters of the BNP? I don’t think anyone need worry about either of them.
Where is this fantasy army of angry young men? There isn’t one — outside your fantasy world.
It really was you then. I was not sure. it seemed a cretinous comment (They are going to be dead etc ) even for you. Drawing you out was really just too easy.
Us left wingers love our genocidal fantasies. Latte Nicked?
Prole: utter fruitcake!
I think we should make Prole the blog mascot.
Literally weeing myself with glee at your comment Nicked Emus. Call me,- we can purge this hideously white country together 😉
Onwards to the revolution comrade
I’m afraid not, you genocidal shit.
Nicked – the ones who ‘are going to be dead in a few years’ are the ones who haven’t been through the indoctrination of a left-wing education system.
Coincidence or magic? You decide.
Oh, and did you realise you sound only one step away from manning the gas chambers?
Then you go on about the BNP. You’re the fascist, my friend.
Amen to that.
You are not taxed under threat of imprisonment to pay for the Murdoch press or the Daily Mail’s views. So your argument comes down to “Yes the BBC makes mistakes but never mind because Strictly Come Dancing.”
amount to much in the bigger picture?
Abuse of journalistic standards, libel the destruction of a innocent mans reputation the misdirecting of inquiry’s from real cases of abuse glad you think that’s not much !
Prole, you have proved my point about how difficult it is to change the BBC. Thank you.
‘Mail. So biased itself that views routinely ignored‘.
Not quite as ignored as The Guardian, old fruit – except by the BBC, of course! – if circulation is anything to go by. Or is that too inconvenient a fact for you? Not quite as inconvenient as this thread, though, which is just one example you have avoided like the plague:
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/11/roger-the-dodger.html
Like to comment?
And while you’re at it, give us an update on how the release of the Balen Report is progressing.
I assume you were the only one to like your own comment there “Prole”
Prole. How right you are. The BBC will march on. reinvigorated, fuelled by the talents of keen eyed and stout hearted young men and women . Impervious to the futile attacks of those not fit to tie Boaden’s shoelaces or tuck the bib under Patten’s chin.
The sunlit uplands of the future beckon. Onwards!.
For is not the BBC the authentic voice of the British people?
I am running out of cliches but I am with you Prole. Until the last day and the last programme.
“Mail. So biased itself that views routinely ignored”
Except by 4million that read it every day
“It had an average daily circulation of 1,991,275 copies in April 2012.[10] Between June and December 2011 it had an average daily readership of approximately 4.371 million,”
You exemplify the contemptuous attitude of the bourgeois bien-pensant patrician class that control not just the BBC but all the levers of state (witness today’s Abu Qatada ruling)
Even your choice of alias is in studied contempt of the class you seek to lord over
The 12 million that watch strictly are testimony to why the BBC shielded Savile (and others) for so long.
Desperate to maintain the semblance relevance and justify their pole tax they must provide ‘bread and circuses’ and could not risk losing their prize clown
There is no greater crime a broadcaster could commit than to conceal the sexual abuse
of the vulnerable for pecuniary gain
At least that’s clearly the view of the ‘hoi-polloi’ you so clearly despise (I myself believe them to be guilty of much greater crimes)
They of course are just right wing loons soon to be ethnically cleansed no doubt
So, the bBBC is measured by the number of people watching one programme, but the same criterion doesn’t apply to newspapers, where the most-bought titles, the Mail and the Sun, are dismissed because they’re not left-wing?
Damn, I clicked like on Prole’s diarrhoea filled post instead of reply.
This is hilarious really, the left wing fascists are showing their true mettle:
Prole is one sick Bastard who thinks the relatively trivial phone hacking is a lot worse than the systematic grooming and raping of minors over decades, and the complicit covering up by a huge organisation whose shadowy goings on are quite alarming.
Nicodemus constantly reveals himself to be a racist bigot who is also sexist and ageist. I wonder if he looks like Bernard Manning as well.
Keep it up you vile individuals, your depravity is almost amusing to see.
For God’s sake Prole you sum up the BBC’s arrogance beautifully. The views of newspapers which are read by millions can just be ignored. And I’m struggling to see the relevance of how many people watch Strictly Come Dancing – perhaps Murcoch should have gone into the Leveson Enquiry and said “Ok, we made mistakes but we got some great feedback from page 3 last week”
Takes a left wing `loon’ to know a right wing `loon’ no doubt!
Yes, the BBC is aware of its leftist political bias on the whole spectrum of issues, but calculates that it is in a politically strong enough position, (supported by Labour Party, Lib Dems , Cameroon section of Tory Party, T.U.C, N.U.J., etc) to pursue such an agenda with alacrity; and Beeboids presume that there is unlikely to be a licence payers’ democratic revolt.
You forgot the EU and O’ Bama.
the BBC had blown millions of pounds on substandard American miniseries while cutting back on home-produced drama,
And now the BBC has recently blown loads of money on substandard American reporting and “bespoke” video magazine pieces while cutting back on home-produced quality investigative journalism.
This is Mark Thompson’s legacy. The reason the US reporting is substandard is because of the people the BBC hired to do it and supervise it. They’ve increased spending on things like hiring a German immigrant to do a dishonest series of reports on US immigration, a former Obamessiah campaigner and other Leftoids to write feature reports on US issues, and a Socialist politics junkie who refuses to accept that not everyone who disagrees with him is a racist in spite of all the evidence around him as their top, most-trusted man in the US.
All of them could easily be replaced by five people and a news aggregator, and all that money put back into real domestic journalism. But it won’t happen because of the deep-set belief in its Manifest Destiny (see what I did there), and the bias will remain in place because of the belief system of the people who run things.
None of these looming inquiries will even begin to address any of this. Changing the Trust Chair and the DG, and rearranging the deck chairs so that Newnsight has a BBC journalist in charge will solve none of these problems.
Paxman should be angry about this, but I doubt he realizes how much money is spent on “bespoke” video magazine pieces and expanding the eyeball reach of the US part of the website instead of his precious Newsnight. Any Beeboid upset about budget cuts affecting journalism needs to take a good hard look at the US division. And that should be just the beginning of the process.
have started the revolt already,cancelled DD to the BBC and put up a notice telling all that their implied right onto my property has been revoked.so sod off BBC
Why is the bbc given EU funding and what do they do with it?
To push the EU line on everything – warming, the US, the lot. The Labour council donations are self-explanatory too –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
Alan
Genuine question: have you got a link or source for the John Humphreys quote?
It was in his speech to the Communication Directors’ Forum in 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/sep/06/radio.bbc
Transcript here (last paragraph):
http://www.pressmon.com/cgi-bin/press_view.cgi?id=758838
Very old news, Jim. Humphrys said it in some paid private appearance which got leaked. Stephen Pollard used to have it on his old blog, but that’s long since vanished into the ether. Humphrys took a little heat for some of what he said at first, but was ultimately given a pass, and then won 10 grand in compensation from whoever leaked the transcript.
I see Span has the real source after all. Nice work.
Thanks David…I have many gems tucked way but the length and depth of the Internet contains almost everything for those that want to find it.
Well, Jim? Anything to add?
You’ll be waiting a long time. They don’t like facts up ’em.
Promote the EU?
David makes some sane points about US coverage, which badly needs an overhaul. There should be fewer services, better funded. And I yearn for more right wing voices on the radio, and not just occasional outings for professional right-wingers, people like Niall Ferguson who seem to be regarded as exotic specimens by BBC producers.
That said, I don’t detect much of an appetite for killing the BBC. A couple of slightly demented Telegraph blogs don’t change much. Parliamentary opposition was pretty much limited to John Redwood, whose undoubted intellect is alas unmatched by charisma or much of a following in his own party. And Alan’s rant, a sad concatenation of ancient quotes lurching incoherently from one spittle-flecked philippic to the next, is about as likely to change anything as a complaint to the BBC Trust.
Redwhiteandblue, I agree with all of that except the last sentence.
You are right about the lack of appetite but that stems from the almost impossible task it would become. The BBC is immense…HUGE, and many parts are perfectly OK. What needs to happen is a series of changes
Broadcasting split from production
Sports overhauled and made independent of news/chat/trash
Local/Regional TV and Radio beefed up and balanced
National TV reduced to 2 channels of good PSB
National radio reduced to 3 or 4 (young, middle, oldie, classic)
News and current affairs: hanging, drawing and quartering of 80% of the incumbents: cadavers incinerated and buried in landfill. Then, root and branch reform with new blood. The talk of Paxman, Dimbleby etc getting anywhere near the DG spot should be stopped ASAP.
I don’t think we often agree on much but on the strength of that post I think you should be the next DG. My sentiments entirely.
I see the spiteful lady boys are out and about tonight.
Has someone smacked their Beloved Bottoms Club where it hurts?
Ah Diddums
This wouldn’t be the same BBC accused of being pro-Israel (Tony Benn), Indophobic (Sikh leaders), racist (Lenny Henry, Jimmy McGovern), hideously white (Greg Dyke), right wing (John Pilger and Media Lens), the Bush Broadcasting Corporation (George Galloway) and hopelessly biased against Labour (Harold Wilson, Tony Benn)? The same BBC attacked by the Blair government for not showing grovelling support for the illegal invasion of Iraq? The same BBC whose founding father, Lord Reith, wrote crudely anti-union speeches for the Tories during the General Strike?
No, thought not. But then, why let facts get in the way of a good old mindless rant!
“No, thought not. But then, why let facts get in the way of a good old mindless rant!”
LOL, always makes me laugh when people put the answer to their question IN THE SAME comment as the question. Wouldn’t be so bad if the answer was the right one! Yes, it is that BBC.
Yes the same BBC accused of not being left wing enough by left wingers
all of whom have suckled at the teat at some time none of whom want it abolished
General strike your reaching back a bit there
Yes the same BBC accused of not being left wing enough by left wingers
Or not being right wing enough by right wingers.
What does that tell you?
Racist Nick, All those who defend its position are on the left. What does that tell you?
That the bourgeois left have their feet firmly under the table.Otherwise they would be screaming,like spoilt brats,for the entire reactionary establishment edifice to be pulled down.
But others occupied those seats before them (often their own forefathers) and they to were white fingered from gripping the edge of that heavily laden board
So fill your boots – while you may
The same Lord Reith that refused to let Churchill on air?
Source: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/692–reith-of-the-bbc
Sorry, do continue….
Tony Benn
Lenny Henry
Jimmy McGovern
Greg Dyke
George Galloway
John Pilger
Lad and lasses run! Tony has uncovered the truth about the BBC the thousands of comments, screen captures and tons of evidence we have pails with this list of the illuminant elite!!
I need a lie [BBC copy write] down !
The BBC should of course be sold off. It can then join all the other great industries dumped down the sewer of privatisation by Thatcher’s barmy army. That malign cabal of doctrinaire academics, fatcats and snake-oil salesmen who came out of the woodwork in the 80s to peddle the delusions of deregulation/liberalisation/privatisation ensured that hundreds of companies, thousands of factories and millions of jobs went down the drain. Why should the BBC, which they’ve always kept in their vengeful sights, be exempt? With luck we could ditch one of this country’s noblest achievements, admired in all the fifty countries I have visited, and end up with wall-to-wall tabloid telly and rubbish radio. Under the inspired guidance of private owners the BBC might even aspire to the loony reporting standards of Fox TV, or the cultural refinements of the Berlusconi muck-machine.
Who was it said you never knew what you had until you lost it?
Does nurse know you’re out?
Explain to me why I should be forced to pay for something I do not want simply because you like it.
Don’t worry you and the 50 countries
you have visited can buy it
Then broadcast all the agitprop you want at your own expense
A noble paen of praise indeed.
And exactly which great industries were destroyed by the monster Thatcher?
Coal? Lets start with coal. Market share collapsing. Costs out of control. And no way for a man to spend his days in the dust and the dark.
Your turn now.
If Mrs. Thatcher destroyed the coal industry then everyone on the Left should be thanking Gaia for her brave acts. Think of how much worse Global Warming would be if she hadn’t!
David this is one thing you should never mention to a lefty.!
Oh dear, this is classic page 1 lefty indoctrination. It reads like student union debate in the common room 101. Next page is greed is good, Belgrano sinking and destroyed communities.
Go home and read a bit more than the script they put in front of you. Next
Oh yes thank god for the 13yrs of socialist reign or where would we have been without them to save us !
pmsl !!!
Dear sir, in your rant I assume ( I hope correctly) that you include the devastation brought to those mining communties that suffered after pit closures.
Yes you can blame Macgregor, thatcher et al.
But pray sir, list out for me the names of the mines that were reopened between 1997 and 2010 by the incoming Labour government?
Speaking as an ex-miner, I think you will find that Tony Benn holds the record for closing pits down during his time at the energy dept. Oh how we used to laugh(ironically).
I’ve heard that before. But surprisingly not on the Beeb. 😉
So, Anthony, your experience of nationalised industry in the 70s was….
Mr McQuarrie in his deep probe into Newsnight has discovered, “It was not clear whether this story was regarded as Savile-related or not, or when that decision was made and communicated: A clear decision on this does not appear to have been taken until lunchtime on Friday 2 November.” [Yes I know it doesn’t make sense.]
Presumably he didn’t ask how it came to Newsnight’s attention on 28 October and why they were so interested in an elderly story with no new aspect?
He remains utterly baffled by the matter because he didn’t ask, ‘was it the Tory angle that got you into it?’
He probably couldn’t even phrase the question let alone conceptualise it.
I think we must withhold judgment for the moment. The full report isn’t out yet and there may yet be answers to sensible question like this one.
It can be similar to the statement that ” I found no evidence” which of course without qualifying if you even bothered to LOOK at all, is somewhat meaningless. But Yes, RWB has a valid point, dont jump the gun, it’s worth waiting.
The helpful line espoused by some Labour politicians in the HoC today was that it was due to budget cuts.
Expect this to be whored to death once the dust begins to settle and who imposed the cuts – the nasty Tories……
And so off we go again.
Nothing will change except the names.
Result of MacQuarrie inquiry into how Newsnight messed up and skipped basic journalistic checks:
“Basic journalistic checks were not completed.”
Classic. Management structure did not produce shoddy journalism. It allowed shoddy journalism to be broadcast, but it did not produce the report itself. So why no investigation into how and why the shoddy journalists did what they did in the first place? Other than the excuse that budget cuts caused them to farm it out, I mean.
Can one of our resident professional journalists please explain this to me?
No. It was utterly shoddy and inexcusable. This was a failure on so many levels. It is nothing to do with management cuts.
Exacttly, Nicked, political bias is so ‘shoddy and inexcusable’.
The likes of prole and Mr Emus need to tell us whether the smearing of MacAlpine was in any way linked to the BBCs self-appointed role as scourge and redactor of all things that might possibly judge Margaret Thatcher to have been better that Richard Curtis or Jonathan Miller might have told us all.
I `m pretty sure that it was -and THAT needs to be the enquiry-would the BBC ever do the same of old Labour politicos…there`s bound to be a few up there in cyberspace.
And when Harman, Bradshaw, Bryant, Dimbleby, Bland, Marsh, Toynbee, Hutton get unlimited free puff pieces to tell us about how great they are at smearing Tories..add Owen Jones to that list please…and Wilson, Hannan, Johnson, Letts, Delingpole, Farage are nowhere to be seen on the BBC(way too dangerous to them at this moment, thank you!)…well you just KNOW who`ll win…and who are bound for the hell of their own fetid making.
Jimmy Savile has gone on to prepare a place for them…believe it`ll be sponsored for cheridee though.
This is tosh. Letts often presents Week in Westminster, Hannan is often on political programmes and was on Start the Week not so long ago, and Farage gets regular outings. As for Johnson, if you mean Boris he’s pretty much ubiquitous. And Delingpole loathes the BBC so probably doesn’t want to. My complaint is that they need to move beyond these usual suspects and find a wider range of right wing voice, particularly those who aren’t elected officials.
But they won’t.
The BBBC have a bunch of anti’s – this placates those that demand balance and putting on air different anti’s might give the impression that there might be other with the same opinion and that it isn’t unique to a select few.
Heaven forfend, this might actually change the way they’re funded – as I’ve said before, the BBBC’s prime purpose is to survive.
I`d better make the point a little clearer for you rwb.
Been any outings for these siren voices since Saviles story cam eot light?
Do tell rwb…now if I ever wanted to hear from Campbell, Harman, Toynbee…can`t imagine I`d have a problem would I?
Does that help make it clearer now?
Line 4..”came”, not cam
Line 5-“to”…not eot, which may be Birtspeak or Esperanto…
I can only assume Redwhiteandblue’s radio doesn’t receive Radio 4 for some strange reason.
The infrequent presence of the names he mentions is drowned in the tsunami if Left-liberal chatterati who fill the broadcasting day.
And as for the subjects chosen by the programme makers…. or doesn’t that count?
Speaking as an ex-miner I think you will find that Tony Benn holds the record for closing mines during his days at the Energy dept. Even us miners used to have an ironic chuckle at that !
On it’s own, Maggie’s quote is a great reason to shut the BBC down. She was such a woman of action – not sure why she didn’t cancel the licence at the time??
I can’t find a source for that quote. It seems to originate from a blog. It doesn’t really sound like Margaret.