The BBC, under Chris Patten’s leadership, in defiance of its promises and all expectations of it living up to its ideals, has developed a new strategy to defend its unique political and ‘commercial’ dominance….and in doing so has abandoned all pretence of working in the public interest and encouraging the public’s trust.
‘Kevin Marsh, Editor of the BBC College of journalism (not since 2011) stood before a class of around 40 students at the LSE Summer School and shared his experiences at the BBC – an organisation that stands as an inspiration for journalists around the world for the ethics and qualitative reporting it supports.
Finally, Marsh argued the case for the BBC, emphasizing the aspect of the public purpose of journalism.
“Truth and Accuracy, Impartiality, Independence, public interest and accountability” – stand as the founding principles of journalism at the BBC”.
He reinforced the fact that the BBC continues to religiously follow these principles of journalism. For me the most pertinent aspect of the talk revolved around the existence, the exploration and the persistent fight for the discipline of journalism.’
How times have changed at the BBC.
This morning listening to 5Live I heard the usual news and a balanced piece on the Newsnight fiasco by Torin Douglas…..the BBC then wheeled on a man named Tim Crook…..Senior Lecturer in Media Law & Ethics, Goldsmiths, University of London….who also happens to be a visiting lecturer on media law to BBC Training and College of Journalism since 1982.
His parting words were these:
‘They need to have a leadership that when mistakes happen they are managed not just on journalistic terms but on political and propaganda terms.’
It would seem the BBC have rapidly assimilated his ideas, put them into practise and are presently engaged in a highly political and commercial black propaganda campaign, if not ‘war’ with politicians and with, in particular, News Corporation.
Let’s see just how impartial Crook is…a man who actually lectures BBC staff at its own college, on media law and ethics……..
Tim Crook ?@libertarianspir
I have been trying to analyse and defend the BBC position on BBC Five Live Morning Report 9 mins 43 secs in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070hss …
Pretty clear where he stands.
The BBC Trust under the chairmanship of Chris Patten has announced that it will ‘get a grip’ of the BBC and work to rekindle public trust in the organisation.
What has it done to further that ambition? It has admitted its journalism was seriously at fault, it has paid off George Entwistle, removed a few senior managers from the frontline and engaged in some inquiries.
That is the ‘mea culpa’ public face of the BBC which Patten is using to try and claim he is turning the organisation around.
Is that all that the BBC is doing? Having heard Crook this morning a few other things started clicking into place and a pattern emerged from the smokescreen that was being laid by the BBC Trust.
That pattern indicated something that tells us that nothing has changed at the BBC and that far from accepting any ‘guilt’ they are playing the ‘victim card’ and claiming the BBC is the victim of political and commercial attacks……essentially a rerun of Hutton.
This was reinforced when I heard the Today programme where they wheeled on Phil Harding, the BBC’s former director of editorial policy, who said:
“Mistakes have been made in journalism everywhere, but we have to keep a sense of proportion…..There are some people in the press who love to give the BBC a good kicking because they don’t believe in its existence in the first place.”
This is from the BBC who engaged, in collusion with the Labour Party, in particular Tom Watson, and the Guardian, in an all out assault on one of their commercial and ideological rivals, News International, in an attempt to destroy it…. And which cost over 300 jobs and has seen 100 NI employees in the dock.
In response to The Sun’s Trevor Kavanagh saying, quite reasonably, that the BBC was an organisation that presented a left wing view of the world and that the Newsnight programme was an attempt to smear the Tories whilst it wouldn’t have done the same to a Labour Peer, the BBC’s Harding claimed that was an ‘outrageous slur’.
He had just said he wanted to engage in discussion about the BBC….but as usual the BBC want to fix the terms of any debate and limit what can be said.
Talking about Leveson and ‘Press freedom’ Kavanagh said that Newsnight showed that Broadcasters were as capable of getting it wrong as newspapers were….and should come therefore under the same scrutiny as newspapers.
Harding replied that: ‘Yes the BBC had made mistakes but we must keep a sense of proportion. If we keep giving the BBC a kicking it will undermine confidence in the BBC’s journalism and in journalism as a whole.’
Jim Naughtie added that: ‘There’s a danger of us all being pulled down if there’s too much mud slinging.’
I don’t remember such a reaction when News International was in the dock.
Kavanagh went on to say that the BBC had an institutional bias towards the liberal left and the BBC was unable to recognise this in itself…it had an ‘inbuilt lip curl directed with contempt towards anyone it disagreed with.’ and that the BBC would not have broadcast Newsnight had it of been a Labour peer instead of a Tory one…it was ‘wishful thinking rather than bad journalism’ that led to this disaster for the BBC.
Harding jumped in and claimed that was an ‘outrageous slur’…and that we are ‘maybe getting to the real agenda…not what mistakes in its journalism the BBC makes but whether it is too big and bloated, whether the BBC has institutional bias and whether it is too left wing…..if we’re going to have that debate let’s have it but don’t dress it up as looking at BBC mistakes.’
Harding and Naughtie provided a united front defending the BBC and adopting the BBC’s new stance in its defence….that it has made one mistake and that this is being used by politicians and its Press rivals to attack it.
This approach has obviously been ‘agreed’ at the highest level. The BBC has held an emergency summit in which a new strategy has been thrashed out and put into operation. This must have been signed off by Patten.
Not only have various ‘talking heads’ been brought in by the BBC to bolster their defence but as we can see Patten himself has taken up the cudgel in the BBC’s defence adopting that very strategy…of blaming politicians and other media organisations…or rather just Murdoch…..
‘I don’t think Lord Patten helped himself by repeatedly attacking Rupert Murdoch during his round of media interviews this morning (see Spectator report).‘
Chris Patten has just appeared on the Andrew Marr Show to discuss the resignation of George Entwistle and to evaluate its fallout. Patten conceded that the BBC is mired in a mess of its own making and that it was inevitably under pressure as a result. He opened a media war while defending the BBC’s independence, saying that the corporation was ‘bound to be under fire from Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers’ and sceptical (Tory) MPs, adding later in the interview that Murdoch’s papers would be happy to see the BBC diminished.
And he renewed his assault on the Murdoch press, saying: ‘I’m not going to take my marching orders from Mr Murdoch’s newspaper.’ ‘
The warm up to this has been going on a few days…on the Daily Politics the BBC held a debate between ex Murdoch man Neil Wallis and Lawyer Charlotte Harris who have been sparring over the future of press regulation.
‘They both made an authored film for the Daily Politics, and have appeared in two TV debates together, which can all be seen on this page.
Charlotte Harris represents victims of phone hacking and has called for more regulation, while Neil Wallis argues that illegal actions of journalists are already covered by existing rules.’
I would suggest that the BBC’s favoured position is that proposed by Neil Wallis….I believe that they had absolutely no interest in ‘press regulation’ and are just as worried about Leveson’s rulings as Murdoch might be. I think the BBC have the fullest intention of sidelining the victims of the hacking scandal and used that purely as a means to attack Murdoch….which it succeeded in doing.
Murdoch himself of course does have an interest in seeing the BBC brought under control…as he has tweeted recently:
Rupert Murdoch ?@rupertmurdoch
BBC mess gives Cameron golden opportunity properly reorganize great public broadcaster. Fast inquiry to Include both critics and supporters.
Neil Wallis said this….which is pretty much what seems to be the new BBC line….no press regulation as it is the thin end of the wedge….
Neil Wallis ?@neilwallis1
My blog on press freedom, based on the script of my BBC2 Daily Politics film today, is on front page of the Huff Post!
‘Make no mistake, statutory regulation means state regulation and is the thin end of the wedge. Ignore the apologists who protest the changes they seek are inconsequential. Who brings in, draws up, and enacts the statutes they seek? Politicians, of course.
And once in place, those self-same politicians will be free in years to come to amend, adjust, tweak, ratify, clarify, fix, CENSOR those press laws to silence all those questions and inquiries they don’t want to answer.
A free press does make mistakes, gets things – including its behaviour – wrong. That can hurt – but the alternative is worse. To paraphrase, democracy is the worst kind of government… until you consider all the others. It is the same with a free press and self-regulation.
Let them steal it at your peril. ‘
The above is a longer version of an authored TV film by Neil Wallis broadcast on the Daily Politics programme on BBC2 on Thursday 8 November 2012.
And:
8 November 2012 Last updated at 12:51 Help
Former newspaper editor Neil Wallis, said “an unsavoury alliance” of celebrities, lawyers and politicians were getting together to limit press regulation for their own interests.
But he said new press laws would give MPs a press they could control, and allow politicians to silence questions they did not want to answer.
But let’s remember who Neil Wallis is….apart from an ex Murdoch man what else has he done since?….he ran the PR spin campaign for the University of East Anglia’s CRU after ‘ClimateGate’…….suddenly stories of Prof Phil Jones getting death threats appeared in the papers and similar tales of woe intended to generate public sympathy were manufactured to support the CRU’s climate change ideology.
The BBC have even dragged in their old sparring partner Labour’s Alistair Campbell to support them…in news bulletins he is quoted saying: ‘the BBC must be defended and not reduced in size or effectiveness….other media which are attacking the BBC have vested interests in doing so.’
So again we have that same posturing…a BBC under threat from ‘dark forces’….as Harding said : “Mistakes have been made in journalism everywhere, but we have to keep a sense of proportion….There are some people in the press who love to give the BBC a good kicking because they don’t believe in its existence in the first place.”
I think it might be wise to remember that Campbell is practically employed by the BBC which relentlessly plugged his book as well as using him to front many of their programmes.
This all comes together to point to a coherent and deliberate plan to spike any attempt to force the BBC to change other than on its own terms. It has no intention of being held to account by anyone and believes in its own sanctity…it believes it is beyond the reach of the temporal world almost….practically a religion…indeed the journalists there I think, see themselves as the new priesthood issuing forth guidelines to the lesser mortals who otherwise wouldn’t be capable of living their lives in a moral and ethical manner, as defined by the BBC….and as such the BBC are themselves beyond reproach and unaccountable to anyone.
The BBC Trust is acting in a way that is directly in opposition to the rationale for its existence and the rules it is supposed to enforce.
It is, far from admitting any mistakes or innate, wilfully partial tendencies at the BBC, reinforcing and defending such an attitude on behalf of the journalists and is failing utterly in its role as defender of the Public interest.
The Trust has deliberately engaged in a campaign of black propaganda not just against other media organisations but against politicians, government and the judiciary.
The BBC has tried to set itself up as untouchable and so precious to the nation that to attempt to control it or rein it in in any way will lead to the end of democracy as we know it.
What this demonstrates is that the BBC is betraying the trust placed in it by the Public and are solely concerned with defending their own political, commercial social, cultural and ideological positions.
The BBC is all about trust, openness and accountability, if it no longer operates to such standards and works in a way that is solely in its own interest, pushing a political message rather than acting to inform debate then it has lost its reason to be ‘special’ and uniquely funded….as it does nothing that a commercial station couldn’t do and probably do better and cheaper……
‘This existential crisis exists because there’s no longer any ideological reason to keep the BBC around, so every argument about its power has to focus on its practical ability to do good. If the BBC can’t keep to the extraordinarily high standards the British public has for it, it may be beginning a slow and painful journey to privatization like other nationalized British industries before it.’
It might also be worthwhile challenging the definition of what exactly ‘for purposes of journalism, art or entertainment’ means exactly.…for everything the BBC does is aimed to those ends…and therefore subject to that qualification in the FOI Act. How can it be open and transparent if it can so easily hide away its dirty secrets?
Back to BBC supporter Tim Crook (at 9 mins 45 secs in )….here is the full transcript of his broadcast on behalf of the BBC this morning…..one that ticks most boxes in the BBC box of tricks….Austerity, Hutton, Murdoch.
First some tweets to add some colour to the picture:
Tim Crook ?@libertarianspir
It would be awful if Helen Boaden turned out to be the best Director General the BBC never had
Tim Crook ?@libertarianspir
Seems to me politicians think they own the BBC & decide what happens next there & elsewhere in journalism. That’s not democracy surely?
Tim Crook ?@libertarianspir
I’d make Helen Boaden DG- and Kevin Marsh as Director of Journalism- Journalism needs ascendency, independence & investment at BBC
The transcript:
‘George Entwistle was pulled down by not being able to marshal the BBC to cope with this new aggressive political tactic which is to take one mistake made by a media organisation and expand it out as if it is a general issue and an extremely important problem.
It started in a big way with ‘HackGate’ and that’s how Leveson came about. I think politicians in recent years have learned how to deflect, to throw up smoke screens and attack journalism and the media.
Particularly at a time when journalism and the media are particularly vulnerable.…vulnerable because of Austerity because multi media organisations are struggling to find an economic model for digitisation and there is an evacuation of key advertising to the Internet.
The BBC has been substantially vulnerable since Hutton when a New labour government employed classic propaganda techniques to humble it.
that was combined with judicial public enquiry where the terms of reference were politically and narrowly defined.
So I think we’re seeing an ongoing repetition of a growth of political power on the part of politicians against the Media.
Recently the BBC has been a casualty of that.
The problem for the BBC is that it is owned by the Public but is more harshly shackled to the political world than It has been in the past. The Chairman is a Conservative politician at a time when we have a Conservative/Lib/Dem Coalition and I think that’s a key issue.
I think the BBC is in a process of necessity but it is learning a desperately hard lesson. Not only the BBC but any newspaper organisation now has learned that they are under attack and are vulnerable to the Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary.
They need to be much more disciplined, they need to be more politically savvy.
They need to have a full understanding of the political ground as well as the journalistic infrastructure and culture of their own organisation.
They need to have a leadership that when mistakes happen they are managed not just on journalistic terms but on political and propaganda terms.’
They need to have a leadership that when mistakes happen they are managed not just on journalistic terms but on political and propaganda terms.
(1) Journalistic terms: = Suppress the truth.
(2) Political terms: = Lie to the politicians
(3) Propaganda terms: = Lie to the people
(4) Rekindle public trust in the organisation: = Mock Murdoch on HIGNFY.
(5) Fix the terms of any debate: = Stronger Editorial Guidelines.
(6) Not going to take my marching orders from Murdoch’s newspapers: = Continue to take marching orders from the Guardian newspaper.
(7) Does Murdoch own the Daily Mail, Express or Telegraph: = Not mentioned by the BBC as only Murdoch papers are celebrity obsessed.
Should be on tablets of stone at Portland Place
And not a word about the culture of sexual abuse.
This is the while point of this issue. It is being used to distract attention from the appalling Jimmy Savile saga.
That was the whole idea behind the attempted McAlpine smear camapain. The hope was that the bBBC could send the media off on a wild goose chase searching for something they were never going to find because it didn’t exist whilst the bBBC and their scandal quietly slipped away, unnoticed into the background. People can spend a lond time searching for something that doesn’t exist, especially when somebody keeps claiming if it’s not found where you first look then it must be in a continuous string of different places all over the country.
“‘George Entwistle was pulled down by not being able to marshal the BBC to cope with this new aggressive political tactic which is to take one mistake made by a media organisation and expand it out as if it is a general issue and an extremely important problem…”
Well there’s an inaccurate report – somewhat ironic when setting journalism right.
Excruciating mistakes, in more than one important story, and the hamfisted cover stories afterwards have revealed the competence and mindset of BBC journalists, editors and managers.
It’s that revelation that has caused the breakdown in public trust for the majority of people who do not usually bother to scrutinise the routinely arrogant behaviour of the BBC.
Their continuing arrogance in proclaiming how wonderful they are, and how evil their critics, will not help the BBC when a large part of the public are critical.
Rats in a trap, springs to mind.
Interesting how some of their most gobby liebour cheer leaders have headed for the hills and left them to hang. Taxi for Mr watson !
British tax payers should protest. The BBC was supposedly accountable to the public who paid for it’s programmes but the BBC’s complaints procedure alone should be evidence enough that this was not the case..
The complaints procedure proved itself to be slow and cumbersome with letters being deliberately lost, sent to the wrong departments to delay answering and rules being changed as to who should answer . It took in many cases up to a year for the Governors and later the BBC Trust with few exceptions to merely rubber stamp the BBC’s decisions. The British tax payer deserves better than this.
Unless the protest was mass withholding of the License Fee, at least 100,000 people, the BBC and the left would ignore it. They think they know what is best for the country and happily it just coincides with what is best for themselves. The rest of us don’t count as long as we keep paying the taxes they impose on us and which they make their living off.
Anyone know how to run a campaign to withhold the License Fee that can reach well over 100,000 people?
Don’t wait for a campaign, just start by not renewing your own TV license.
“Do I need my TV licence any more?”
read more here –
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/pc-help/2162820/tv-licence
Good article.
notice that not even one newspaper has put the boot in and said that we should badger or MP’S to get rid of the telly tax.
DC wont do anything, lab wont either,as lib well there as wet as DC.
AS for UKIP well they prob lock em all up or send them to the EU with a note saying were out, you keep these idiots in lieu of payment.
Didn’t notice any BBC front page stories today. As predicted, lack of interest has killed this story. Most people like the Beeb warts and all. They don’t have much time for the extreme right opposed to the Beeb who have no voice because…they have no support. (EDL has completely imploded for example).
“Their continuing arrogance in proclaiming how wonderful they are, and how evil their critics, will not help the BBC when a large part of the public are critical.”
But a large part of the public are not critical. Do you not recall how the rag News of The World died? Wholsale attack by the general public killed it in 5 days. Where’s the same outrage here? There isn’t any.
No doubt the story will briefly flicker into life as the few old pervs still alive are arrested, then bailed. And after the ITV documentary next week. But the fantasy that the BBC would crumble is over.
The tiny number of posts on this site and the equally tiny number on Twitter show how unrepresentative and out of touch BBBC is.
Well if you want to believe that there is no interest that’s your concern. But sadly for you and other BBC employees and cheerleaders it will not go away. This matter will continue to command press attention for many months.
This is no “extreme right” plot. This scandal is entirely of the BBC’s own making. The NotW did not die because of wholesale public attacks but a needless act by Murdoch. Don’t even remember the circulation dropping, indeed they actually went up. Hardly public antipathy. But you carry on belieing your own lies – and listening to the BBC.
PS: Why don’t you give us your defence of the BBC’s conduct. You can’t can you.
“The NotW did not die because of wholesale public attacks but a needless act by Murdoch.”
It died because advertisers were jumping ship. The Royal British Legion said it wanted nothing more to do with the paper. The paper had lost public support.
Furthermore DCMS had over 100,000 submissions about NI’s plans to take over BSkyB.
As with many UK newspapers circulation, while substantial in comparison to other papers, was already in decline.
And all because the Guardian lied about Milly Dowler. You must be proud of the BBC manipulating the memory of a dead girl to further its own political and commecial ends.
The NoTW was a shit paper read by morons but it was closed because of an extremely well orchestrated smear campaign.
Like it or not you and your mates have pissed all over the memory of a murdered school girl.
Do you not have any shame ?
Rupert Murdoch, CEO and Chairman, News Corporation.
The BBC didn’t commission the Leveson inquiry. Of course they reported it at the time (as did everyone else) and they broadcast the hearings (as did Sky).
As for Mr. Murdoch’s move to close down the NotW as being premature. You don’t think he knows more about how to run a newspaper than you do? Just a thought.
As for Murdoch Vs. The BBC, it was James Murdoch who used his 2009 MacTaggart lecture to launch an attack on the BBC.
Except, of course, it isn’t free. We already pay for it. So what J. Murdoch is complaining about is that he can’t make enough money.
Oh, and by the way, don’t anyone ever bleat about ad hominems again when the hysterical (not in the funny sense of the word) Pah and Misterned start bandying around the kind of insults they have on this thread.
My answer to both of them is exactly that used by the then Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. Patrick Leahy in June 2004.
“So what J. Murdoch is complaining about is that he can’t make enough money.”
Oh, come on, you know better than try that. He’s complaining that it’s very difficult for any business to compete against an organisation which has a guaranteed source of income, no matter how much it stuffs up. Volume of money isn’t at issue, it’s the skewing of the market.
I seem to recall reading that Mr Murdoch Snr was not at all pleased that James had closed the NoW. Whether that was established fact or simply rumour though, I don’t know.
So the answer to Pahs question is ‘no’ then?
LOL! :p
And why did they jump ship? Relentless bad publicity via the BBC. No one paper can command that sort of saturation coverage to do the same back to the BBC. We’re not dealing with a level playing field in ability to keep a story going.
“Relentless bad publicity via the BBC”
… fed by their ideological partners in print, the Guardian’s lies about a dead girl.
This was a classic case of the BBC using it’s massive and overwhelming dominance of the media landscape to use Leveson, and any other publicity it could use, to attack a commercial rival, without once, ever, noting it’s own vested interest in the outcome.
Now that the BBC’s own crimes, which are far worse than those of News International, are springing up all over the place, from fraudulent breach of it’s charter to financially enrich those who have an interest in certain “energy” products and policies, to tax avoidance, salndering the entire tory leadership, to decades of facilitating paedophilia.
Of course, according to ‘prole’ none of those things are crimes really, compared to having a right wing thought.
How ironic that the BBC and their disgusting little, paedophile defending amen corner on here, rant on about right wing extremists, and comfort themselves that they love “diversity” yet the one thing they all hate and seek to constantly destroy, is diversity of thought and opinion.
The mindset of the left.
Sick, twisted, hypocritical and filled with hypocritical and hateful bigotry against anyone with a different opinion.
Well, I blame Islam.
have to get that in before Nicked says it.
NotW circulation remained healthy compared to other titles. Was there a mass boycott by readers? No.
Did the Sun suffer a boycott? No.
The “progressive” left really do over estimate hostility to Murdoch per se. It is easy to stir up antipathy to press barons. Always has been.
Had Murdoch not decided to close the title but continued publication would advertising recovered. Probably.
As for 100,000 submssion to the DMCS – well you could get that in a few days on a petition to leave the EU – though the BSkyB take over had nothing to do with the point I was making.
Pah and Roland make fair points too.
Murdoch has always been seen by the establishment as an outsider. An outsider who was too powerful. That was why Murdoch titles were singled out (and deserved their criticism). But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that other titles (Mirror, Mail, etc ) didn’t get up to phone hacking.
The BBC actions over Newsnight’s recent mess were deplorable and nobody would even try to defend such sloppy journalism. Asking someone to comment on allegations is the first rule.
However, in the same way the Gas Companies were not shut because of rogue salesman, or the Banks or indeed any other concern, in reality it was not so fundamental as you hoped. People have understood it.
If you honestly think the BBC closed NOW you must have been on holiday. It was a Twitter storm that basically embarrassed advertisers to think twice about supporting such a rag. It then spread throughout the media of which the BBC is part. It didn’t lead, but I it’s rather pointless referring to reality on this site.
Why hasn’t there been the same anti-BBC storm of protest? It hasn’t happened, in fact it’s now almost dead after 3 days. The public are far more intelligent than you think.
“It is now dead after 3 days”.
Three Days!! It’s been going on for 6 weeks!
Dead? If you think the BBC scandal is over you are mistaken.
Wait and see.
“The public are far more intelligent than you think”.
You are the one taking away their freedom of choice.
“it’s rather pointless referring to reality on this site.”
You mean the reality that the BBC is anti-Rupert Murdoch? In what possible world is that not true?
Prole also seems oblivious (is that allowed by our ‘don’t anyone dare… or else’, ‘if that’s the answer what on earth was the question’ hall monitor?) to the BBC’s rather unique way of compounding one error with the next.
I see he’s still clicking the “like” button on his own posts
nobody could be so dense as to actually appreciate the inane ramblings of that loon
For the moment the public are far more ignorant than you think.
My bet is that by next May, the public will no longer be ignorant. The ignorance is gradually falling over time.
Already Fellows of the Royal Society have obtained the names and addresses of fellow fellows.
My guess as what is going to happen is that the fellows will trigger Parliaments Commons Science and Technology Committee to investigate the BBC about its weird Climate science policy.
We already know that there are both Labour and Tory Mps on this committee, scientifically qualified and intelligent enough, to be aware that their fellow Mps and the public are being manipulated by the BBC’s Climate policy, after having a seminar without a single Atmospheric Physicist, which then through its own vested interests, decides to censor scientists and scientific debate.
‘Ow’s about that then, guys and gals!
‘BBC front page stories’
lol see what he did there?
“But the fantasy that the BBC would crumble is over”
The real test will be the level of support for the license fee. Will we see a BBC offensive on this front?
Time will tell. What will gradually bring the BBC news dominanance to an end is the fact that it
is just not very good any more.
For instance I posted yesterday that the BBC’s Middle East page was carrying a story to the effect that since 1973 Israel and Syria had not come to serious blows.
Absolute tripe. Whoever wrote that was incompetent. Had not done any homework and was just hoping the words made sense. As I said the battles of 1982 which nearly destroyed the Syrian air force really happened. Not according to the BBC reporter. It is this lack of precision and lack of fact checking that has bought about the BBC’s current troubles. Incompetence will finish it off as a serious news gatherer unless it puts reality above opinion and desire
As a matter on interest I have just rechecked. The Mid East page is still maintaining this fiction. Poor stuff.
If PROLE you believe the BBC is popular, you will not object to its customers being given the choice to fund it via a subscription only service.
If you believe PROLE that to be a critic of the BBC is to be ipso facto on the right, this hardly contradicts the accusation that the BBC is on the left.
PROLE, readers can migrate from one newspaper to another in a free market, but (via a compulsory tax) the BBC dominates television and radio in the UK.
The fantasy about a society where people have freedom of choice may not be shared by you PROLE, but it because people had that fantasy (and fought for it) that you have the liberty to express your undying hatred of the Conservative Party.
the problem with people still watching the bbc and the bbc thinking they are popular,is the lowest common denominator mindrot factor of rubbish like eastbenders
the people who are addicted to that crap are generally painfully oblivious to what is actually going on around them in real life,unless it makes the sensationalist headlines that can’t be missed
Arrogance and complacency will be their slow and painful undoing.
If they were a truly strong organisation, with the level of support being claimed by our pet trolls (they’re so cute when they get angry, aren’t they?), they should not fear holding a more balanced debate on the issue. Instead all we’ve heard are beeboids interviewing beeboids, Labour has-beens extolling the BBC’s ‘virtues’ (and coincidentally all repeating the same mantras) and talking heads echoing the BBC narrative of slipshod journalism and budget cuts being to blame.
It has been a revelation, even by their low, low standards.
Presumably only the Tories would be the party to do anything about the BBC and yet David Cameron has been very supportive-so far as I can see-of the BBC in this current crisis. The truth is that the BBC is important to all of the mainstream political parties-it carries the bulk of news about politics in this country, so as with News International prior to the phone hacking scandal, all politicians want to be seen to be on its side.
Guido has also been doing a doing a good job showing the bBC conspiracy. This http://order-order.com/2012/11/13/the-list-of-names-the-bbc-did-not-want-you-to-see-scientist-exposed-by-climategate-set-bbc-policy/ shows the genesis of the climate change propaganda.
I have to assume that their embedded propaganda on other subjects, pro labour, multiculteral and diversity, bad Tories, etc, etc; follows in a similar vein. I suggest Tory MPs stop making false statements in Parliament, saying how we value the bBC and finally lay bare the institution for the Augean heap it is. (I expect the Augean stables smealt a lot sweeter than the current bBC cess pit)
In two of Toady’s paper reviews this morning, Davis obviously relished the Guardian article about how a Tory candidate in the Corby by-election “secretly” supported James Delingpole’s stance on the abolition of windfarms, and was “bubbled” by some greenie or other. One could feel the reluctance in Davis’s voice, when he had to add that Delingpole had made his point, and later stood down as a candidate.
‘bubbled’? Bubble & squeak = Greek?
No, “bubbled” – fingered (no, not that…), exposed, revealed, given away, etc.
Oh not heard that one before. As one hircine to another…
Can I join the clan as I’m a Capricorn?
‘Davis obviously relished the Guardian article’
The Guardian article referred to here?:
http://order-order.com/2012/11/14/guardian-bails-on-hayes-greenpeace-investigation-wind-conspiracy-minister-not-energy-minister-at-time/
The one using ‘intel’ from…
‘Even in the video recorded by Greenpeace, Heaton-Harris confirms “it was just fortuitous timing”, yet Greenpeace was still allowed to spin on the Guardian’s front page that there was a conspiracy’
Now, I’m not sure, but the history of using stitch-ups by 3rd parties and seeing them rushed via uncurious media (SKY in it up to its neck too, with no excuse either) should be a real concern by now.
That is, if there is anyone in the politco-media-judicial estate not as bent as a 9 bob note and in it up to their necks too.
Oh and… Greenpeace?
Weren’t they one of the invitees to the BBC’s latest secret squirrels melt-down?
(If you want a laugh, check out ex-Beeboid – a trend really – Richard Black’s twitter feed as he goes with the ‘storm in a teacup’ approach as Hurricane Sandy approaches his punt bobbing off Haiti)
After Guido ran Chuka Adviser Agreed Entwistle Pay Off…While Watching Strictly, Diana Coyle got in touch to clarify that it was white wine she was drinking when she agreed the payout, not red wine. Well I’m glad that’s cleared up. Now I would like some comment from Diana (£76,010 for a a two and a half day week at the BBC Trust) about why she thought George (exit, pursued by a bear of a pension pot) Entwhistle’s payout was appropriate.
You did not mention that she was advisor to shadow labour John Denham, also she is married to bBC presenter Rory Cellan-Jones. no bias there eh!
Where did that poster at top come from?
In others news…
‘Kevin Marsh, Editor of the BBC College of journalism (not since 2011) ‘
The tally of ex-BBC alumni does include Richard Black.
When David P arrives maybe he could re-share his masterclass on handling twitter, which seems to have worked so well for the BBC to date.
I also suspect there will be a few high-profile ex-BBC market rate talents seeking to ensure the new generation of BBC ‘reporters’ embrace their skills and ethics.
BBC rules in a crisis:
Rule 1 Blame the Murdoch press
Rule 2 Blame the Murdoch press
Rule 3 Keep David Vance off the airwaves at all costs
Rule 4 Kill the BBC story rapidly
Tablets of Stone – Part 2
PS:
Add
Rule 5 Promote the EU
Rule 6 Promote “Progressive” leftist ideology.
Rule 7 Always blame the Tories at every opportunity
Rule 8 Never challenge a Labour politician.
Rule 9 Repeat Labour mantras at every opportunity
Rule 10 Never refer to anything that happened between 1997 and 2010
OBN and Bar
BBC attitudes seem to have more to do with megalomania than with greatness, so I have to take issue with Rupert Murdoch when he refers to the beeb as a “great public broadcaster”. For as long as he says it is, others will continue to pay it unearned respect, and beeboids will remained confirmed in their self-righteousness. As long as the “great” word continues to be used with reference to their employer, perhaps it should be prefixed by “delusionally” or “unhealthily” – I have doubts whether even “formerly” would be appropriate. Then, should it be cut down to size, perhaps we could agree on “soi-disant” or, better still, “late”.
BBC seem to have decided to move on – R4 & R5 both seem to be puhing don’t vote in PCC elections. Reading texts from people who won’t vote because they disapprove of position. No mention of the position will happen anyway so abstention is pointless.
I dont want it politicised so will vote for Indepedent
I stopped paying for and watching/listening to this disgusting edifice years ago, cant understand why anyone would want to pay for it and shame on anyone who does. the only thing they understand is money. stop giving it to them and they cant do other than go away keep encouraging folk to stop paying. thats what I do
BBC is positive about reporting the rights of Abu Qatada (now out on bail), but not the rights of English Defence League leader, Tommy Robinson (now still in jail).
Paul Weston (2010, before he set up the British Freedom Party):-
“Ethnically Cleansing the English”
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/ethnically-cleansing-english.html
Tim Crook is doing the same thing as everyone else: framing attacks on the News division as attacks on all other BBC output. Nothing will change so long as this is allowed to continue. Here’s an example of where he’s coming from:
BBC Radio Drama- a powerful force for story telling, audio literature and sound performance
The BBC’s weekly output in radio drama is a magnificent creative and cultural achievement unrivalled by any other country in the world. Its significance and contribution to the arts are priceless. The challenge any week is to listen to all of the riches and gifts being broadcast online and on Radios 4, 3 and 4 Extra.
Yes, it’s from February and not current, but that’s not the point. The point is that the BBC did not introduce Cook as the slavering Auntie worshiper that he is. Not an unbiased, independent voice at all, even if he does pass himself off as an experienced commentator on media.
Nothing will change as long as this is allowed to continue.
So sick of listening to the left wing bias, with such pomposity. Always thought the BBC was for traditionalists, but apparently not. Channel 4 is more balanced, and excellent journalism too.
I just lurve the way some of the Beeboids outdo each other in lavishing praise on the Beeb – the latest is Will Gompertz, who’s told us that round the world it’s widely seen as “a global treasure”…
barf! It’ll be passionate about excellence next.
The bBBc were weaping crocodile tears the other day about how they were being subjected to a vendetta by nasty enemies who were picking on the whole bBBC for a couple of minor mistakes by one small part of the organisation.
They didn’t seem to even consider for one minute the ridiculous irony of their claim after the way they went on, and on, and on about the behaviour of the News of the World, only one tiny part of their hated competitor, News Internetional, and then fixated on trying to destroy the whole of that organisation.
I must admit that I’m not surprised, that kind of shameful, self-centred behaviour has always been endemic in the bBBC.
Now anti-Tory Beeboid, Mr LANDALE (a ‘deputy political editor’) is annoyed that Ms May and Government are not being criticised more over Abu Qatada, and Landale is blaming attention being given to BBC crisis for that.
Landale:-
“But they [the Government]- and the home secretary – are lucky that most attention appears still to be focused on the BBC.
“This is not the news they wanted – or were expecting. Were it not for the BBC crisis, some at Westminster might have been dusting off the word ‘omnishambles’ from their list of favourite clichés.”
There appears to be some political glee in this Beeboid headline:-
“Abu Qatada bursts May’s bubble”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20304803
Will INBBC give Qatada its lionising Binyam Mohamed treatment?
For INBBC:-
“Abu Qatada demands to be relocated after year in £400,000 home.
“Abu Qatada is demanding to be rehoused at the taxpayer’s expense, less than 12 months after being moved to his current home.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9678143/Abu-Qatada-demands-to-be-relocated-after-year-in-400000-home.html
Cue another appearance of INBBC chum, Chakrabarti (after her Monday ‘Newsnight’ appearance) to support Qatada decision.
Maybe… Al Capone-styly… he’ll neglect the licence fee obligation and find Helen Boaden on his doorstep in her new Capita role, with six lawyers in tow and Cameron and Miliband hanging off hovvering choppers squawking ‘Burn him… it’s the right thing to do!!!!’.
Meanwhile on the day of the PCC elections (not that you’d notice), some actual violent crime is going unpoliced as the station house signs a pledge on how their morale has been affected by a bloke allegedly using hurtful words about them all. Or not.
BBC’s Britian. In a nutshell.