Via Bishop Hill
The New Statesman reminds us of the BBC’s values:
‘The intrinsic value of the BBC embodies an unfashionable, anti-market ethos.’
….whilst paying themselves hefty salaries of course….and all at the same time as denouncing Capitalism, Consumerism and ‘The Market’.
This simple video demonstrates what ‘The market’ does for you…providing jobs, money, necessities of life at prices you can afford, and not a few luxuries, as well as paying for schools, the NHS and the welfare system…….all that from a pencil…
Such a simple concept…and yet so difficult for the dyed in the wool, ideological dogmatists at the BBC to accept.
I, Pencil
Wow-a joy to watch!
Thank you Alan!
Another metaphor for the benefit of self-organising systems versus bureaucratic control is the simple roundabout versus the traffic light. The red light that stops for minutes to allow non-existant pedestrians to cross, that holds back the major traffic flow to allow one or two cars from a side road the pass, a perfect politically correct management system. The roundabout allows all cars equally to compete for the next available space in the flow, which is why freedom and self interest works better than central control on the pretext of fairness.
3rd time lucky:
Nice one.
On the flip side, we have the BBC and the US President saying, “You didn’t build that,” and promoting a command economy instead.
Is it a touch of deliberate irony that the chap’s picture you have at the top is a standard leftie-Beeboid?
I see the line the BBC are now pushing (in the light of the McAlpine case) is that you need a Public Sector broadcaster to set a gold standard; because on the Internet anything goes – indeed the argument is made that the McAlpine smear justifies the view that the Internet should be regulated as harshly as the BBC wants Fleet Street to be regulated.
But wait a minute, it was the BBC that promoted the smear against McAlpine, and so far from it being an argument against the Internet (on which there is a plurality of views and free debate) the McAlpine case is an argument against an all powerful public sector broadcaster, because it could abuse its tax funded power to (for example) smear a politician just because he happens to be from a Party that is critical of the Public Sector.
As always with the BBC every argument ends up with the conclusion – and that is why there should be a bigger Public Sector.
‘As always with the BBC every argument ends up with the conclusion – and that is why there should be a bigger Public Sector.’
Another ‘unique’ would appear to be that conflicts of interest cannot apply…. because they can’t.
What the article in the New Statesman actually said;
“Neither Patten nor Proffitt is a cultural leftist but both men recognise the intrinsic value of the BBC, as an institution that holds the British nation state together and embodies an unfashionable, anti-market ethos.”
This in the context of HarperCollins refusing to publish a book for the sole reason that it might harm their business interests overseas.
Perhaps you don’t think your casual misquote of the article in bold type really matters; except you do it constantly – miss out a paragraph here, a few words there.
If you had a decent argument you shouldn’t have to resort to being so habitually dishonest.
That’s fatuous Dez. Just because he abbreviated a line doesn’t mean, certainly in this case, that he changed its meaning. Strangely the bit he left out that you included i.e. “an institution that holds the British nation state together “, is such a ridiculous claim that I’m surprised he ignored it. However you showed the remark in its full vainglory which is all credit to you as it works against your beloved BBC.
Just because he abbreviated a line doesn’t mean, certainly in this case, that he changed its meaning.’
What should have happened of course is the necessary assemblage of words is put in ‘quotes’ and either attributed to a 3rd party or excused for reasons of space.
Which is what the BBC does… all the time.
Good last point… it seems a rare talent of the Flockkers.
“Good last point…”
Really? It reminds me of something said by the sort of person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
‘It reminds me..
At least you appear to be avoiding the Alzheimers spreading around certain uniquely uniformed quarters.
Mind you, that is selective.
Many conservatives know the answer to that one, though most liberals and socialists do not.
The value of something is what you receive from getting or securing that something ; the price is what you pay to secure or receive it.
Willingness to pay indicates a recognition of some object’s superior value. Willingness to oblige someone else to pay for it instead of ones self often indicates a lack of commitment to , or belief in, its value.
“Fatuous” is such a lovely word isn’t it.
Call me old fashioned, but I think if you’re going to quote somebody you should do so accurately.
Demon said; “he abbreviated a line, he changed its meaning.”
Do you see why it matters? Alan does this sort of thing all the time, yet here you are making excuses for him…
‘Do you see why it matters? Alan does this sort of thing all the time, yet here you are making excuses for him…’
A bit ‘two wrongs’ I concede, but here you are on the morning shift making excuses for a £4Bpa out of control media monopoly and apparently, along with several others, more concerned with this little niche blog than the most powerful policy force there exists in the UK.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/trust-upholds-complaint-against-bbc-news-over-inaccurate-tweet
‘“not sufficiently precise” and “did not reflect with due accuracy” the story to which it was linked.
Call me old fashioned, but I think if you’re going to quote somebody you should do so accurately.
So I’d say what you claim to value also has a price indeed. Shame they vary so much… depending.
Shame it is one that others have to pay.
When you and your fellow Flokkers hold the BBC to account to the same standard you seek to impose here, you may be worth paying more attention to.
I’m in for a banning here, but I must say that what you have put there is completely stupid. In fact well up to your usual standards. The bit Alan put did not change the meaning of the sentence quoted , in full, by you. You, of course, then do a Beebatron and miss out words to completely change a meaning of a sentence. That is as far from what Alan did as a BBC news item is from truth and impartiality.
What worries me about you, is that you probably thought this bit of stupidity was actually clever. I will emphasise – No it wasn’t!
‘I’m in for a banning here’
No joke… thanks to the unique way this country gets ‘run’ now, I’m pretty sure those who come to websites to close them down can somehow wangle it that any who attempt to engage with them can indeed get expedited (see what I did there?) by claiming special victim status when getting handed their derrieres.
It’s a misquote, though. It should have been presented without the ‘ ‘ or with elipses….
Well, that just shows the sheer brass neck of the BBC. Whenever they’re under fire they babble about the ‘British nation state’ and British values, but as soon as normal service is resumed, they’re back running segments asking who we are to say honour killings are ‘bad’.
The BBC knows it has to be British occasionally i.e. at the time of national events – Jubilee/Olympics etc., but thereafter it reverts to an anti-patriotic stance every possible time. under the guise of healthy scepticism mostly.
Being intrinsically statist, that is the one area they won’t tolerate being effectively challenged.
Its statism, statism, statism stupid.
Dez is entirely right: the quote is taken out of context and then used to accuse the BBC of being anti capitalist, presumably in its coverage. This is demonstrably not true. The BbC is awash with business news and programmes such as dragon’s den and the apprentice celebrate capitalism in its rawest form.
So more unsubstantiated assertion. Plus again it is confusingly written and requires a lot of unpicking. Who is being quoted: the NS, Bishop Hil or Alan. Took me ages to figure out. And no link to Hill?
The NS article is very good by the way. And it nails for me where the greatest tendency for bias is within the BBC, namely:
“What the BBC has is a resolutely establishment bias. “
So you mean the BBC celebrates capitalism with two programs which revolve around very rich folks sneeringly dismissing hopeful poor people?
Dragons Den and The Apprentice are like the business world like playing Cluedo is just like being a cop.
But that would be the ‘establishment’ freshly minted by New Labour and its Common Purpose, NGO, SIPG, entryists, though, wouldn’t it, Jim?
The very same.
Jim I agree with you about the very strong ‘establishment’ ethos of the BBC. It is entirely dedicated to the self serving leftist establishment of the ‘baby – boomer’ era. The ‘establishment’ mentioned with such scorn by Peter Cook et all died with Harold MacMillan – but it has been a demonic presence as far as the BBC is concerned ever since.
I am in two minds about the quote debate but I will say this the BBC has plenty of form here and it is a 4bn PA media monolith with more journalists in Torquay than all the bloggers in the UK combined. There is no doubt that it rigorously pursues a statist agenda in each and every one of its productions. We now have definitive evidence in 28 Gate of the way the BBC goes about ‘settling’ debates, and using its stupendous media muscle to instill its (and selected third party pressure groups) views into everything we see watch and hear.
Anyone remember “Referendum Street”?
Every single part of the BBC is for example fully committed to multi-culturalism (when most people in the UK do not even know what multi-culturalism actually is in policy terms – not that the BBC would explain it!), and I am sure that wind turbines are not ‘controversial’ in BBC land.
etc.
If you honestly believe that those two programs show how the business world really works then you should desist posting on such matters until you improve your knowledge of them.
I didn’t say they were accurate; but they clearly are designed to celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit.
In its serious programming, particularly r4, the BBC’s business programming is very good, albeit there is a too much of a focus on business ‘leaders’ rather than businesses. Evan Davis’s programmes are excellent an he’s clearly an economic liberal to his boots.
You’d have to be very one eyed to deny the BBC’s coverage of business and capitalism is biased against it. But then you have to don’t you because like Medialens you have a dogma to buttress.
Again one would have to wonder who this ‘you’ is in that last para. Anyhoo…
‘..they clearly are designed to celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit.’
Such clarity nonetheless depending perhaps on the degree of tint to the rose spectacles of the wearer.
No serious inventor, VC, angel or business person thinks much of either, because the last thing they do is celebrate the ‘entrepreneurial spirit’.
They are naked faux-reality Colusseum (the spell check has highlighed that as an error, but I’ll leave it in so Prole can place his foot in his mouth again and reply claiming he can’t reply because he’s too thick to suss out a minor typo’d word from how it’s pronounced) TV designed purely to generate ratings whilst acting as a vehicle for egotists to get their jollies trashing folk and sad sacks watching that in voyeuristic glee.
The Apprentice is just daft and if LorAlan can score more profile to flog his e-phone on the back of it, good luck. Along with any totty who can wangle a supermarket opening out of being on the telly. I see his offsider has a nice little number going with the screwbiz.gov telling folk to make sure the gaffer has topped up their latest wheeze.
Dragon’s Den is plain dire. And it is entirely appropriate that it is fronted by Mr. Davis, taking the money and joining in the fun when some poor sap selected for a savaging gets it.
I have an invention that is in the same arena as one that was given the full BBC PR route because all the Dragons wanted in and it was destined for greatness. BBC Breakfast sofa subsequently… the whole nine yards. So I stayed abreast of the bit the BBC gives a rat’s pitootie about: actual market success (other than Reggae Reggae, I can’t call to mind any others, and that was more based on a retailer seeing the BBC had done the heavy lifting on the brand advertising and rode the wave on).
Thing is, it appears the best business brains in the country and the BBC pre-vetting hadn’t as such, done any due diligence on the IP before they all shot their collective wads.
‘the BBC had done the heavy lifting on the brand advertising and rode the wave on’
So it does have value in helping a few with profile via savvy marketers as opposed to ‘Dragon’s’, but I’d be interested to see how this guy was ‘encouraged’ on the show…
Adam Elman@adamelman
The Dragons didn’t like it… but M&S did – Organic biscuits from eco-bakery hit the shelves of 262 M&S stores #plana
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2234759/The-Dragons-chewed-organic-biscuits-going-M-S.html …
‘blasted as ‘a mistake’ and ‘risky’ by Dragon James Caan’
This would suggest that the BBC’s pet humiliator was dancing more to a ratings-tune?
‘What the BBC has is a resolutely establishment bias’
And the bias the establishment has is resolutely left-wing.
Under Blair, The Left hijacked The Establishment, populating it with placemen at every opportunity, from police chiefs to the judiciary, red pigs in wigs, throughout Quango-land, government departments and NGOs , yet the term “Establishment” still hasn’t permeated popular consciousness as a Left Wing establishment. It is still associated with Tory grandees and men in bowler hats, largely thanks to the relentless propagandising of the BBC against an Establishment which no longer exists.
The only dishonesty looks to be yours Dez. If you’re going to accuse someone of dishonesty better be cleaner than clean yourself.
The quote doesn’t have a ‘context’in the article…it stands alone.
As to missing out a bit of the quote….it’s irrelevant to the point being made……as you well know but choose to ignore to make your own dishonest point.
The video is about ‘The Market’ not about ‘a united nation’…..hence the quote.
By your ‘logic’ I should have quoted the whole article.
If you want to talk about the BBC being the glue that holds the nation together let’s talk about its attitude to Northern Ireland, or offloading Scotland and Wales..or handing the Falklands to the Argies….and indeed handing the ragged remains of the UK to Europe…..what does Anthony Jay think?
‘From time to time it finds an issue that strikes a chord with the broad mass of the nation, but in most respects it is wildly unrepresentative of national opinion.’
Hardly a ‘unifying’ force….as it represents such a small percentage of the population in its political and cultural outlook.
And Jim Dandy….as reliably obtuse as ever.
‘to accuse the BBC of being anti capitalist, presumably in its coverage. This is demonstrably not true.’….and the BBC ‘pro-Establishment’?
Really Jim?….not even those who have worked for the BBC think that:
“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
‘We also had an almost complete ignorance of market economics. That ignorance is still there. Say ”Tesco” to a media liberal and the patellar reflex says, “Exploiting African farmers and driving out small shopkeepers”. The achievement of providing the range of goods, the competitive prices, the food quality, the speed of service and the ease of parking that attract millions of shoppers every day does not show up on the media liberal radar.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557389/Here-is-the-news-as-we-want-to-report-it.html
Jay was there 50 years ago. And his views while standard of a certain view are not well evidenced. So on Tescos, look at the adulation with which the BBC’s business coverage treated leahy.
You can tell the kind of person he is by juxtaposing his picture of a pre 60s idyl full of birching, national service and closeted gays before asking “So what happened? How did we get from there to here? “
‘the BBC’s business coverage treated leahy.’
Prole… bring out the mop and the Blue Book, there’s another one.
No…BBC presenters pretty much spit out the name Tesco’s much as the do ‘The Daily Mail’. It is treated with contempt and disdain by them…..for its commercial success and because it’s not Waitrose.
You seem a bit confused about how to approach this….at one moment you say ‘The NS article is very good by the way.’ whilst at the same time refuting their claim that the BBC ’embodies an unfashionable, anti-market ethos.’
Then you say Jay is too old and out of date…well what are your credentials exactly to back up your claims?
And here is a modern, up to date opinion of the BBC’s attitude towards ‘The Market’….
‘The intrinsic value of the BBC embodies an unfashionable, anti-market ethos.’
Ah, that’s where we came in.
Que?
Leahy, Terry. Heard of him?
‘Leahy, Terry. Heard of him?’
Indeed I have.
It’s worse that that though, jim.
I just presumed you would know people’s names get capitalised.
That’s what I mean.
I’m sure Prole does.
Seems he cut you some slack.
You mean rebutting.
‘So on Tescos, look at the adulation with which the BBC’s business coverage treated leahy.‘
Please substantiate that claim with sound/vision links – and we’ll need a few.
‘….an institution that holds the British nation state together…’
Wow! Self-regarding, self-regulating, agenda-setting, all powerful BBC – now we know why. The government must be so envious, not to mention a tad pissed-off at its emasculation by a mere broadcaster, and one so impartial at that.
Speaking of BBC variable Values, and their Anger and Protest Editor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/paulmason/, I was wondering if he might ever return from criss-crossing the globe on a cloud of greenhouse gasses to do anything but report on his professed actual area of expertise that is Economics?
But he does seem to have found some lovely locations to bunker down as the Newsnight home zone is aired out.
It could be argued that the BBC, in its insidious way, does much to erode the concept of a nation state, rather than hold it together. Yes, it hangs onto Antiques Roadshow, Strictly, etc., but behind the anodyne gloss, & the occasional excellence of BBC4, the chosen ‘narrative’, the vision of what iBritain must become, & who must govern it, is relentlessly pushed. How could it be otherwise? given a recruitment zone that makes the Gurkahs seem ‘diversity compliant’. From Naughtie’s ‘when we’re back in pow…oops’, to the hive tweeting, the left-wing bias is undeniable.
The quote from Antony Jay at the bottom of the Home page encapsulates the mindset of so many senior beeboids, past & present. As does the revelatory, authoritarian quote from Andrew Marr about what must be done to ensure purity of thought. Many a time I’ve looked for the BBC’s multicultural paradise, that strangely elusive Nirvana, on the streets of Stepney, or Wembley, looked for that binding together, that common interest that is the backbone of a nation, & found nothing but ethnic monoculturalism, & seething animosity. Perhaps it exists in Barnes, I wouldn’t know, not being on Mr Marr’s public-sector wages.
Embracing multiculturality applies only to “the natives”. The headscarved or Burqua-clad woman who throws them off gets her just desserts for becoming “too Westernised and a bad Muslim. Not much sign of muticulturality there.
Beebland is another country, Barnes, Chiswick, Kew Richmond, follow the Thames west and notice the class that can afford to opt out of ethnic colonisation facilitated by Labour social housing. I never cease to be amazed how many Somalis can afford to live in Camden and Notting Hill. All I can say is they must have very well paid jobs.
If you’re feeling adventurous take a quick peek at Streatham in south London. Once upon a time a pleasant, safe and reasonably affluent place to live. Now it has been “enriched” beyond recognition.
There’s an area close to where I used to live that the locals call “Somali land.” Pubs, hairdressers, hardware stores and fish and chip shops have disappeared, and it seemed to happen almost over night.
If you happen to have a taste for Halal meat you will be well catered for and if you fancy a Friday call to prayer then this is the place for you. Otherwise I would stay away!
Interesting article in the Economist this week – centering on the words of George Entwhistle in ‘that’ interview that the BBC had got ‘too big’. But the Economist’s solution? Yes a smaller BBC but funded by the Treasury rather than a license fee. But where does it think the Treasury gets its money from?
It’s an idea with merit. The concern though is that the Government of the day would gain editorial purchase on the Beeb through finding it directly. The licence fee was designed to out distance between the two.
‘the Beeb through finding it directly.’
Calling Prole… cleanup on aisle whine.
And while you’re at it, maybe ask Alan to explain what this actually means…
‘The licence fee was designed to out distance between the two.’
It’s the modern education……not matter how you spell it as long as you say it with passion and feeling….lol
Sorry : banana fingers on small screen.
‘ finding’ = funding
‘Out’ = put.
Effectively a poll tax, with the full force of the law behind it to ensure compliance.
Distance about half an em, I’d say.
I think that your concern is not “that the Government of the day would gain editorial purchase” but who that government was, otherwise it has merit eh? You try hard young Jim but you are so transparent. Anyway thanks for your amusing authoritarian Beeboid point of view, which is of course that ‘The intrinsic value of the BBC embodies an unfashionable, anti-market ethos.’
I think I understand some of that. But less of the ‘ young’ eh?
Eh?
And no my concern would be Government control in general. They all think the BBC is against them.
Sure – it criticises Labour from a left wing point of view and the Conservatives from a left wing point of view.
In a nutshell, Wally – nice one.
The BBC’s inherent dislike for free and open market is now shown when the links between it’s pension funds, the controllers of this fund, and it propagandizing of green issues have been revealed.
The BBC much prefers the controlled social government corporatism that the Nazi would have been proud off.
The supposed link between the bbc’s pension fund, green industries and its coverageof environmental issues has been shown to be nonsense on this very site.