One of the themes for the defence of the BBC and its management is that the BBC is ‘accountable’, that no other organisation would investigate itself so thoroughly and that top management took responsibility for the recent crisis.
Entwistle only went because he was ‘pushed’, and ‘pushed’ by his own side in the shape of John Humphrys. In that interview he tried to evade all responsibility just as he did with the Savile affair……just as Mark Thompson did also, claiming he had no knowledge of the Newsnight programme about Savile.
Mark Thompson is struggling to maintain that story (Via Guido):
Questions Pile Up for Thompson, But Not From Everyone
“During my time as director general of the BBC, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about Jimmy Savile.”
The other main claim is that the BBC is a victim of a plot against it, a political and commercially driven witch hunt.
This was the BBC’s latest defence that it deployed with an eager anticipation that just a mention of Murdoch and sleazy politicians would immediately engender feelings of loathing for the ‘enemy’ and sympathy for the BBC.
The BBC’s friends on the Left rallied to its support:
Here is the New Stateman dedicating one issue to defending the BBC’s honour (More in the print addition):
We must defend the BBC from Murdoch and death by a thousand Tory cuts
and here claiming that it was the Hutton inquiry which made the BBC too cautious and reliant on an overwhelming management structure to enforce that.
Each BBC crisis sows the seed for the next
After the Newsnight debacle, it is excessive caution – not recklessness – that threatens the BBC.
However the most vicious critics were from within the BBC itself from the likes of Humphrys and Paxman and not from politicians or the Murdoch’s.
One interesting line that is very telling is this from Mehdi Hasan:
‘The BBC, despite its many faults, must be protected from its right-wing enemies. In the battle to preserve high-quality, non-partisan public-service broadcasting, Auntie is our last line of defence.’
‘Auntie is OUR last line of defence.’
‘OUR’ being ‘US’ on the Left.
As for high quality, well in a few cases maybe but for innovative, interesting and eyecatching TV the BBC is probably the last place to look, there is very little on it that you would bother to set the video for….and ‘non-partisan’…well no one believes that.
It is however a repository for all progressive and left wing economic, social and cultural values that it relentlessly champions not only ‘openly’ in documentaries but inserted into the narrative of most of its programming quietly subverting our views with subliminal propaganda posing as drama or comedy.
The BBC is indeed the Left’s best and last line of defence….who’d a thunk?
No wonder they prop it up so vigorously.
And, of course, about that ‘high quality’ broadcasting thing: they have a guaranteed income of £3.5 billion pa plus merchandising and overseas sales. With that much cash, even the blindest of squirrels should find the odd nut.
In the light of the BBC’s savage and relentless campaign against its commercial rival, Murdoch, the only intelligent response to this whining is a gale of laughter.
The left are really worried. That’s why they have been sliming over this site in such abundance recently.
‘AUNTIE IS OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENCE’ SAYS ‘LEFT’
They are right.
The left should be very worried now.
We are in a SHTF situation now.
The establishment don’t want to end up hanging from lamposts so they will make sure that it will be the Left that this will happen to.
For Auntie read;
Anti semetic
Anti the truth
Anti freedom
Anti competition
False allegations, photos from the wrong conflict , sloppy/ amateur reporting and funding by extortion.
The BBC does not have to pay if it libels anyone, it is the license payers who have to foot the bill. Even then , the size of the monetary punishment is very limited – by law.
This gives the BBC a license to broadcast what it likes, knowing full well that they cannot be brought to book.
Presumably though if any BBC type tweeted the McAlpine libel then they would be personally liable because as BBC love to point out the tweets are not official BBC opinions
Because the evidence that the BBC is overtly biased is provided to Complainants by the BBC in its communications with complainants, the BBC Trust uses the excuse that the bias is not mentioned or referred to in the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee’s findings, as the reason for the result = Finding: Not Upheld (bias not found).
This I think is what is going to cause the unravelling of the BBC and the BBC Trust.
As for informing the morons at the BBC, see below.
(1)Right-wing enemies have to pay for the BBC.
(2)Left-wing enemies do not have to pay Murdoch.
Therefore Murdoch is morally superior to the BBC.
‘the BBC Trust uses the excuse that the bias is not mentioned or referred to in the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee’s findings, as the reason for the result = Finding: Not Upheld (bias not found).
Tending to agree.
It’s not the abuse… it’s the cover up.
But the logic behind the cover up is… ‘unique’.
‘the BBC is a victim of a plot against it’
Not to mention those who are allying themselves so closely.
‘More utter rubbish from the New Statesman. Ever wonder how this once proud journal became irrelevant? Well, wonder no more…’
So part of the ‘plot’ was for the BBC to provide, as part of its commitment to accurate and objective information, the Savile cover-up, McAlpine, Iraq/Syria/Gaza/East Cheam… and then balme anyone but themselves. Uh-huh.
And their best shot at an advocate is a two-faced contrarian rabble-rouser whose career is going South faster than all those entities who see fit to support him back.
Now that… is not just unique, but tragic.
“During my time as director general of the KGB, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about the Lubyanka Prison” said Mark Thompsonski. “It is all capitalist lies.”
The bBBC’s inbred institutional denial of any faults or any knowledge of wrongdoings must be the worst case of Implausible Deniability around. The fact that they are arrogant enough to think we will actually swallow their blatantly deceitful claims is an admirable display of their contempt for our level of intelligence and common sense.
” Auntie ”
Who in the world calls an organisation which gets £ 4 Billion a year and has 25,000 employees, Auntie ?
Do you call the ” Inland Revenue ” Uncle ? No, of course not, so why do people or to be more precise twits, call this very sinister left wing organisation, Auntie ?
This term is highly irritating.
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was know, by western leftists at least, as uncle Joe
Just don’t mention Uncle Jim…
When the BBC was set up by Reith it was paternalistic ( still can’t figure why auntie though?), didn’t get involved in politics, and usually told the truth. By and large this situation lasted into the early 60’s and it is from this time that the label auntie stuck and the BBC is trusted.
The BBC is still using the threadbare disguise to lull the unwary into trusting it whilst it has become a liberal left propaganda broadcaster of immense power.
Unfortunately millions of people in Britain are still taken in by the BBC and assume that its news and current affairs are giving an unbiased and truthful picture. Over the past 40 years this misplaced trust has allowed the BBC to drastically alter the centre of gravity in British politics, leftwards of course, undermined our national culture and our national self respect.
The BBC will never change voluntarily , the liberal/left bias is too ingrained for that, so it must be changed by, either a revolt of the license payers , most of whom don’t see the danger, or, by Government , which could only be Tory of course.
But as we are seeing the current Timid Tories don’t seem to want to take on the BBC. This can only be because they think that the BBC is either not doing them any harm, or they are scared of the BBC. Even a blind Tory could see that the BBC does them great harm almost every day, so I conclude that the Tories are just frightened of the BBC. Therefore, those people who want change or abolition of the BBC will have to find a way of rousing the wrath of millions of license payers. Which is very difficult when the BBC controls about 90% of the news and current affairs output in the country.
I wrote an email to j hunt every week he was a minister for culture expressing the views from this web site.
Got two replies both useless.I also sent a text to the PM still waiting.
Jeremy Hunt blocked the NAO from accessing the BBC’s payroll. He belongs to the same political/media establishment
” High quality programmes”
Never seen kids show Dr Who ? a complete and utter embarrassment, I ‘ve seen better acting, sets, production values in Thunderbirds.
Thunderbirds was (and still is) pure magic.
Dr. Who…tedious dross right from the start.
F.A.B
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_'FAB'_stand_for_in_the_TV_show_'Thunderbirds‘
‘”FAB” from the TV show “Thunderbirds” stood for “Full Acknowledgment of Broadcast,” the equivalent of 10-4″
Ironically, that is what the BBC used to expect, too.
No longer.
…always wondered what that stood for. Cheers!
The answer on this website is completely spurious! Gerry Anderson has repeatedly stated that the letters “FAB” did not stand for anything. I’ve heard him say this from his own mouth when he was asked this question during a lecture tour he did back in 1992. “FAB” arose because it was a Sixties “hip” word — the “Fab Four” (Beatles) and all that.
Just had to add this comment as a lifelong “Thunderbirds” and GA fan.
‘The answer on this website is completely spurious!
Given no more than your word currently, I think we (inc. Most Flokkers, who also get grumpy on tangents, so have a care – but as it’s me they may delight in searching the BBC archive for you) may initially need to go for ‘disputed, with a view to being corrected with proof’?
Hoist by my own poor phrasing. That was meant to be a royal we but may appear more inclusive than it can be shown to be! Of course, it is but my singular suggestion only.
Gerry Anderson along with Lord Lew Grade decided to make it in colour and put it on film, so they could sell around the world, each episode cost about £1 million. Every ITC production was always on film like The Prisoner or The Saint.
Meanwhile over at the BBC, Dr Who was in black and white, on video tape and it cost tuppence to make.
The Daleks, an old dustbin, with some hub caps on it, and a sink plunger at the front.
And some people say they hid behind the sofa when Dr Who was on.
Really ?
I think this was why they gave the characters in Thunderbirds American accents – a demand from the US network in exchange for funding such an expensive programme (in UK TV terms, anyway).
Dr. Who…why? Whenever I used to tune in (in the 80s) they were always running around in a disused quarry, with that horrible orange fade effect in the sky. I’ve always hated it. The new ones are even worse in terms of acting. Do people like it because they feel they ought to – national treasure and all that?
I think they were given American voices because it sounded cool and hip, you couldn’t have Scott sounding like a brummie, it wouldn’t sound right.
The names Scott, Alan, Gordon, John , Virgil were picked because they were real Astronauts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(TV_series)
I really love the present incarnation of Dr Who.
After Tom Baker it really did go downhill, became really jaded and hackneyed, but the BBC have reworked it with a huge amount of vim it’s a national treasure once more.
Finally BBBC gets to the meat of the matter! Too young for Hartnell and Troughton. Loved Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker’s incarnations of The Doctor. Peter Davidson annoyed, also I thought that I should grow out of it. Hardly saw Colin Baker or Sylvester McCoy’s portrayals. I was really excited at the prospect of the return of The Doctor. Ecclestone was adequate but no more than that. Tennant was initially excellent but became rather cloying. Matt Smith worried me to begin with but he might just be heading for number two now. Shame to lose Amy Pond though…
Now back to more mundane matters…
‘some people say they hid behind the sofa when Dr Who was on.’
Yup.
This guy was, frankly, scarier than the foes made from washing up bottles and sticky-back plastic…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/images/2005/03/14/hartnell_420x284.jpg
Meanwhile on what may happen in the next 5 minutes, I also recall Joe 90, which now seems a metaphor for much of what the BBC is out to achieve…
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0062573/
‘a method of transferring specialist “brain patterns”‘
I can remember being scared when the sea devils were on (early 70s?) – but seeing it again recently they didnt seem so bad
Wow, very soon Mr Brims someone’s going to coin the phrase “BBCphobia” because of what you write. In fact, I think I’ve just done it!
I have yet to see a single BBC drama series that matches the best coming out of America from any angle you want to look at it: script; acting; plot; suspense; characterisation etc etc. Where are the BBC’s Homeland, The Wire, Mad Men – to name but three? The only one I have gone out of my way to watch in recent years (and I mean years) was ‘Bad Cop’, which was excellent.
So what exactly do they do with £3,500,000,000 per annum?
This is a very important point. The BBC uses the ‘quality’ argument as one of its justifications for a tax-based revenue stream.
Well, it might have been true once that the BBC produced the best drama but consistently poor programmes have been thrown into sharp relief by the consistently better material from the likes of HBO in the States, which rely on pay per view.
The BBC has even been dramatically outgunned by ITV – Downton trouncing the BBC’s failure to revive the corpse of Upstairs, Downstairs, for example
It’s a long time since the heyday of middlebrow Sunday fodder like Onedin, Poldark and All Creatures.
The Corporation is trying to dine out on past glories.
…or a sitcom with as much quality as My Name Is Earl, Big Bang Theory, Better Of Ted…
The last good BBC sitcom was Only Fools.
Harriet Harmful MP said in parliament
” The BBC is a much loved organization, so loved in fact that the population calls it Auntie.”
Huh ? I think I’m going to be sick.
The “Auntie” epithet goes back to the time when the BBC upheld high intellectual, moral and aesthetic standards. The BBC abandoned those long ago, so it only now makes sense in Orwellian terms, as the Corporation daily serves up its sinister left-wing propaganda on the basis of a reputation that is now wholly undeserved.
I dont think I have ever heard someone refer to the BBC as ‘Auntie’ in general conversation, except on the BBC
It was a term revived by Ben Elton in his ‘The Man From Auntie’ series.
Say no more, luvvie.
And the mental picture of an auntie it conjures up….
….Auntie Harriet.
Auntie? More like a paedo Uncle.
And wasn’t her uncle a one Lord Longford.
I thought the BBC was called “Auntie” because it behaved like an embarrassing 1960,s upper-middle-class-never-worked-in-her-life relative , you know the one who lived on a trust fund and ‘investments overseas’ who turned up at Christmas and gave you a book on water shortages in East Africa for a present along with a lecture on how fantastic the Congo was going to be now the vile Belgians had been kicked out and how greedy and selfish you all were whilst slinging down your dads one and only bottle of Harveys Bristol Cream. You know that she took herself and her ‘values’ really seriously because she told you so all the time and she was a prissy opinionated spinster who lived with a fellow bohemian lady called ‘Pill” of 59 who has a penchant for ‘comfortable shoes’ and a wicked cat that pissed all over their very large detached Hampstead house; “Phil was really something in the Aldermaston marches you know….
Mark Thompson ” I never heard any allegations or rumours about Jimmy Savile, I know nothing. ”
So much for the claim that the BBC is a world famous news gathering organisation.
Wasn’t that John Banner’s catchphrase in Hogan’s Heroes? The point being “I don’t want to know”.
Reed
Captain Scarlet / Reservoir Dogs parody
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ28WO-LHYU
Ha!!! “Why am I Mr. Pink” Love it.
Loved Captain Scarlet! Look Ma – no strings. 🙂
Reed
Everyone knows about Stingray ( Troy Tempest was modeled on James Garner ) Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and Joe 90.
But after that Gerry Anderson did The Secret Service starring Stanley Unwin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CFd6RH5jms
Strange – I don’t remember that one, but I do remember ‘Terrahawks’, which was bizarre…
http://tinyurl.com/bumus9b
…don’t remember Secret Service, that is. Stingray was great.
I don’t either, I came across it quite by accident on Youtube.
Fireball XL5
no charge
Supercar ?
Reed
The best thing about Thunderbirds was the music. Thunderbirds in Japanese.
Absolutely. Very much ‘of the age’. I think ALL TV shows had better theme music in previous decades – right up to the 80s.
To be fair to Dr. Who, it’s got a pretty iconic theme tune – the best thing about the programme!
Yes, the old tv shows had better music.
Ron Grainer composed the theme to Dr Who, Steptoe and Son, Tales of the Unexpected, The Prisoner, Maigret.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Grainer
yes, Ron Grainer composed it but it was Delia Derbyshire (then of the Radiophonic Workshop) who made the electronic realisation. Apparently Grainer was astonished by what Derbyshire had done, claiming that his work had been transformed beyond recognition, but was still happy to pick up the composer credit.
Delia Derbyshire with Brian Hodgeson,also of Radiophonic Workshop,in the late 60s,under the name ‘White Noise’ made a fascinating album ‘An Electric Storm’.
Still available (But now on CD) I highly recommend it.
Is there any chance of a mass demonstration involving the TUC, Labour Party, Occupiers, Travellers, assorted left wingers and all, who will turn out to defend the BBC from Tory attacks? ‘We are Auntie’.
“We’re All Auntie Now”
NOOOO!!!! Please don’t give the buggers any ideas!
Those would be the ones coming out to support their auntie. All this claptrap about being attacked for partizanship from both sides is proved to be rubbish by the fact all its supporters are from the left.
As clearly demonstrated by the trolls who come on here – lefties through and through who defend the BBC unreservedly, thus ironically making the case for b-BBC. You couldn’t make it up.
It’s certainly significant that nobody truly from the Right defends the BBC.
The only people from the right who praise the BBC are MPs who are terrified of the might and reach and total dominance of the BBC and only praise it through gritted teeth.
People on the Right do defend the BBC, but they defend other parts of it, the legacy of the institution as a whole, not the biased News division.
If the BBC was going to make Thunderbirds today, well Scott would have to be black, Brains would have to be a muslim, Gordon would be mixed race, Alan would be disabled and Virgil would be gay or transgender. And they would be fighting evil capitalists and racists.
Thunderbirds in German, Los !!
…and the Mysterons would be an evil zionist network.
Lady Penelope would have to be replaced by someone right-on like Sandi Toxic ! And the pink Roller – gay, of course !
Just so long as she retained Parker.
Now that would truly threaten the future of the BBC if they redid Thunderbirds without him!
There was also a hoo-ha about Captain Scarlet by some council equality jobsworth some years back, because the bad guy was called Captain Black. Highly absurd, considering that Captain Black was white, and one of the good guys (Lieutenant Green) was black !
So the white guy represented big bad Big Oil (Black), whilst the black guy represented the (always good, can never do a thing wrong) environmentalists (Green).
Not like a leftie to undermine a subliminal message.
Reed
I think my favourite television theme tune is Steptoe and Son, very off kilter, I cant get it out of my head , it’s so catchy.
Incidentally, those two couldn’t stand each other in real life, Harry H Corbett and Wilfred Brambles
…they didn’t like each other much on screen either.
I was always a fan of the Bergerac theme.
http://tinyurl.com/yg68kud
Best theme ever – The Equalizer!
We should be cautious about these accusations in the wake of the Macalpine fiasco, but the Telegraph ran with it (why they put Jimmy Savile in the headline is unclear, except for the Haut de la Garenne connection)….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9616121/Jimmy-Savile-Steptoe-and-Son-actor-Wilfrid-Brambell-abused-boys-in-Jersey-claims-whistleblower.html
I think it’s ok, he’s kicked the bucket.
Harold was right about Albert then – “dir-ty old man !”
Accusations against Wilfred Bramble might be justified – or could be a sub-plot – “let’s blame men”.
Auntie’s pants…
enough said.
“In the battle to preserve high-quality, non-partisan public-service broadcasting, Auntie is our last line of defence.’”
Alan in only highlighting the last part of what Mehdi Hussein wrote neutral observers would conclude that you are wilfully distorting him.
Of course, I would argue from my standpoint that what an unsavoury character like Mr Hussein means is exactly what you say he means, but that is to deconstruct what he has said, not distort it.
“However the most vicious critics were from within the BBC itself from the likes of Humphrys and Paxman and not from politicians or the Murdoch’s.”
Two of the most outstanding examples of left wing bias at the BBC are John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman. I’m not aware of Humphrys taking any position on Mr Entwistle’s position other than deliver a robust interview with Mr Entwistle which was something very much to the BBC’s credit. In Mr Paxman’s case he was incandescent that people high up in the BBC – the BBC Trust it transpires, and other execs it appears – did “push” Mr Entwistle.
So arguably Humphrys and Paxman taking contradictory lines on the Entwistle issue. I can’t see the relevance of Humphrys and Paxman to the point you’re making?
In my view the False Newsnight piece / Entwistle debacle has shown a lot that is wrong with the BBC but also some very redeeming qualities of self-examination that make it a Great British Institution very much worthwile saving (and expunging of its left-wing bias).
I guess Alan what I’m saying is, is that if we are going to argue for restoration of objectivity and impartiality at the BBC, we need to show objectivity and impartiality ourselves in our criticism of its bias, otherwise leftists who benefit so much from BBC bias can plausibly present themselves as defenders of BBC impartiality against rightists whose real beef with the BBC is that it doesn’t have a right wing bias.
If, however, as I believe to be the case, your animus against the BBC is that it is a publicly funded ‘public service broadcaster’ and on ideological grounds you wish to see it privatised/abolished, then that – in itself – is an entirely separate issue from BBC bias.
In my view most observers would view you as looking to find any excuse or none to criticise the BBC because you have a very ideological axe to grind.
This can only undermine the campaign to restore BBC impartiality.
restore BBC impartiality- without wanting to sound Leninist, I think you would have to destroy it first and then rebuild it afresh. The Scottish, Welsh and perhaps English parts of the former BBC would be better to acquire new clothes. After Savile, and the Newsnight Peado slur, the brand name will continue to trough.
I’d have thought that Left-wing ideologues saying that the BBC is their last line of defense against the country shifting to the Right was a nice bit of evidence that they, too, see the BBC as having a Left/liberal bias.
Same with that Harriet Harman mewling about protecting the BBC from the dangers of “enemies waiting to pounce”. You don’t hear Right-wing politicians – even the ones who support the BBC as an institution – worrying about political enemies of the BBC.
This speaks volumes, and I see it as proof that this blog is correct in its purpose.
At risk of a negative reaction from the Stockholm branch, I think the chap’s last name is ‘Hasan’.
‘In my view most observers would view you..
Glad you qualified what may still be highly presumptuous otherwise.
Take issue with fact or even opinion if flawed in logic, but this new trend of taking issue with a person’s style or right to post how they please (especially an author – tried setting up your own place at all?), at least in this manner, seems bizarre if from other quarters to the Flokkers.
As I keep trying to explain to the BBC, what I, or you… or anyone ‘believes’ may have value, but it does not automatically make it correct.
Guestwho, people who criticise not being able to take criticism is also very unhelpful. A little frisson of joy must go through BBC Planet Gramsci when they read responses like yours.
Irony also not your strong point then.
You presume to lecture but seem less thrilled when that is merely pointed out.
That seems oddly familiar.
Guest Who, I hope you know what you’re talking about because I haven’t a clue.
All I can see is someone who doesn’t like an opinion being expressed they disagree with.
You’re not member of Stonewall, Caged Prisoners or the BNP, are you?
I hope you know what you’re talking about because I haven’t a clue.
Oh dear, this presents a problem.
Yes, I do know what I am talking about.
And while not too fussed about your abilities in comprehension, am also unsure what I can do to assist you with them much further.
But at risk of being boorish, I will try to righ… correct this here.
All I can see is someone who doesn’t like an opinion being expressed they disagree with.
I fully agree that all you can see is what you wish to see. That is your right (not in the boorish sense). But it of course doesn’t make you right in this either. I accept that it could be true for me too, but the difference is I at least recognise the possibility as I in opinion am disliked by you as I disagree with yours about Alan. Hence your ongoing failure with irony. Others will be better judges of this than either of us can be. If you don’t like what you see in the mirror each morning, it would be hard ever to get out of bed again.
I like this site. It serves a purpose and entertains me in the breaks I take from earning a crust. I think it has a value and makes a difference; a needed one as a £4Bpa propaganda machine backed by legislative compulsion and FoI-excluded censorship imposes too many compromises to how this country (and the world) is informed, educated and entertained. So it needs holding to account and questions need asking, especially as those in ‘power’ seem poor at either, and some often not in power (for democratic reasons that appear to frustrate them) seem to feel that they can get back in via a BBC service (that is never voted upon) I find serves poorly.
This site functions, on a much-appreciated free basis, by the efforts of volunteers, also much appreciated.
Save for Mr. Vance, I don’t know much about the ‘owners’ or authorised posters, and frankly have little reason to care too much.
They post what they post, and people comment. If they raise a valid topic, the resulting debates can be stimulating and interesting.
If they are inaccurate they should rightly be hauled up.
As it’s their site, matters of topic or style, to me, are really their choices to live with, and the consequences in negative by folk simply ignoring what they are promoting. That is how it works in the MSM. Eyeballs are lost, so ratings and consequent revenues fall. On free blogs, I guess, egos get dented. Only in one case I can think of does the reaction of the audience matter no one jot no matter what is broadcast or published.
I don’t know who Alan is. He appeared a while ago without fanfare. He may be a person, or a pseudonym. Again, I’m not to fussed.
If his thread introductions inspire I chip in; if not… I tend to steer clear. (As I do any… most that get too generic on religious, race, or other ‘st, ‘inger, ‘zi issues. They start badly and seldom end well for any involved. Hence my preference for a blog thread where folk who like such things can go to play with each other in private; satisfying free speech and modding concerns).
You, as is your full right, not only appear to take issue, and to print with what Alan chooses to write about as author, but also take it upon yourself to comment on how he does so, projecting your own estimates to his motivations on top.
I’m not quite sure what the purpose is. A style is unlikely to change because a few whinge about it. Equally a person who is an owner and/or has been given editorial rights is going to give a fig for what a few disaffected visitors to a free site start demanding.
The only possible value is a sincere desire to seek improvements in the site mission and impacts. Now, that has merit.
However, if it is from those purporting to be supportive, public personal attacks on editorial style or character – ‘In my view most observers would view you as looking to find any excuse or none to criticise the BBC because you have a very ideological axe to grind‘ – seem an odd tack to adopt (I want the BBC to change like all of you… but… you stink…). Better phrasing would be a start and, if robustness in critique felt necessary, perhaps better directed in private via the contact form top right? Unless the pulpit is deemed more critical in heat than the message in refocussing the light?
Alan appears to take this well, and seldom replies, perhaps preferring to stay above such things.
I however can on occasion feel less noble and, as a right you appear to feel I should not have while you should, have chipped in on your method of play as you did with Alan. Or is there a unique difference only you need enjoy?
I do confess to being, as somewhat of a veteran now in dealings with BBC CECUTT, sensitive when I see odd distractions being brought in that are not on topic or point, especially when couched with terms such as ‘view’ or ‘belief’ and all-inclusive appeals that lack support such as ‘neutral observers would conclude’ or ‘most observers would view you’.
These smack of attempts to undermine, especially when complemented by subtle niggles at sowing discord. Mr. Vance used to get it a fair bit too, but telling the site owner to leave or else… er… else, was perhaps seen as daft. Hence the new focus, from more than one quarter on Alan, and not just his topics but him.
That smacks, purely in my opinion, as a tactic of playing the person and with vague, unknowable associations by inference, when rational argument and facts appear to absent and failing.
‘You’re not [a – lest Pole get conflicted again] member of Stonewall, Caged Prisoners or the BNP, are you?’
This is a blog. Hence, as I have tried to point out before, whatever I confirm, or deny, could be true, untrue, or shades inbetween. I rather suspect you would not be satisfied, and even become vocal, whichever reply I give in actual answer.
It would be like me asking if you really are a BBC insider who, unlike the rotating and self-immolating Flokkers, has chugged along not being too obvious, and even putting the boot in on a Humphrysesque basis when the cause is lost, but riding such credibility to pop in an ‘I don’t think so’ on occasion about a programme of presenter.
But there’s no way I can know, or judge any answer, so I won’t ask.
However, I will note that often on blogs it is unproductive, and serves the originator poorly to go the route of trying to make comparisons that suit prejudices, and worse ones, of their own.
I will say I am a member of my kids’ school fundraising committee. Others I tend to steer clear of, as membership can lead to accusations, often based on association as opposed to record. And that I leave to those who prefer to engage in such things.
In honour of Alan this reply has taken some space (short screeds take more time, as Mark Twain observed). Those who read to the end may appreciate what this means more those who don’t.
Erm, I couldn’t quite bring myself to plough through all of that, but I think I get it now; you have a loose relationship with reality.
I never thought I’d find myself writing this, but I find myself in sympathy with the bods at the beeb who have to deal with your complaints.
The most constructive point I can make, is I suggest if you’re going to spend so much time responding to what I wrote, you try addressing the points I’ve made rather than inventing them. I made no criticism of Alan’s “style”.
‘I made no criticism of Alan’s “style”.’
Plough though anything and you not only undercut actual points being made you could miss, but you also discover interesting things…
‘most observers would view you as looking to find any excuse or none to criticise the BBC because you have a very ideological axe to grind.’
This being, I presume, a ringing endorsement of his penmanship?
‘I find myself in sympathy with the bods at the beeb who have to deal with your complaints.’
Shocked I tell you.. shocked!
‘you have a loose relationship with reality
Presumably, one defined by… let me guess… you!
I’ll live.
As to your points, well your suggestion is noted but as you still appear to have none of value… I’ll pass.
I write what I write. As can anyone…
‘It’s very important to strike a balance in this, and give credit to the BBC where its due… ‘
‘If its ad hominem you want, you’ve come to the right place!’
‘If there’s one thing that reminds me each what a Great British Institution the BBC is..’
‘I find David Dimbleby to be the best of British.’
‘It’s most disturbing a puts a huge question mark over the site.’
‘It does appear that the BBC as an institution still has a lot going for it when Panorama can produce such an exposé of a BBC cover-up.’
‘As a regular listener and a huge fan of Nicky Campbell I’m always bewildered (and, to be frank, rather nauseated) seeing pieces like this on B-BBC. ‘
This was an interesting one…
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/04/is-bbc-institutionally-leftist.html
‘.. the constructive thing to do instead of making personal attacks on someone because they dont see things the way you do.’
But I am supposing what you think you wrote does not constitute a personal attack on a site author? Just on their actual motivations, that you are unsure of but don’t like. Uh-huh.
Lot of Gramskiing that thread too. With fellow fan Mr. Dandy…
‘Any neutral observer coming to this site seeing the reaction to him would conclude our claims about BBC bias aren’t worth paying attention to.’
Again with the inclusivity… but Trojan back-door.
And as it’s all about Alan, whose ‘style’ you never criticise, assuming it’s the same person..
‘Alan, please stop acting like such an obnoxious moron and bringing discredit to this site.
Try not to let boorish right wing fanatics get to you JD.
It’s a pity as you do have some great points to make, but also turn a bit Jekyll too.
Now if you are a secret site owner, I guess I’m toast, but if not I don’t think you are as much in control as you seem to think you are.
Oh strewth, I’ve got a stalker!
‘I’ve got a stalker!’
Alan, in you, presumably, has what, a groupie?
Describing those who highlight others’ comments as ‘stalking’ is, for you and others around… brave.
Hippiepooter…pretentious or what!
Pity you don’t actually follow your own convictions as in your own blog….
‘The Reason for this Self Indulgence’ ..
As the James Mason character said in ‘The Shooting Party’, the benefit of keeping a journal is that is saves you bothering other people with your thoughts.
I expect the entries on this blog will be sporadic and short-lived through disuse and being read by no-one, but for those peculiar moments when one thinks one has something of import to communicate to humanity and any passing spaceship, a blog does serve to humour oneself.
So which spaceship dropped you off on planet earth?
His blog on 101 uses for a dead cat is quite unintentionally funny though.
http://steffi-enmemoriade.blogspot.co.uk/
“Steffi In October 2009 he suffered two bassoons.”
What’s funny about that ? Poor pussy ! I hope that when you suffer a bassoon no-one laughs at you.
Way to go, Google Translate.
Oh dear, the boorish right at it again.
Hilariously, in the Tebbit thread last week, the first comment was that Lord Tebbit is absolutely right and that the BBC should be privatised.
Lord Tebbit said nothing about privatisation. He supports the BBC as a public service broadcaster, lauds its output in documentaries and entertainment, but abhorrs its bias.
For market fetishists nothing’s worth doing unless someone’s making money out of it.
For those with hinterlands beyond the dogma of the soulless, boorish right, such as Enoch Powell and Lord Tebbit, there’s a little bit more to life than making money.
What a jolly charming fellow you are Mr Hills:-
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/stephen-lawrence-facts.html
Who’d a thunk you were someone given to ad hominem?
‘ I’m not aware of Humphrys taking any position on Mr Entwistle’s position other than deliver a robust interview with Mr Entwistle which was something very much to the BBC’s credit.’
By the time of that interview on Today Mr Entwistle was already doomed. A select committee of MPs, bemused and made impatient by his previous see-no-evil, hear-no-evil performance, had in effect put him on a final warning. The fact that his sole line of defence at this further cock up at Newsnight was going to be ‘sorry and all but I didn’t know what was going on’ meant he was a lost cause. Any, I repeat, any journalist worth his salt was going to tie Entwistle in knots. Of course he decided to commit his Harikuri on the BBC with Humpf as his sword bearer. Don’t laud the BBC and Today over this. It was a case of pure face saving for the Beeb.
Indeed, it’s not like Entwhistle was ever going to allow someone from the Murdock, or Barclay Brothers media stables claim credit for his scalp, was he?
It was pure face saving from the BBC and better for him and the corrupt corporation that it be a BBC “journalist” to finish him off than a Murdoch employee.
I saw this, and thought of… well… so many wonderful people..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/donatahuggins/100190786/why-are-secular-liberals-telling-female-christians-how-they-should-feel-about-women-bishops/
I don’t buy into the line that the BBC reports on itself rigorously and objectively. They have been very quick to manage the discussion of the McAlpine affair so that it is presented as an embarrassing local difficulty and an internal failing of the BBC’s management structure (which apparently is bloated and labyrinthine as a result of so many cuts – go figure). The only person who I have heard on the BBC discuss the affair as symptomatic of an institutional left wing bias is Trevor Kavanagh and it lasted a matter of seconds before he was shut off amid a cry of “outrageous slur”. Even Andrew Neil turns into a weasel and shies away from discussing that question on This Week. The truth which they do not have the balls to acknowledge is that trying to turn the tables on the Tories and getting Thatcher’s name in the headline was irresistible to them. Jim Dandy said last week there was no evidence that the story was motivated by “anti Thatcher animus” – in which case why was her name mentioned? If the story (rubbish of course, but let’s ignore that for the time being) is that a senior political figure was engaged in abuse, what is the relevance to the story of saying which personalised “era” that politican belonged to? Many of the same pious tossers who a week later were tweeting away about how the real story in all this was about the children as victims delighted in the story being linked to Thatcher and the Conservative Party for a few days.
I found it interesting that the now-departed (shame on the banner) Nicked emus said that this whole fiasco could have been this site’s finest hour. This can only mean that there really is a Left-wing bias at the BBC which caused this and Savile to happen.
It’s very important to strike a balance in this, and give credit to the BBC where its due, as Douglas Murray has in his blog, even perhaps at the risk of being overgenerous, but when Lord Tebbit and Lord McAlpine’s brother put in the public domain the huge nasty strain of anti-Conservative bias there is at the BBC, this facet of the story needs to be very closely looked at and its barely been scratched.
It will be interesting to see what the Court cases, if Lord McAlpine does bring his libel writs to Court, bring out as to motive.
I thought McAlpine was settling out of court. That disappointed me for I was hoping to see the BBC facing a string of accusations in court in the way that NI was traduced during the Leveson enquiry.
If you want to know the BBC mindset, so beloved of the Guardian and New Statesman etc…look no further by a hidden gem of a BBC programme I just heard. (Poor Reporting…Radio 4; 4pm 20.11.12)
Indeed it does exactly what it says on the tin…but listen to the New York media bloke skewer our Beeboid chummie about the poverty business/industry…why such folks as himself are prone to bemoan the publics apathy as they report from the Sheraton….and our BBC mans sheer floundering and incomprehension at it all.
Obama shows up-yet poverty persists even after he`d left the event…as if Clintons CGI and the BBCs reporting of it was not enough to feed the Sudanese! Oh, our BBC chap is dismayed, I tells`ya!
Still-our Beeboid got a good gig out of it c/o the taxpayer, and the poverty business seems not to be suffering as far as the BBC personnel devoted to it are concerned.
The Americans must be mystified…our Beeboid just was paid to moan along and wring his chauffeurs hankie over the Marriots welcome mat!
At least it all accounts for the competing grief thieves in the liberal media…gypsies, Roma, death rowers, asylum seekers, Hamas and trans-types in Hove…if I see the Beeb sfaffies as mere “grief seeking missiles” that never leave the silo without a good dinner out of it…and the license fee clients stumping up as ever.
What am I bid for Saviles trackie bottoms anybody?….
One small victory for conservatism
And BBC 10 o’clock News reacts as if we have a national disaster.
Alarmed tones from BBC reporters and interviews with distressed victims lined up.
So what? One aspect of the national fabric will remain unchanged and as it has been for a 1000 years – well at least for a couple more years.
In the meantime a few women who would have liked to wear purple and have a pay rise will now be dissappointed – well at least for that couple more years.
Seemed to me to have been a victory for the ordinary joes over the wishes of an elite. But of course this was a liberal elite so the BBC are disconcerted.
Now we have the BBC publicising a news line from ‘former-cabinet-minister’ Jacqui Smith (Labour)
“Sick of waiting for the established church to come in line with every other major inst. Disestablish – they don’t represent my country.”
Suspiciously opportune comment?
Perhaps our Jacqui needs some issue with which to rehabilitate herself?
‘Jacqui Smith will not be investigated for claiming £116,000 of taxpayer-funded Commons expenses for her family home.’
Disestablishment: Let’s start with the BBC
jackboot jacqui has the most brass neck of anyone i’ve come across
the woman has absolutley no shame
i also find it highly ironic that the libtard elites keep tellin everyone that the church is irrelevant and shouldn’t be trying to “impose” their “outdated ideas” and will on society ,,yet they keep trying to mold the church in THEIR image by trying to do the exact same thing
scumbag hypocrisy knows no bounds
sorry for the odd spelling mistake,all you lefty grammar nazis
A very recent ‘Guardian’ article online entitled:
“BBC executive helped propose George Entwistle’s £450,000 payoff ” –
has been “removed on legal adviced”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/21/removed-on-legal-advice