Gotta love the BBC. Today I noted a reference to the “right of centre” Policy Exchange (Today 8.52am). Now, I am unsure who decides what is the “centre” of British politics but if it is the BBC then I fear that Policy Exchange are more likely to be slightly right of hard Labour. But that’s not my point. Yesterday, the same BBC trailed the economic commentary from the Institute of Fiscal Studies as a means of bashing Osborne. There was no other caveat such as “left of centre” which is curious given THIS. Part of my beef with the BBC is that downplays some bias (IFS) BUT upweights other bias (PE). It should be consistent in how it describes these “think tanks” rather than duplicitous. Don’t you think?
THOSE THINK TANKS
Bookmark the permalink.
I do not ever recall the BBC ever describing any of the “think tanks” which attack tory policy as “left wing think tanks” In fact the term “think tank” is often replaced with the word “organisation” or “charity” or “group of experts”
Any that defend tory policy are usually described as “right wing think tanks”
I wish the term ‘think tank’ would cease to be used; maybe then my blood pressure would lower slightly. It doesn’t mean anything, if it ever did; once a term such as this one is over-used, it loses any useful definition.
These days, the BBC and tanking of any kind seem synonymous.
“The BBC and it’s Commie economists” (standard reply to complaint)
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2213/the_bbc_and_its_commie_economists
“As you point out, it has been 20 years since Jacques edited Marxism Today and in those intervening decades he has developed a mainstream career in journalism”
Ahhh….I see, the old “But that was another time, and things were different back then….” meme again?
‘the old “But that was another time, and things were different back then….” meme’
How that applies to old, ex-young Conservative club chairmen at Uni can of course vary.
Telegraph, FT, Economist, spectator: all describe PE as right of centre. Its Director has just joined Osborne as his spad. And Policy Exchange describe themselves as centre right
IFS are respected by all sides and widely considered to be a dispassionate voice on matters fiscal. Its exx Director was appointed by this Government as head of the OBR.
Progressive and regressive are terms used universally by economists and aren’t necessarily value loaded.
Admittedly Jim you recently thought a Guardian hack was of the right (the thread about Question Time).
However, the point being made is not about whether Policy Echange are left, centre right or just right of centre, it’s that the BBC always announces anything they perceive as of the right, to be just that; but rarely mention the leftness of any of their myriad left-wing speakers or representatives of left-wing organisations.
To be consistent they need to treat both sides the same, either always mention the right/left caveat of their guests or to not mention it at all and leave it to their viewers/listeners to work out. The fact that they don’t rather proves that the BBC is biased, very biased, and always to the hard left.
Did I? Not sure I did
‘Not sure I did’
Best check then. To be sure.
Some hall monitors take a dim view of claims not based on supported fact.
You looked at that night’s cast list and said there were three from the right, one from the left and Charlotte Church. Considering that that there was a Labour shadow-minister and a Guardian hack, and you didn’t reply to my question of which of these two you considered the third person from the right, I assumed you must have meant the Guardian wallah. If not then it was the Labour MP that you consider was from the right. Equally bizarre to be honest.
Ah, it’s Simon Jenkins you’re on about.
You think he’s left wing! What nonsense.
‘What nonsense.’
No telling you eh, Jim?
Order is restored.
What’s there not left-wing about a man from the Guardian with previous BBC experience. If you claim that he is not left-wing then that shows how far to the sinister your views lie. How you can imagine he’s of the right is quite laughable really.
Simon Jenkins isn’t a classic Guardianista lefty. Hard to place really. In his Times incarnation he was of the right.
He also calls for the “Malvinas” to be given “back” to Argentina. Certainly not of the right.
Jim
You miss my point. The idea you float that the IFS is dispassionate is to make the same mistake as the BBC.
Hi Jim You never replied to this so I thought I would repeat it.
I am interested in this “Flanders is a top flight economic journalist.”
If so you might think that she would have been useful in discussing Greece and its problems.
Stephanie Flanders told us that Greece would NEVER default.
I note that this evening one of the ratings agencies has decided tonight that Greece has now defaulted twice this year alone..
George Osborne described the IFS as one of the most “credible independent voices on the public finances, taxation and public spending”.
What the same George Osborne who according to your and your mate on the lefts is wrong on everything ??
That told me.
‘That told me.’
And there was me thinking that was a no-no.
I’ll take your word on that Jim, in which case DV hasn’t chosen a good example to highlight BBC double standards, but are you saying they dont exist in this regard?
Can I ask someone to research the Resolution Foundation? I have noticed that Newsnight/BBC seems to be working closely with this “group” when it comes to stories and one of its employees suddenly appeared on the programme yesterday evening. That’s twice in a week that the Foundation has been referred to. A coincidence, maybe.
I have not Googled, but am willing to bet a pound to a penny, the Resolution Foundation’s views will not align with, say, the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
I’m also off to Google for myself.
A ragbag of trustafarians, lefty hacks and third world immigrants who think we owe them a living.
Thought as much:
The Resolution Foundation is an independent research and policy organisation. Our goal is to improve outcomes for people on low and modest incomes – in particular the 11 million adults in low to middle income households (LMIs), living on below median income but broadly independent of state support.
Rule #1: If the BBC doesn’t label them, you know where they come from.
Isn’t it sad that that rule #1 is so true.
That sounds like a pressure group to me, of the left-leaning variety.
“improve outcomes for people on low and modest incomes”….
That would be – in our “exchange of labour” economy – people who make or do nothing, or offer nothing anybody wants or would pay a lot for.
Its no accident why people are “poor”. They have loads of kids they can’t support, they don’t work, or have no skills to offer, and vote Labour.
If these people got off their arses there would be no need for the Resolution Foundation, right? perpetuating victimhood – probably with a grant of money from those that do work.
Stop worshipping the poor. It is largely their choice. The solution is in their own hands. The last thing the poor need is the Resolution Foundation putting off the day they sort their own lives out.
they don’t worship the poor. they feed off the poor, The poor are the reason they exist ergo they need more poor.
Bottom feeders.
Think tank – any think tank – ask “Who funds it?”
Resolution is funded by one Clive Cowdery to the tune of about a million a year and staffed by a bunch of right-on new Labourites.
Left leaning. Oops shouldn’t have said that.
My husband and i ended up being very delighted when Louis could deal with his preliminary research through the precious recommendations he got using your web pages. It is now and again perplexing just to possibly be freely giving facts which often the others have been trying to sell. We see we have the website owner to be grateful to because of that. The specific explanations you’ve made, the straightforward site menu, the friendships your site aid to instill it is many unbelievable, and it’s really assisting our son in addition to us consider that that theme is amusing, and that is exceptionally mandatory. Thank you for all the pieces!