‘They have helped to build a media culture in which feeding frenzies have become the norm, making life intolerable for innocents caught in the glare of their spotlights.’
That was a quote from The Guardian 2003 attacking its fellow newspapermen…or rather those on the ‘Right’.
It is of course very apt 10 years on in the wake of Leveson and the introduction of the Press regulatory Royal Charter…or the ‘Crooks and Creeps Charter’ if you prefer.
What is perhaps a paradox is that it is of course the ‘Rightwing Press’ that is the target of this legislation….promoted as it was by a cabal of very wealthy left wingers along with some even more wealthy donors in cahoots with the Labour Party…in effect carrying on its ‘war against Murdoch.’
The News Of The World was vilified for phone hacking and its stories on celebrities and members of the Public….and yes some of that was highly dubious….but in the scale of things perhaps not as serious as the actions of some other media organisations…particularly those on the left whose active promotion of, and careless incitement of, anti-Semitism must surely rank higher than the dignity of a public figure photographed in a compromising position.
The Guardian for instance…. So well known for the anti-Semitic tracts inside its pages that it has had to publish a disclaimer of sorts….. both accepting anti-Semitism whilst denying it:
The readers’ editor on… averting accusations of antisemitism
‘Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel
As a newspaper the Guardian has been critical of all sides, but it is seen as being especially critical of the Israeli government and its actions. And that has led to complaints that the Guardian, in print or online, is carrying material that either lapses into language resonant of antisemitism or is, by its nature, antisemitic.
For antisemitism can be subtle as well as obvious. Three times in the last nine months I have upheld complaints against language within articles that I agreed could be read as antisemitic.
I have been careful to say that these examples may be read as antisemitic because I don’t believe their appearance in the Guardian was the result of deliberate acts of antisemitism: they were inadvertent. But that does not lessen the injury to some readers or to our reputation.…reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant to ensure our voice in the debate is not diminished because our reputation has been tarnished.’
The BBC is guilty of something similar….its Middle East coverage whilst probably not intending to be anti-Semitic has the same effect when the journalists deliberately demonise Israeli actions whilst covering up or ignoring Palestinian violence and war crimes.
The BBC’s coverage has the effect of inciting and encouraging anti-Semitism around the world leading to attacks on, and possibly even deaths of, Jews wholly unconnected with the conflict other than for the fact that they are Jewish….never mind the BBC’s cruel use and sacrifice of David Kelly so that it could get its ‘scoop’ in its fight against the Iraq War.
To my mind such reckless, or even deliberate shaping of a story which leads to such serious, harmful, and dangerously lethal effects must be considered far more damaging than any embarrassment from a story about sordid politicians or even the hacking of a missing girl’s phone.
Nicky Campbell was on the case earlier this week on 5Live ‘Your Call’ in which he was discussing the Press regulations.
The first caller was ‘Geoff from Oldham’ who launched straight into a tirade against the Rightwing Press and the millionaires backing Cameron. Well I think I’ve already noted the hypocrisy of that. Geoff apparently is a frequent caller.
We were then met with a familiar figure…Labour’s Alistair Campbell who preceded to cover the same ground as Geoff, making the same claims.
Campbell, the BBC’s new friend, was allowed a long and uninterrupted say.
Brought in to oppose his view was ex News Of The World Journo Neil Wallis.
Wallis hardly got a word in being constantly interrupted by A. Campbell and rubbished.
Wallis then had to leave and Campbell remained.
This is the same Campbell that Max Hastings in the Mail today describes thus:
‘Campbell, meanwhile, has become the darling of the BBC, forever a guest on its chat shows and invited to air his views on news programmes as if he was an elder statesman rather than spinmaster of the most mendacious government of modern times.
Campbell’s off-camera behaviour, as a foul-mouthed bully, was brilliantly captured in the political satire The Thick Of It. But the man himself is nowadays welcomed into studios as if he was a national treasure.’
Campbell of course worked hand in glove with Murdoch all during Blair’s reign….to now attack the ‘rightwing press’ has to be some of the most dishonest and hypocritical opportunism we have seen….especially as Labour’s new spin meister is none other than Tom Baldwin….ex-Times journalist and the man who channelled Campbell’s ‘stories’ into prominence in the Times paper.
As the New Statesman reveals: Baldwin saw it as his job as a journalist to: ‘keep Labour in power as long as I can.”
The Daily Mail also has some revelations:
‘Alistair Campbell was known to liaise with Baldwin in endless attempts to discredit the Labour government’s enemies, the results of which regularly ended up prominently in The Times — a paper once admired for its thundering independence.
Like Campbell, Baldwin, 44, has a ferocious, emotional hatred of Tories….one fellow political journalist puts it: ‘His judgment was completely blinded by his hatred for the Tories and his fixation with Alastair Campbell, who used Tom as a stool pigeon to find out what other journalists were up to and as a cipher for stories he wanted to place….allowing himself to be turned into a blatant propagandist.’
The BBC using a man whose sole aim in life was to gag the Press or to get a favourable story planted in it for his political masters is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of this saga…especially so as Campbell is probably most famous for his ‘war with the BBC’ over the Kelly affair.
The rest of the programme went in a similar vein mostly taken up with attacks on the ‘Rightwing Press’ and Tory millionaires.
A couple of Nicky Campbell’s own contributions were his attempt to make excuses for regular BBC contributor and Labour politician, John O’Farrell, whose comments that he was disappointed that Mrs Thatcher didn’t die in the Brighton bombing were brought to light in the Eastleigh by-election….a gross injustice according to Nicky Campbell.
Another was the case of Louis Walsh when the Sun printed unfounded allegations and had to pay him £500,000 in damages…..this, apparently, was a damning example of Press irresponsibility and intrusion ruining people’s lives….Campbell reckoned £500,000 was nowhere near enough for over a year’s battle with the Sun.
Trouble is Campbell made no mention of the BBC’s own recent attempt to ruin someone’s life…that of Lord McAlpine, by making completely false allegations against him….having never even contacted him for his reaction to the claims….the BBC only paying about £180,000 to McAlpine for the extremely serious allegations.
The whole programme was in essence just an excuse to lay into the Sun and Murdoch and when they could, the Daily Mail and its owner Paul Dacre.
The ‘BBC Left’ is using hacking to get revenge
Left-wing politicians and broadcasters do not want to debate ideas but they do want to remove their opponents.
And if that’s the case perhaps it’s time for serious thought about the BBC’s privileged existence and the journalists who pump out so much damaging leftwing propaganda on the license payer’s shilling.
Time perhaps for wondering if it should be allowed to continue abusing its unique position and whether the harm it does by far outweighs any good.
If you had told me a few years ago that the BBC Climate Change seminar had not a single Atmospheric Physicist, I would not have believed this.
In 2007, even I thought that there where Atmospheric Physicists foolish enough to be trapped by the BBC Orwellian propaganda machine.
But even though the Atmospheric Physics of carbon dioxide warming is at the core of the Climate debate, currently I know of only one Professor of Atmospheric Physics in the country who is in the warmist camp, the London University Professor, and I think she is the first female Professor of Atmospheric Physics in Britain, but I think she was appointed after the BBC seminar.
All other Professors of Atmospheric Physics seem to be silenced by fear, which seems to suit the BBC.
“silenced by fear”
……..and the desire for funding (all those postgraduates to feed)
This is a quite staggeringly ignorant comment. For a start there is not ‘a’ professor of atmospheric physics at London University. There are quite a number, London University being a loose association of 19 different institutions. At Imperial College alone there are two ‘warmist’ professors: there’s Ralf Toumi (author of many papers about AGW) and Joanna Haigh, who’s well known for her views. Imperial’s visiting professors include Adrian Tuck (warmist), Roger Timmis (warmist) and Chris Rapley (warmist).
But maybe that’s a one-off? Hmm. Oxford also has some professors of atmospheric physics. They include Myles Allen (warmist), Lesley Gray (warmist), David Marshall (warmist), and Tim Palmer (warmist).
Cambridge has only one atmospheric physicist. Guess what – he’s a warmist. And this does not take into account a small army of lecturers, readers and research fellows at all these and other institutions who have also published on the subject of AGW. One does not have to look very hard to find atmospheric physicists who work on AGW. So who are all these people who are ‘silenced by fear’?
A herd mentality has accrued around ‘global warming’academia.Have you noticed that rising co2 levels scarcely feature nowadays,in order to scare the children?–Those pesky models just don’t get it.
One would have thought that following the Dr. Kelly episode that Alastair Campbell would never cross the BBC’s threshold ever again but, following the election, there he is, as Max Hastings said, a ‘national treasure’, always on call.
Mr. Squeaky Clean himself, spin, what spin? Spin Doctor-in-Chief for Blair was his role. Everyone knew it; he proudly declared it and given that fact his opinion is worth nothing. The ONLY reason he should be allowed on air now would be if he was to make a full confession, but no, he STILL plays the little innocent up against the big bad Murdoch.
When one considers that Carol Thatcher has received what appears to be a life ban for a factual off-air comment that ‘offended’ Jo Brand(!!) it says a lot about the BBC that it welcomes with open arms calculating, mendacious low-lifes like Campbell.
Alistair Campbell – the ideal choice for censorship supremo.
Breaking news, Jimmy savile appointed head of Barnardoes kid home.
I expect he was, given their past misdeeds,.
All things… and people considered, post-Savile especially, one might presume the BBC and its supporters (including my DP sofa-addicted MP) would find the term ‘national treasure’ just a bit of an albatross.
They really should stick to ‘envy of the world’, but given the planet referred to being the one they inhabit even that’s looking iffy now.
Maybe a dose of pragmatism?: the herpes corporation – here to stay and you’ll never get to shake it off
The NHS is the envy of the BBC-hack-on-BUPA world.
When Campbell is coming, can Mandelslime be far behind ?
again for those who haven’t seen it..
Yep, this is a key point the usual; suspects avoid. The BBC does feature the odd conservative to offer commentary ‘from the right’ meanwhile leftists wackjobs like Campbell are introduced as disinterested experts in their field.
Isn’t the Times also owned by nasty Uncle Rupert? I thought he made everything into the Tory Press?
What does the apostrophe in the title mean?