Monthly Archives: March 2013

There’s been a lot of talk about the overly aggressive and personal questioning of Boris Johnson by Eddie Mair on the Marr show the other day. To be honest, I see no problem in presenters having a go at the political class – so long as the venom is spread equally! And by the same token, I see no reason why the political class can also not have a go at the indiscretions of political presenters – Andrew Marr being a case in point. I wonder how the BBC would feel if her serial adultery was brought up, live on air?

Margaret Hodge must love the BBC, she gets consistent favourable PR even when she comes out with predictable dreary Labour propaganda.

The government will need to react quickly if a benefit cut for social housing tenants leads to rises in rent arrears and homelessness, MPs say. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge said it could have a “severe impact” on low-income families. Estimates supplied to the BBC by some of the largest housing associations suggest many tenants are not currently planning to move home to avoid the cut. The government said better use had to be made of social housing stock.

Does Hodge speak for all those on this committee? Do the Conservative and Lib Dem members  of the PAC support her criticism of Coalition Policy? Is she simply posturing and using this soapbox to trot out her own bias which the BBC then presents as the agreed view of the PAC? Thoughts?

Another week of dreary and predictable bias from the State broadcaster, or Labour via the License fee as I look upon it! Time to detail the bias HERE…

And another little gem from the BBC this morning at 7.09am. At a time when the eurocrats have shot themselves in the foot with their demanded bank heist of savers deposits in Cypriot banks, the BBC’s Chris Morris was in Italy, in Rome. He was talking to the Chief Executive of an Italian bank who was assuring the world that Italy’s banks were as sound as an….erm..Euro! Morris then SUGGESTED that perhaps the solution to the banking crisis was…yes, more Europe to which the Italian agreed.  Nice bit of totally biased pro EU propaganda there, folks.

You have to smile at the way in which the BBC moves to get the first strike in ANYTIME that Cameron starts to act in the national interest. There was this item on Today that made me laugh at the sheer inherent anti Conservative BIAS of it. God forbid we seek to place the interests of British people ahead of those of immigrants;

Speaking on the Today programme Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who has produced work for the migration advisory committee of the UK Border Agency, told presenter James Naughtie that “people outside the UK are significantly less likely than British nationals, or people born here, to claim benefits.”  “People who come here from within the EU make a substantial net contribution to the public finances… they pay in far more than they take out,” he added.

Hey, let’s get more Romanians and Bulgarians, those hard working salt of the earth types that also add to the multicultural gaiety of the nation.

Something to chew on for our readers.

Sue and Craig who used to post here have set up their own site reporting on bias in the BBC….‘Is The BBC Biased?’

They say that the reason for doing so was that they were being stereotyped and labelled because of their views…and secondly that the comments below the posts were too aggressive and cliched.

Certainly there are attempts by some subversive ‘critics’ of this site to sabotage it and create the impression that everyone who reads it is some right wing BNP member….doing so by posting comments about Muslims or mentioning the ‘Final Solution’ whilst pretending to be right wing.   They are trying their best to get this site labelled a ‘hate site’ ….they don’t like criticism of the BBC and seem to be keen to use any underhand method to stop it.  They usually get deleted…as do racist, homophobic or otherwise unwelcome comments.

Having said that this is a pretty free and easy site for moderating comments….the occassional abuse and aggressiveness, which comes oddly mostly from our critics, serves only to discredit themselves…I remain entirely unbothered by it…they could learn something from Scott who, whilst I disagree with much of what he says, is reasoned and restrained in his comments…and by virtue of that would be all the more effective if only he was right.

The site does not block anyone for their politics or philosophy or their opinions or beliefs…..that is why we criticise the BBC for censoring the ‘voices’ of people they don’t want to hear, those who oppose the things that the BBC has decided it likes and supports.

The site is non-political…any mention of ideologies or policies is purely to provide context to illustrate why the BBC is biased and why that is the wrong approach with potentially damaging effects on society.

This site aims to stop the BBC declaring some subjects off limits or taboo…whether that is Islam, climate change or immigration or whatever.  It is not for the BBC to decide what is fit and proper for discussion.

The closing down of debate and the lack of questioning of the ‘consensus’ which guides for example government policy, can lead to dangerous consequences…..we have an unusually cold winter right now…heating fuel grows ever more expensive and people are shutting off their heating….Age Concern tells us old people are dieing because of that…a result of  the green energy policy implemented without any real debate or opposition…aided by the BBC….a rigorous debate on the science and solutions would have perhaps come up with a better, safer policy.

Some comments are aggressive,  or rude, or extreme…but this is not a site that thinks you should all be enlightened, middle class, progressive libertarians…..as I said there are some limits but generally we prefer a wide spread of voices and opinions. 

It seems to work though…and surprisingly perhaps, most comments are of a moderate nature….reasoned, intelligent, measured and bringing both a width of experience and knowledge to the blog that couldn’t come from the few regular posters such as myself….nor could we possibly do without the constant referrals to information that the readers provide…..the ‘Biased BBC Irregulars’. 

All in all I think Sue and Craig are wrong about the comments on this site….they are a necessary part of it and bring life and an invaluable extra dimension to it…even if that extra dimension is sometimes ‘out there’.

This is Sue and Craig’s remarks on their blog: 

‘Here on “IS” Craig frames his critiques in a conscientious and fair manner. Rational, and some may say, even-handed. Me – probably less so, but I try not to hurtle towards irrational or extreme language.

We hope someone somewhere will be persuaded by our brilliant reasoning and charming personalities.

The drawback is that the minute we express our views, we risk stereotyping ourselves and losing the very people we wouldst seduce. By continually hammering out complaints about the same old things we’re almost bound to be ‘stereotyped’ without really trying. But while the same old things are bothering us, what can else can we do? Give in?

When we wrote articles for the Biased BBC blog we had the same problem. Even when we set a measured tone, as reasonable and restrained as could be, the below the line commenters, in their enthusiasm, would frequently lapse into cliched memes and mantras. What more foolproof way to antagonise readers who didn’t see it their way.

A few years ago one or two spokespersons from the BBC dropped in to defend their employer, or to dispute some point or other with the B-BBC community. At best, a rally of claims and counter-claims might ensue, but the banter usually involved a lone BBC representative versus a gaggle of aggressive Biased-BBCers. You had to admire the pluck of the former. More often than not the BBC’s input would be in the form of a one-off snipe. Not much use to man or beast. Any replies and responses piled up unanswered, stranded; the best that could be hoped for was that the silent sniper had lurked, read and left.

In an act of principled self-destruction we decided to forgo a widely read platform and languish here on our own-io. To be hoist by our own supporters, or stand alone, fancy-free and self-determining in obscurity, that is the question.

No sign of Miss Israel 2012, Shani Hazan, on the BBC:

For some reason we have an encyclopaedic entry for Miss israel 2013:

An immigrant from Ethiopia when she was 12 years old, Yityish Aynaw learnt Hebrew with no extra help and served as an officer in the Israeli army.  Those Israelis must be terrible people allowing that.

The BBC can’t let all that success go without having a dig at Israel:

“It was a new language. It was a new culture. Quite often children even laughed at me,” she says, though she adds that she also met many kind people.’

Oh and this little bit…..

‘Ethiopians often complain about discrimination when it comes to jobs, education and housing. There were even allegations last year that some new Ethiopian immigrants have been given contraceptive injections against their will.’

Nothing like spreading unfounded allegations to demonise Israel.

But never mind…. there might just be some kind people in Israel….blimey…what a surprise…though you might be surprised given the BBC’s usual coverage of the Middle East.

Hang on, what’s this…there are only around 120,000 ethiopians in Israel….not only is one of them Miss Israel…but perhaps more importantly, along with Arab members, there are already two Ethiopians in the Israeli parliament….

Aynaw’s victory “was very important for all Israeli society”, says Penina Tamanu-Shata, one of two Ethiopian Israelis currently serving as a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.

That Israeli apartheid is a funny old thing.

The BBC can’t help loving the new Miss Israel despite her having served in the Israeli’s ‘oppressive and savage army’,   wonder why…..

‘….another hero, she told the BBC, was the US president…..“I was influenced and inspired by Obama.’

The BBC have launched an extraordinary hatchet job on Boris Johnson. using some pretty ancient history (the Guppy phone call  made the news in 1995)….no coincidence that the newspapers have in the last few days been full of stories that the successful and popular Boris looks like going for the leadership of the Tory Party…..the BBC’s Eddie Mair making the highly personal and opinionated comment that Boris is a ‘nasty piece of work.‘…any doubts he knew that would make the headlines?  Was it scripted or a ‘preconceived notion’ in the beat up for the programme?  If so, very dodgy for the BBC...if the comment is seen as intentionally damaging to Boris’s reputation. (Link from Reed in the comments)

 Perhaps Mair’s antipathy towards Johnson arises from this quote from Boris:

 “If gay marriage were OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”

Mair is gay and covers a lot of gay ‘politics’. for the BBC

The BBC, having seen how successful Boris was in capturing the London vote which should be prime Labour territory, may have thought he would wipe the floor with the highly unattractive Ed Miliband….and decided to intervene….with stories that have been dragged out of the archives…so the question is …why have the BBC done this now?

The first point is that the BBC supported the Leveson inquiry and has consistently attacked the reporting of personal affairs (link again from Reed in comments) and activities of celebrities and politicians claiming such things are irrelevant.

Nicky Campbell only a couple of days ago defending Prescott’s workplace dalliances….and the comments by another Labour man, John O’Farrell, in his book that he would have been happy to see Thatcher dead…Campbell claimed the reporting of such a comment was unfair.

How things change…Boris has an affair and suddenly the BBC is ‘acting like a Red top’….the BBC’s excuse…… its all to do with ‘integrity’.

Johnson was given no time to explain anything whilst Mair seemed to be conducting what amounted to a highly judgemental kangaroo court.

Johnson’s ‘crimes’ were either personal, minor or non-existent….for instance the phone call with Guppy….Johnson handed over no address and never intended to….and nobody was ‘beaten up’…..and yet Mair made an instant judgement and denounced him as guilty of partcipating in a plot to attack someone.

Having an afair…telling a porkie to the boss..about the affair…hardly the work of the Devil as Mair seems to imply.

Can it be that one of the BBC’s sanctimonious self appointed little priests, Mair, is spinning this up into a storm of finger pointing, pious indignation not out of any real moral conviction but as said before, because Boris is a Tory, a successful and popular one, and looks like he may be thinking of going for the Leadership one day?

The BBC are perfectly within their rights to question Boris about lying on the job or involvement in any plots to beat people up….as long as they give him time to answer, but it is far outside their remit to pronounce judgement upon Boris, or anyone else and certainly not in such vicious and abusive, and highly political terms….as ‘a nasty piece of work’.

And if Mair wants to talk about ‘integrity’ how about a journalist who invites someone onto his show to talk about one thing….‘he thought he “was coming on to talk about the budget and what’s happening in London.”‘  and then ambushes him with something else entirely for which he is not prepared or able to martial his thoughts under a withering attack designed to confuse and disorientate?

And the BBC’s own ‘integrity’ might also be in question when it uses a journalist to cover extremely controversial issues, such as gay marriage, who is gay but most viewers or listeners will not know that….. people should be able to judge whether his interpretation is coloured by personal interest or views…they can only do that if they know his background…..we can judge Marr’s or Naughtie’s interviews and programmes by knowing they are Labour supporters and we can assess the interview with that in mind.

Mair is gay, nothing wrong with that but he keeps it pretty quiet….which could be a problem  when he is extensively reporting on gay political issues….it’s a legitimate question to ask does he use that position to campaign on behalf of gay rights whilst ostensibly merely ‘reporting’ on them?….as this comment jokes about:

‘I only found out about the gay radio presenters through trying to find out if Eddie Mair was gay after a comment from someone. I *think* he is gay but he keeps it quiet…even so seems he keeps it so quiet he isn’t on the list [famous gay people].’

The interviews with CoFE people etc trying to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws are even funnier with the thought that Eddie is gay and they don’t know.

It’s like Trevor MacDonald interviewing Nick Griffen and Griffen not realising MacDoughnut is black.’

Mair does many reports on gay politics…without people knowing his own position…'”he’s mightily good at keeping his private life private, though, isn’t he?”….he also interviews many politicians about gay politics, recently on gay marriage..again almost certainly without proclaiming his own interest or the politician or any viewer knowing that personal interest:

Richard Dyce ‏@dickiedyce 5 Feb  #personaljourney Eddie Mair eviscerates Theresa May on gay marriage. Nicely done

‘Miller was completely torn apart by Eddie Mair on Radio 4’s PM Show before Christmas’….(talking about gay marriage.)

‘Gay MP’s : Pride and prejudice in politics.  “Eddie Mair looks at the homosexual history of Parliament and the hypocrisy that gay MPs frequently encounter” 

The Independent seems to think Mair has some influence as a gay person voting him 52nd most influential..and rising: 

52 (56) Eddie Mair

Broadcaster

The voice of Radio 4’s PM, Mair has gained new fans by standing in for Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight — with a much calmer style of interviewing. With Newsnight suffering its current troubles over Jimmy Savile, perhaps a more permanent position on the late-night BBC2 show beckons?

Should someone who has a personal interest in a subject, a highly political and controversial subject such as gay marriage, be interviewing politicians about it without declaring that interest or broadcasting what could be perceived as ‘gay propaganda’ on the BBC?  If he was an ardent Labour supporter and was interviewing a Labour politician wouldn’t it be relevant to know his own views to judge the rigour and direction of the interview?

That example is of course a bad one as everybody at the BBC leans left by default apparently!

Mair is being highly hypocritical when he is so shy of letting people know he is gay himself as here he criticises the Tories for keeping quiet about being gay….. why just the Tories?, does no other Party have gay MPs who are not open about it?

“I’m sorry but I’m away on Sunday”. “Sorry – she’s away till mid-August.” “Can you call back in September?” We scour the world for the brightest and best guests every Sunday morning – but this time of year it’s like trying to find an openly gay Tory.’

Mair is clearly a good and popular journalist…

‘Wicked. And just a tad sneaky. Clearly a man who takes no political prisoners….when they try (as they so often do) to bodyswerve the tricky questions, Mair believes its perfectly legitimate for him rigorously to pursue them, almost to the point of rudeness.’

 No kidding.

….and appeals to ‘the ladies’…albeit on the scary Mumsnet:

I am a little bit in love with Eddie Mair (57 Posts)

Snaf Fri 12-Sep-08 19:36:03  Was listening to the PM programme this evening and… he is just great, isn’t he?

Habbibu Fri 12-Sep-08 19:38:23  Oh, snaf. You are a woman after my own heart. I shall join you in stern looks if there are anything but positive comments on this thread.

constancereader Fri 12-Sep-08 20:01:52 Oh god I love him too.
He is absolutely the best interviewer　

seeker Fri 12-Sep-08 20:04:30  you do know he’s gay, don’t you? Such a shame – just like Evan Davis.

Habbibu Fri 12-Sep-08 20:05:58  yes, I’d heard that, seeker – he’s mightily good at keeping his private life private, though, isn’t he? (Not that I’ve googled, oh no).

….but Mair does seems to be on a personal campaign to promote gay equality through the offcies of the BBC and in this interview with Boris has descended into personal abuse and judgement when that is not the BBC’s  role, which is to establish the facts and not to proclaim them either good or bad….those are value judgements and in this case highly political.

‘Flandering  V [flarn-der-in’]’:    Floundering whilst flimflamming on Labour’s behalf.

Fun day yesterday listening to the BBC old guard forming a ragged thin red line around Labour’s battered and discredited leadership just as Labour’s very own Old Guard are doing the BBC’s job and holding Labour to account.

Yesterday as mentioned in an earlier post the Mirror’s Brian Reade launched an attack on Labour’s record on the economy and now, today, Lord Mandelson surfaces to torpedo Balls and Milband…he says their approach to the economy is based purely upon party politics rather than any genuine attempt to fix the economy….”It is rather predictable party political stuff from over the dispatch box and it is a bit tiring to the public,”…….‘The former business secretary said arguments about the depth and speed of cuts were outdated and Labour should focus on how to rebuild the economy’.

The Telegraph reporting he said:  “I can’t quite remember which member of the government it was who claimed to have abolished boom and bust. Well, we abolished boom,”

Flanders, indeed the BBC as a whole, has always swallowed the Balls approach without any attempt to challenge it in any meaningful way.  They were happy to take the easy option because it reflected their own beliefs.

Here Flanders, after years of cheerleading for Plan B, finally admitted that it was pretty much baloney…short term popularism that solved nothing except to make people feel good…for a short time…..she is saying pretty much what Mandelson has now said:

‘Why do we spend so little time talking about what really matters?….if you ask business leaders, or most economists, which government decisions taken over the next few years will have the biggest long-term impact on our economic future, I’m not sure that Plan A versus Plan B would even make it to the top three.

Far more important, to them, would be the kind of long-term strategic choices highlighted in the LSE’s report.’

Perhaps in light of what must be a heavyweight battering from Mandelson on Labour’s credibility the BBC must at least be making serious demands that Labour start putting some meat on the bones of their claimed policies…and ask how much they will cost…and where the money is going to come from…two questions Balls has evaded for nearly 3 years… and not only ask the question…but get an answer.

What the BBC are prepared to do is to rip into Coaliton policies…such as the Budget.  No stone is left unturned in their search for something bad to say about it and the economy….as the Mail notices:

‘In a masterclass of uncritical journalism, the BBC gleefully gave the shadow chancellor a platform yesterday to recite why Mr Osborne’s austerity programme was not working.’

Nick Robinson, who seems to have lost his detachment and independent mindset since joining the BBC, seems delighted to keep using the word ‘omni-shambles’ (0805) to describe anything to do with Coalition economic policies whilst detailing just how terrible the economy is….. ‘In  the big economic picture ‘shambles’ is a good description of it…the chancellor would be in despair…the overall economic picture is pretty gruesome.’

Absolutely no recognition of  where the blame lies for such a heavy burden of debt…context really is everything here.

Flanders tried her best but came up against a hard truth that she had to admit…Osborne’s Budget was ‘all about encouraging the private sector to expand’….or put another way…for business to grow. So Osborne has a policy for ‘growth’.  Flanders now admits it.  One to remember.

Flanders has long advocated building houses as a way of stimulating the economy ala 1930’s which holds some ‘useful lessons for today’:

‘The last time our economy suffered so badly was during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One of the things credited for turning around the1930s slump was a boom in house building. This hasn’t escaped the notice of some commentators including the BBC’s Stephanie Flanders.’….

and  ‘the BBC’s Stephanie Flanders recently highlighted how house building  is the very industry that could take us out of recession.’

However whilst she admitted that the 1930’s housing boom was funded by private money she thinks such a policy could work equally well funded by government borrowings…and apparently there were no down sides to this policy or none that she cared to mention.

Osborne in his Budget has put in place an enormous incentive for the housing market to get building.

People from the housing sector said that the measures would have ‘significant and profound effects’ no less on the housing market and provide a boost for the economy.

Osborne has done essentially what Flanders was urging…and with government money.

But is the BBC happy?

They went straight onto the attack…immediately questioning the basis of such a policy which might create another housing bubble which was what originally landed us in the crisis we are in now.

That’s all true enough and the potential is there…but the BBC didn’t qualify their previous comments about housing being the solution when they were saying building homes was the way to recover from the recession….and now they don’t highlight those supposed benefits that were previously ‘so obvious’.

Once again the BBC take the negative view of any policy even if it means performing a volte face and radically altering their position.

An embarrassment for Flanders is that Tony Livesey, standing in for Victoria Derbyshire, has done a far better job of reporting an economic story than she has ever done…and he is not a BBC ‘economics expert’.

Yesterday he presented a programme investigating ‘Reshoring’, the bringing back of jobs, services and manufacturing to the UK…up to 40% of British manufacturers are doing this.

Livesey made a refreshing change being rigorous, even handed and looking indepth at the subject giving us a wide ranging analysis without any preconceived dogmas or party political points to make.

Worth a listen if only to see that the BBC can give us interesting, informative and impartial programmes….it is possible……