The revelation that the Gay Girl in Damascus is actually a stubbly bloke in Edinburgh has sent shockwaves through the media.
That serious journalists fell for MacMaster’s fiction speaks to a profound crisis of objectivity in the modern media, and a preference for simplistic moralism over the tough task of reporting.
The trend for transforming other people’s struggles into self-serving morality plays has led to an alarmingly casual attitude towards the distinction between truth and lies.
Self serving morality plays. Sums up the BBC’s journalism in one snappy little phrase….for instance events in Boston are being used by the BBC to ‘educate and inform’ us about the real Islam and the Muslim community and to suppress any criticism of the Islamic ideology.
Mark Mardell has played his part in this type of journalism but seems upset when called out on it.
Here I have to assume Mark Mardell has wrongly named a post on this blog as meriting this description:
What a disgusting website ! Talk about lies and bias!
I guess when the BBC wrote this it should have included its North American Editor and itself in the firing line:
‘The trouble is, though, the British newspaper journalist has no history of taking criticism well… or working out what it is that needs to be done to turn a dysfunctional, distrusted press into something that performs a useful public purpose.’
I can only think Mardell’s lazy and careless journalism is emblematic of the BBC’s recent activity.
No explanation from Mardell as to where the lies and bias are in the post…or on the site for that matter.
Typical of the BBC these days when it relies more on views, opinions and comment than on facts….a BBC famously one of the most reliant on ‘Churnalism’…the use of verbatim Press Releases to pad out its own efforts…despite having as Mark Thompson said more journalists than any organisation outside of China.
We all remember Paxman telling us all about it in 2007:
“In this press of events there often isn’t time to get out and find things out: you rely upon second-hand information-quotes from powerful vested interests, assessments from organisations which do the work we don’t have time for, even, god help us, press releases from public relations agencies. The consequence is that what follows isn’t analysis. It’s simply comment, because analysis takes time, and comment is free.”
Nick Davies in the Guardian tells us that :
Our media have become mass producers of distortion
An industry whose task should be to filter out falsehood has become a conduit for propaganda and second hand news
Although he only targeted the newspaper industry Davies could just have easily included the rest of the Media…including the BBC.
The BBC’s Kevin Marsh (Editor of Today when it made false claims about the 45 minute claims in the Iraq War Dossier…so should know about journalistic ethics!) in his new role at the BBC College of Journalism jumps on the band wagon showing no awareness of the BBC’s own abysmal record……
But here Marsh gets to the heart of the matter, the very essence of why the BBC so often gets it wrong…though of course he isn’t talking about his precious BBC…..
‘Trust resides in the journalist’s motivation in selecting the facts he/she does and in the realisation of that motivation.’
Every time you see a BBC report or article it is apparent that you also need to ask ‘What is the journalist’s motive for framing the report in this way?’ Is it anti-austerity, pro-immigration, pro-Europe or pro-Islam? etc.
You can no longer trust the BBC’s journalism, you can no longer believe that it comes to you impartial and unadulterated by the BBC’s own views and political prejudices.
But you may say ‘So what, the BBC is biased…how does that effect my life or other’s?’
Mark Mardell might want to ask himself if he thinks this is disgusting……
How many Jews are attacked around the world because of anti-Semitism stoked and inflamed by the BBC’s reporting of Israel which demonises every Israeli action and turns Palestinians into eternal and harmless victims?
How many elderly died during the extended cold spell because they had to turn their heating off due to its cost…a cost driven up by government green policies not just reported on favourably by the BBC but actively campaigned for?
How many people have been killed, raped, attacked, robbed or otherwise become victims of crime perpetrated by criminals who entered this country on the coat tails of the Labour Party open border immigration policy….once again supported by the BBC?
How many more patients will die in hospitals as the BBC supports the NHS unions in their battle to prevent reforms?
How many British soldiers and civilians died or were subject to attack because the BBC gave tacit support to extremist Muslims who propagated the isdea that they were merely bombing and killing because of ‘Western’ foreign policy and thereby encouraged radicalisation, especially by its angry attacks on the Iraq War?
Once you start thinking about it the BBC has been at the centre of many major political decisions in this country and has ‘aided and abetted’ in the deaths and disadvantaging of many people in this country and abroad as a result of those policies and decisions.
I don’t know what Mardell means by ‘disgusting’, but I know what I mean….it’s an organisation that puts itself and its own politics ahead of the interests of the people of this country, an organisation that has let its immense power and influence go to its head and is now politically, journalistically corrupt, functioning more as an arm of a ‘shadow’ state that has much of the real power in this land….subverting the elected government and ensuring the Left’s placemen in NGOs and in committees and foundations, that formulate and guide policy, get the right support and publicity…..Margaret Hodge may be a perfect example of someone who gets evermore supportive backing from the BBC.
As Janet Daley points out the BBC appointed itself the ‘official opposition’ in the 1980’s and seems to be carryng on in that stance ever since.
‘The BBC strategy of the 1980s when many of its spokesmen privately argued that since there was no opposition party worthy of the name – Labour having collapsed into internal division and Militant-inspired madness – the proper function of the media was to provide constant resistance to Thatcherism.’
In the 1970’s the Miners smashed and removed governments and intended to do so to Mrs Thatcher’s. She drew a line in the sand and crushed the wreckers.
If it can be done to the overpowerful unions it can be done to the BBC by someone who has the nerve and will to do it.
I have been thinking ( yes it happens sometimes) , the BBC is not left because it wants to be, its left because it reflects the state (its a mouthpiece for its masters) , i class current tory/lab/lib/ukip etc all to the left of me ( political) , they say power corrupts right, imagine having the a massive broadcaster at your command.
Why else did the Jimmy Savile crimes stay hidden for so long? ( plus NHS where he committed crimes) .
And now there a push for state regulation of newspapers/blogs etc.
Its not left v right anymore, its PPL V State now
Really sorry for ramble.
I don’t agree with you. The BBC attacks anything right of centre and supports anything left of centre. It would never support the state if we had a strong right of centre government. In fact it would oppose them tooth and nail.
This is quite understandable when you consider where their income comes from. They are all in favour of more and more public spending hoping of course that some of the loot comes their way. Efficiency, value for money, affordability etc are not a considerations to them, just spend more money on public services and employ more people in the public sector to deliver them. So of course they sing the same tune as the Labour Party on all economic and welfare issues and support issue such as mass immigration which the Labour Party thought was going to win it votes. The senior people at the BBC shuttle between well paid public sector jobs or are even employed by the Labour Party when not at the BBC. They have no conception of how the economy actually works and most of them have never been exposed to real work in the private sector where efficiency etc really do mean a job or no job. They have been pampered by the state all their lives.
The Labour party will usually support the BBC and ensure that it gets regular increases in the License Fee and of course the BBC reciprocates that support . A cosy, mutually supportive relationship. The only time that the two have fallen out was when Blair launched his Iraq war which many of the liberal left opposed so the BBC was torn but eventually sided with the mass of the liberal left and attacked Blair but not the Labour party as a whole. It attacked Blair because they felt that on this issue he was too far to the right, not because he was left of centre !
I don’t agree with you. The BBC attacks anything right of centre and supports anything left of centre. It would never support the state if we had a strong right of centre government. In fact it would oppose them tooth and nail.
This is quite understandable when you consider where their income comes from. They are all in favour of more and more public spending hoping of course that some of the loot comes their way. Efficiency, value for money, affordability etc are not a considerations to them, just spend more money on public services and employ more people in the public sector to deliver them. So of course they sing the same tune as the Labour Party on all economic and welfare issues and support issue such as mass immigration which the Labour Party thought was going to win it votes. The senior people at the BBC shuttle between well paid public sector jobs or are even employed by the Labour Party when not at the BBC. They have no conception of how the economy actually works and most of them have never been exposed to real work in the private sector where efficiency etc really do mean a job or no job. They have been pampered by the state all their lives.
The Labour party will usually support the BBC and ensure that it gets regular increases in the License Fee and of course the BBC reciprocates that support . A cosy, mutually supportive relationship. The only time that the two have fallen out was when Blair launched his Iraq war which many of the liberal left opposed so the BBC was torn but eventually sided with the mass of the liberal left and attacked Blair but not the Labour party as a whole. It attacked Blair because they felt that on this issue he was too far to the right, not because he was left of centre !
Therefore it follows that a state funded broadcaster is very unlikely to be truly impartial. In fact the whole concept is fatally flawed and, as the BBC so comprehensively demonstrates, just not a viable proposition in a true democracy.
The BBC’s leftward swing since the 80s is a reaction to Thatcherism, which still threatens to bring down the corporate state, forcing parasites to seek more honest employment.
This fear of the common people breaking free from their exploitative betters explains the BBC’s support of the EU too.
Church propaganda was used to keep the peasants in their place once, but now we have guiltmongering TV attacks on whites, blokes and supporters of the grocer’s daughter – who didn’t keep to her station in life. “Burn the witch!” they cry.
The “new priests” might preach that the meek (who they tithe heavily) will inherit the Earth, but they come from the same privileged backgrounds as their feudal predecessors.
But the BBC were roundly attacked during the Thatcher years as being far left. The rot had set in well before then, at one point the DG changed to schedules at the behest of Harold Wilson on election day .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8589797.stm
But in 1971 Wilson was enraged by a BBC he saw as biased to the Tory right, and the BBC actually tricked the Labour party in a program which poked fun at them in 1971 after they lost the election:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/bbcandgov/yesterdays_men.shtml
But following that Wilson & Labour threated to ‘declare war on the BBC’ and constantly harangued the DG over its perceived bias:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/bbcandgov/yesterdays_men.shtml
This is when the rot set in and successive Conservative leaders have utterly failed to tackle the bias in the BBC even given the model that Harold Wilson gave them. The problem has been that most of them needed a broom handle placed up their back because they had no spine of their own.
I mean there was a leftward swing during the 80s, not “since the 80s”, as I typed above – although I think it started going that way during the 1975 EEC referendum campaign.
Robin Aitken seems to think that to
‘Self serving morality plays.’
It is noticable how often a BBC promoted welfare/poverty sobstory turns out to be flawed.
The BBC operates a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy when it comes to substantiating the details of these sob stories.
This is because the BBC starts with their agenda, looks for the narratives that fit and then pushes out the agit prop.
“Comment is free.” – Paxman. Now where on earth have I seen that phrase before in print?
How many children have suffered by the BBC’s promotion of Wakefield’s rejection of the MMR jab?
Recently the BBC has been in whitewash mode, blaming ‘the media’ but not itself, yet it played the game of Josephine Public or Soapina Bimbo versus unknown career epidemiologist when it suited .
Even now we are being given vox populi “three jabs overwhelms the poor children’s little immune system” or Radio 4’s ‘Feedback’ giving space to objectors campaigning about the BBC supposed backtracking on the usual ‘organic’, low-carbon anti–capital message that only those on £250k salaries can afford.
The questions to ask are:
1. Who makes the MMR vaccine?
2. What connection does that company or its officers have with the BBC or the Labour party?
That would be illuminating.
1) In the UK it is GSK
2) It is a huge company with millions of shareholders. Some will be BBC and labour and no doubt pension funds have GSK in their portfolio, apart from that you can search the net for info about the board of directors etc if you are curious enough.
I am concerned that the MMR conspiracy theories still swirl around. So what if people make a profit from it and it is cheaper and easier to administer. If there is any additional risk – which I doubt – this is acceptable. I want a cheaper health system and profitable companies. Also there is still a lot of literal hysteria from people who do not understand proportional risk – risk of death and or brain damage from measles is a damned sight higher than any putative (and unestablished) risk of MMR. These are the same people terrified of flying because of ‘the risk’ but willing to get in a MoT less uninsured minicab driven by someone without a license.
Vaccination and clean water supplies are the greatest contributors to public health – just look what happens when it is ignored, and interestingly who ignores it. (Wiki on Polio)
“In Northern Nigeria—a country which at that time was considered provisionally polio free—an Islamic Fatwah was issued declaring that the polio vaccine was a conspiracy by the United States and the United Nations against the Muslim faith, saying that the drops were designed to sterilize the true believers. Subsequently, polio reappeared in Nigeria and spread from there to several other countries. Health workers administering polio vaccine have been targeted and killed by gunmen on motorcycles in Kano.”
There are few news stories that I don’t have a direct connection to that would make me cry. Exposing children to disease that is preventable by Vaccination is one.
In an age where a small fortune is spent on ‘child protection’ services by local authorities, primary schools are secured better than nuclear research facilities and no stranger is permitted within a hundred yards of a child, it is appalling that real child protection by Vaccination is dissuaded. It is even more appalling when this is the result of the BBC enthusiastically airing the views of air-headed bimbos who are given a platform simply because they appeared in Slag City or some other tacky soap and they have ‘written’ a book that they want to sell.
The press can be as biased and opinionated as it likes and if people don’t like what a particular newspaper or magazine prints they don’t buy it.
The BBC on the other hand is state funded and therefore must be impartial, objective and truthful, if it is to deserve to continue to reap the benefits of its poll tax on the whole population.
The BBC’s unusual funding arrangements place special duties on it which other media in the private sector don’t have. The BBC should be made to discharge those duties or be closed down. As has been said many times there is very little chance that the BBC can be reformed and so it should be privatised as soon as possible.
Sorry. Have just realised that you have said more or less what I said only three hours earlier and much more succinctly!
Needless to say, I agree with you 100%.
Added to that is the fact that the Press, and certain News Channels across the Pond, make no secret about when they are taking a particular political stance, unlike the BBC which constantly lies, lies and lies again by claiming it is “impartial” and does not have an agenda when it comes to having a particular political objective.
Ironic that Margaret Hodge was mentioned in the last main paragraph of what Alan wrote. On “Woman’s Hour” this morning (Radio 4 10:00 >) the first item was a typical “soft ball” interview by Jenni Murray with Hodge. No awkward questions, no interruption, and Hodge was allowed to get in an anti-coalition dig about their not having a clear legislative programme because of constant internal discussion (well, Margaret, the clue is in the word ‘coalition’). Free publicity from the BBC, at our expense.
Whilst your examples of why the BBC are disgusting are far stronger, my own disgust comes at the blatant abuse of a privileged position (shock horror, somebody abuses privileged position).
We all like to believe that we have freedom of speech and, to a large extent, we do.
However, freedom of speech does not give you the right to a platform from which to launch that speech.
With the BBC, we have a body that is funded, more or less, by force which then uses that money to further its own agenda – regardless of the views held by the people who have had to contribute towards it.
It is like inviting [insert your most hated figure’s name here] around to your house so that they can ramble on and on incessantly about views which disgust you and then you being charged for the privilege.
In this day and age, there really is no place for a government sponsored media outlet.
We have hundreds of channels on the TV, thousands of websites from which to glean our news and we can listen to radio stations from all around the world.
The BBC now has to either go or become self-funding (which, I suspect, will amount to the same thing).
That might be the most important point of all when it comes to demonstrating to the politicians and the public that the BBC needs reform and reining in. Besides whatever cultural or socio-political agenda we may perceive or they may actually have, the BBC has grown enormously and now behaves in a manner far beyond its public service remit. The “bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK” bit of the Charter has been used as an excuse to expand around the globe, even to the point of creating a commercial channel, a unique daily news broadcasts targeted specifically at one audience in one country, and an ad-driven website with the goal of attracting eyeballs and revenue.
Regardless of the wonderful documentaries and dramas and the Proms and all the rest of the usual things people point to when defending the BBC, what does their global expansion as essentially a commercial enterprise outside of Britain have to do with the reason for its existence, and the reason for the license fee? The BBC is so far gone beyond its remit, it’s no wonder the place is a soul-crushing, biased mess.
Another little gem this morning on “The Today Programme”. It was the sort of quick, casual bias that is so easy to miss, if you’re shaving or making a cup of tea.
An obviously ‘excited’ (I won’t go any further) Sarah M was interviewing Robert Redford, who at one point bemoaned the low standards in the media; she quickly interjected to the effect that this could not include the BBC, to which he simply said that he didn’t know about the BBC (a good answer). A biased pro-BBC reflex for all to see.
Andrew, I was also disconcerted by the Robert Redford interview. It seems that the interviewer was star struck.
What was missing was an opportunity to quiz Redford on the film he is promoting. Admittedly she allowed Redford to talk about how the journalist in the film “reassess his position” but without offering any context, which might have alerted listeners to the nature of his film, in which Redford bashes the profession of journalism, but can’t quite do the same for violent leftists.
Christian Toto at ‘Big Hollywood’ offered a review of “The Company You Keep”. He says “the screenplay is terrified of taking a stand. We hear tired, Flower-Power era arguments, speeches that sound hopelessly dated and naive, as if 30-odd years hadn’t allowed their adherents to refine their belief system. Yet the main story is crafted in such a way as to dodge tough questions, the kind a bracing thriller would have confronted head on…”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/04/18/company-you-keep-review
Remember the real “unrepentant terrorists” (and we all know who those are in real life) were members of the Weather Underground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
If Today producers had been willing to probe Redford instead of praising him they may have obtained some insight about a real life parallel between the new film and history.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/brinks-murder-accomplice-teaching-at-columbia/could well have
It seems this rich subject matter and Redford’s approach to his film would have been an interview worthy of The Today Programme. Instead of which we got a free plug for Sundance London.
Redford speaks: a ‘defence’ of the Weather Underground.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22289404
From 3′ 55″
lets face it,mark mardell and his left wing chums in the media were praying upon prayer that the boston bombers were some good old bucked teeth southern white boys from some imaginary right wing miltilia,in fact, they was so sure that was the case, the bbc had all kind of documentarys lined up to expose these nasty old white far right groups.something happened at the bbc with mark maredll and co when the real bombers were found out to be muslim and islamic,the something that happened was this= silence.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4902479/ex-bbc-muslim-convert-jailed-for-11-years-for-terror-plot.html….hello mark mardell
As soon as it was mentioned that Robert Redford would be on to talk about (what else) Watergate etc, I knew it was time to go to Heart…or indeed anything NOT under BBC gauleitership.
The beauty of the BBC is that you can join their dots at all stages nowadays. Not a reflex out of kilter with Holland Park Montessori group or Guardian website celebrations.
Utter pish!
Did note though something on the radio last night about a Leaders Conference…how F.T/Sun etc would set their news headlines for today.
Utter crap, as anything involving Kevin Maguire would have to be…the FT woman was an economic illiterate, which ought to frighten us all.
Wonder if the BBC would look in their own “leaders suites and pods” to tell us how come Andrew Wakefield is being vilified again, but Chechen bombers, Sweeney and North Korea-as well as the Scottish effort to cling in on the pound, whilst wanting to be in the Euro one day…well, they don`t seem to have been critiqued ad nauseum as Swansea has been.
Why so BBC?…not the usual liberal reflex crap yet again is it? But of course…what else does the BBC slop out 24/7 any more these days?
Refried hash brownies anybody?…until you choke if necessary.