This post has a look back to 2005 when Richard Curtis was given a platform by the BBC to campaign against ‘poverty’. It looks at the BBC’s response to questions about the impartiality of allowing Curtis to, as some might say, hijack the BBC and then it looks at whether the BBC has actually changed its ways or does it still take part in campaigns run by certain organisations?
Dvelopment Aid is political…..
Outrage as Britain’s foreign aid bill goes UP as other countries make cuts
Statistics from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development showed that aid handouts by the world’s 24 richest nations fell by four per cent last year to a total of £83billion as austerity-hit governments tightened expenditure.
At home the figures provoked renewed criticism of the Coalition’s £10billion annual aid budget, which is due to continue rising while most other Whitehall departments are forced to make savings.
The ‘ONE’ poverty campaign, founded by Bono, argues that governmental development assistance “plays a critical role in the fight against extreme poverty and disease”.
And it works relentlessly to influence government decisions and policy:
‘Our three million members around the world take action. They click petitions, make phone calls, write letters, attend rallies – to demand solutions from their governments. Your voice alone may struggle to be heard, but our voices together are hard to ignore.’
Development Aid is political on many levels….both international and domestic….those who campaign to alleviate poverty by ‘persuading‘ governments to alter their policies are engaged in that political debate….and the BBC has allowed itself to be used as a platform by these campaigns to further their political aims.
The ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign group had the passionate support of Richard Curtis, author of many television series and not a few campaigning films about poverty broadcast by the BBC….as well as creating a film entitled No Pressure which was released by the 10:10 campaign in Britain to promote climate change politics. The film depicted a series of scenes in which people – including school-children – were asked if they were going to participate in 10:10 campaign. Those who indicated they weren’t planning to do so were told “no pressure” and then blown up at the press of a red button.
‘Make Poverty History’ itself was controversial….Ofcom declared: ‘We have reached the unavoidable conclusion that Make Poverty History is a body whose objects are wholly or mainly political. Make Poverty History is therefore prohibited from advertising on television or radio.’
Wikipedia tells us that the various national Make Poverty History campaigns are part of the international Global Call to Action Against Poverty campaign and similar campaigns which exist in other countries under different names.
The campaign is generally a coalition of aid and development agencies which work together to raise awareness of global poverty and achieve policy change by the government.
The Make Poverty History campaign aims…….to increase awareness and pressure governments into taking actions towards relieving absolute poverty.
Make Poverty History set out to put pressure on politicians at the 31st G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland on July 6, 2005.…Bob Geldof’s Live8 was also involved in the same process:
Bob organised Live8 in 2005. ‘This series of ten concerts, with an estimated global audience of 3 billion, were timed to put pressure on G8 leaders, who went on to make many significant poverty alleviation pledges at the Gleneagles G8 summit. Today Bob works closely with ONE, lobbying leaders to keep these promises.’
The BBC of course broadcast Live8 but they also broadcast programmes by Richard Curtis written specifically to promote the agenda of ‘Make Poverty History’.
The campaign was given a high profile launch on British television on New Year’s Day 2005 in a special edition of The Vicar of Dibley, written by Richard Curtis, who pledged support for the campaign during 2005. The same issues were highlighted in Curtis’ television drama The Girl in the Café, in an episode broadcast on June 25 on the BBC One channel in the UK on the HBO channel in the U.S. and on ABC TV in Australia.
The BBC looked at issues of impartiality surrounding these programmes in its 2007 review ‘From Seesaw To Wagon Wheel’.
The Guardian reports that ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel concluded that the BBC should be wary of being hijacked by single-issue causes, after reviewing examples including with The Vicar of Dibley and the Make Poverty History campaign.
The report criticised the BBC for the amount of coverage it gave to the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005, which culminated with the Live 8 concerts and an Africa season of programmes.
Today’s report said that nowhere in the episode was it pointed out that the writer Richard Curtis was himself spearheading the Make Poverty History campaign.
“The implication was that the cause was universal and uncontroversial, whereas the Make Poverty History website made clear that it had contentious political goals,” the report added.
One unnamed BBC executive was quoted as saying that impartiality in the Africa season, also broadcast in 2005, was as “safe as a blood bank in the hands of Dracula”, the report added.’
Here are some of the BBC’s own thoughts on impartiality from Seesaw To Wagon Wheel:
Controller Editorial Policy at the time, Stephen Whittle, commented that this global music event [Live8] with a political message was a good example of ‘a contemporary challenge’ to impartiality. ‘
Impartiality is most obviously at risk in areas of sharp public controversy. But there is a less visible risk, demanding particular vigilance, when programmes purport to reflect a consensus for ‘the common good’, or become involved with campaigns.
When there seems to be consensus, impartiality may therefore seem redundant. Yet this is often where it is urgently needed – indeed, consensus can arguably pose a greater threat to impartiality than sharply-defined debate.
Programmes that are in league with campaigns have no place on the BBC, because of the inherent loss of full editorial control……‘it was not seen as appropriate for the BBC to be actively campaigning on a given subject, whether that be for a better NHS or for better school dinners, for example, but it was perfectly appropriate to supply facts or follow an individual on those campaigns’
Global, celebrity-driven mass entertainment in ‘a good cause’ is a bright new star in the political and broadcasting firmament, and the BBC is perhaps the organisation best equipped to be involved. Major issues of impartiality will always arise.
This comment is of especial interest as it accurately predicts the future…
Live8 was not a one-off. It was the future writ large. Next time it will be a spectacular about conservation, cruelty to children or climate change. The challenge for the BBC will be how to both be involved and maintain an appropriate distance.
Recognising the future is one thing, doing something about it another….has the BBC learnt its lesson after Live8, the Vicar of Dibley and The Girl In The Café?
It seems not: Curtis is back again with a new campaigning film, Mary and Martha:
Following his didactic 2005 film The Girl in the Cafe (set against the backdrop of a G8 summit and designed to tie in with the global Make Poverty History campaign), Curtis has now made a new movie, Mary and Martha, about the preventable disease malaria – and he’s pulled in an A-list cast to help (being shown on the BBC and US channel HBO).
“At first I just wanted to raise money,” he continues. “But I’m a great believer in protest and the difference it can make. I think it’s all our jobs to make our governments look at the bigger issues as well as the immediate ones.”
Here the ‘One’ organisation suggests what it hopes Curtis’s new film will achieve in mobilising the public to pressurise politicians:
‘Speaking purely with a critic’s cap, I might argue with our brilliant friend (Love Actually screenwriter and Make Poverty History/Live8/Comic Relief hero) Richard Curtis about making Hilary Swank’s Mary more audacious when she debuts as a citizen advocate at a US Senate committee meeting. Nonetheless, when Mary realizes that even suburban moms like her have the power to make an impact, it’s a moment to which every ONE member can relate. That scene made me realize that, although I may not be working directly on the ground in Africa, every phone call, in-district meeting or public event we participate in to further Millennium Development Goal really does add up!’
Here ‘One’ promotes a film by ‘Why Poverty’ which is also screened by the BBC as part of a huge world wide campaign…amongst many, many other Media organisations, the BBC also broadcasting debates on the merits of aid.
‘Why Poverty’ explains what its films are about, here, while the film’s director, Bo Lindquist, is well ‘on message’ and asks ‘Do you want to be part of something…what will you tell your children when they ask what you did to relieve poverty?…it’s an important question.’
He shares his own thoughts on what he thinks Bono and Geldof achieved and why he thinks doing nothing in the face of extreme poverty isn’t an option.
….So not neutral on that.
30 years fighting against poverty
Nov 24th, 2012 9:00 AM UTC
By Saira O’Mallie
I’m proud to work for ONE. In the few months I’ve been here, I’ve seen some amazing achievements and steps taken towards our goal of ending extreme poverty.
So I’ll be tuning in to Why Poverty? Give Us The Money, a behind-the-scenes look at 30 years of Bob Geldof and Bono’s campaign against poverty. Without them, I wouldn’t be at ONE. I can’t wait to hear how they made it happen.
If you watch, I’d love to know what you think and if it raises any questions for you. But really I hope it gives you some ammunition.
Why Poverty? Give Us The Money will be on BBC4 in the UK on Sunday 25 December at 9pm GMT/UTC. To find about broadcasts in other countries visit the Why Poverty? website.
You can also watch BBC World Service Why Poverty? debate on Saturday 24 November at 20:05 pm GMT/UTC. Find out more on the BBC website
It is clear from that that Development Aid is all about the politics and that the Media play an enormous part in the pressure applied to politicians….and that the BBC is going beyond explaining and reporting the issues and is actively participating…beyond the fund raising of Comic Relief and Red Nose Day.
Curtis’s film is designed to influence people and make them join the campaign in one way or another…it is not just an ‘interesting story’ to fill some time in the TV schedules…but is an interesting story which has a political agenda attached…and there is a big difference between the two….
…as the BBC itself does recognise:
Programmes that are in league with campaigns have no place on the BBC, because of the inherent loss of full editorial control……‘it was not seen as appropriate for the BBC to be actively campaigning on a given subject, whether that be for a better NHS or for better school dinners, for example, but it was perfectly appropriate to supply facts or follow an individual on those campaigns’
I well remember Geldof’s televised campaign to raise money for Ethipian terrorists. No doubt it was fear of money going astray again that prompted him to keep the tsunami proceeds. As for his and Bono’s tax fiddles, I expect they are just protesting at bankers’ bonuses, like Billy Bragg.
If true it is hardly the best evidence of BBC bias:
“…. the BBC has reported that substantial amounts of money – some of it raised by Band Aid – were siphoned away from relief efforts and went to fund guns for Ethiopian warlords during the Eighties.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259061/Sorry-Bob-Geldof-Band-Aid-millions-DID-pay-guns.html#ixzz2TqfVoqIZ
If you have evidence that Geldof kept the tsunami proceeds I suggest that you pass it to the appropriate authorities. If not, then it may be argued that your comment is libelous, and its presence on this blog could be somewhat damaging.
‘If not, then it may be argued that your comment is libelous, and its presence on this blog could be somewhat damaging.’
In the spirit of balance, without clear substantive support, you could be right in your first assertion.
I’d certainly like evidence before assigning any credibility.
On the second… damaging to whom?
Seems awfully like you are trying to get a poster’s (possibly unwise) claims to fit into the ‘reflects badly’ discrediting meme that is this month’s team mantra in forum close-down attempts.
As I recall, when inopportune comments were made on twitter, it was the originators who copped the flak, not the medium.
Is this different?
I just ask, because if so the spectre of false flag well-poisoning just loomed large.
“Seems awfully like you are trying to get a poster’s (possibly unwise) claims to fit into the ‘reflects badly’ discrediting meme that is this month’s team mantra in forum close-down attempts.”
Seems like you are trying to put words into my mouth.
‘Seems like you are trying to put words into my mouth.’
The very idea.
But there is a lot of that about…. let’s call it… ‘analysis’, shall we?
Saint Bob ” Give us the F**king money” Geldof.
You can’t beat that Irish lilting charm.
” Make poverty history.”
That’s utopian, that’s how you know they’re quite mad. Jesus said,” The poor will always be with us, but I will only be here for a short time.”
Classic mis-interpretation. It is widely agreed that Jesus was making reference to Deuteronomy 15:11 –
“For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’”
And how do you interpret that as meaning ending poverty, full stop, for all time?
I interpret it as meaning that as individuals we have a duty to help the needy and the poor in any way that we can. If as individuals we do nothing then you are correct, poverty will always be with us. For some this will be financial assistance and for others it may be in donating their time or a particular skill.
Ending poverty “full stop” is an aspiration of groups such as those making up “Make Poverty History”.
If individuals, organisations and governments do not work together then ending poverty for all time will not be achieved.
However, to argue that Jesus meant sod giving to the poor as they will always be with us, must surely be a gross mis-interpretation of a Christian text and Christian values.
Albaman, who said that Jesus meant don’t bother giving to the poor? David B was saying the same thing you just said about “Make Poverty History”.
My reading of David B’s post (in conjunction with the tone of his other comments on this topic) is that any giving is a waste of time.
Perhaps he will be along later to clarify his meaning.
In other words, you did what people criticize me for doing: reading something into a comment based on previous statements.
David, in principle I have no disagreement with what you say.
However, I think that we all require to look at any comment in the context it is made. We all have different values and beliefs about many different things. To judge someone solely on their comments on one particular subject area can lead to suspect conclusions that a subsequent comment on a different subject may contradict. That is why I find this constant “left v. right” business so farcical. As individuals our beliefs and values are complex and to categorise them in such simple “political”, or as some here have suggested national or employment terms is erroneous.
Just so long as we’re all held to the same standard on these things.
In this case, I didn’t read into his comment what you did, so asked. I do sometimes take previous statements into consideration when assessing something a Beeboid has said, but hopefully I keep it within the realms of the same issue. I’ve been taken to task for it on several occasions.
Given the BBC is now moving to versions of fact gathering based on anything bar actual facts, the move to reading tones is not unsurprising.
‘Perhaps he will be along later to clarify his meaning.’
If not, you for sure can drag this one out a lot more, and not a ‘what has this to do with BBC Bias?’ plea in sight.
It is of course possible he may not come along or clarify anything as he doesn’t need to.
Pragmatism is not always trumped by faux sanctimony.
David P asked a question of me and I replied. Were you including yourself when you commented on those who “keep filling every thread”?
No.
DavidP seems to have an inherent belief in the goodness of all… well, most, and a missionary zeal to engage and covert.
I know a attrition-merchant lost cause when I see one. Sure I am playing the distraction game on your terms by not resisting each daft question, but it can amuse. But you got me on the filling threads thing, if missing the irony that it’s mostly asking you to support an assertion.
And, funnily enough, DavidP often tells me to not feed such things.
Oddly, when I post an original on BBC inaccuracy or lack of objectivity, you seldom are anywhere to be seen. Why is that?
As we’re on questions, anything yet on BBC Editors also engaging mod reply privileges that you were convinced were solely designed to vex you?
Or changes to text that were, in fact, more accurately fisks?
Since you brought me into it, would you mind letting Albaman respond to me before continuing this?
It’s like dealing with the Borg.
They take a hit, one shudders to a halt, the rest adapt and then appear from another corridor.
Already a bunch of points/questions on accusations made have been shrugged off as the answers don’t appear to suit.
And it simply doesn’t matter as long as they keep filling every thread.
Good luck getting anything sensible in reply over simply more space invasion.
To paraphrase:
Please do not challenge or debate with those posting here as that is not the point of the blog. Please leave us all to agree with each other and mutually like and back slap each other.
Is ‘paraphrase’ from you like ‘analyse’ from a BBC Editor, words in mouth-wise?
At least it wasn’t another blind alley question.
Anyhoo, kids’ dinner beckons so I fear I’ll have to quit trying to keep you here and away from other actual BBC-related topics.
I’m sure you’ll keep others entertained.
Congrats on moron of the week, Ian. You beat off some stiff competition but you made it “I well remember Geldof’s televised campaign to raise money for Ethipian terrorists.” Such utter ignorance. Beyond parody. Take a bow.
I didn’t realise Broadmoor had computers, tell me, did Jimmy Savile ever pay you a visit ?
Encore encore. You have me on the ropes… You are far too witty for me. I want my mommy.
Unbelievable.
You’re welcome.
Wanker. That’s what you get for calling people “morons”. I suppose you fell for his lies that the money didn’t go to terrorists. Read a bit of history. Try a search engine. Become educated.
Africa is not poor, it’s corrupt. Under British rule, Rhodesia was self sufficient in food, not only that, they exported food to the rest of Africa, now look at it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270654/Zimbabwe-finance-minister-admits-Weve-got-138-34-bank.html
White Liberals want Africa to be more African and there in lies the problem. Expect South Africa to go the same way as Zimbabwe.
http://www.southafricaproject.info
Sorry Mr Brims you just missed the cut for the weekly award but no matter. I take it that you know that Africa is a continent? Lots of big countries and stuff? Many bigger than England?
Lots of people are without water and rely on the elements to grow what little they have. People die in huge numbers every year because of this, corrupt regimes and whether or not we help is entirely moral. I will take a slice from my loaf for anyone who needs it.
Sleep well in your ivory towers
Boston -“What goes around comes around was your finest hour by the way.
Wilful ignorance is unforgivable.
”Lots of people are without water and rely on the elements to grow what little they have. ”
Cue the violins, my heart bleeds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_Ugocot_E
Africa has been a basketcase for, I don’t know, twenty or thirty thousand years, give or a take a year.
Meanwhile the late Emperor Bokassa , Mobutu, Mugabe, Zuma have stashed Billions in their Swiss bank accounts, but then, that’s the African way.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7803421.stm
Good to see you liking your own posts at least. Your big heart extends to that much. If only I was half the man you were, David.
For the time being I must go on caring about my fellow man. Nice dodge on Boston too. No comment? Account hacked, right?
”For the time being I must go on caring about my fellow man. ”
Your mock outrage, fake humility and phony virtuousness is very theatrical and melodramatic, camp even.
Most amusing.
…..Tumbleweed…..
Africa has been adopted by the liberal left, and consequently by their mouthpiece the BBC , as one of their pet causes , just as Palestine has been , and they make endless demands that the rest of us should follow their lead. If they are so keen on these worthy causes let them give all their money to it, no one will stop them, but just leave the rest of us alone.
I will take a slice from my loaf for anyone who needs it.…
800 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, average family size six children. You can’t feed them all, saintly one. Their lives are for their own determination. Every do-gooder merely puts off the day they sort out their own lives for themselves.
You can’t argue with a narcissist like ACM. Nothing can stand in the way of true love, his own face in the mirror. A good person
ACM: you forgot the global warming rhetoric – you know, social justice and all that, where the West gives so-called ‘poor’ countries squillions as compensation for our evil ways with CO2.
But do you ever see an end to this patronising charitable giving that seems to be having no effect whatsoever, in fact the reverse? Will the day ever arrive when corrupt, psychopathic dictators are not slaughtering their own people and watching them die of starvation whilst they gorge themselves on their countries’ wealth? Or perhaps the Chinese Way is the right way? Whichever, not looking good so far, is it?
P.S. Are you Nicked Emus in disguise?
“Lots of people are without water and rely on the elements to grow what little they have. People die in huge numbers every year because of this”
Then reconcile this for me from that lofty vantage point
http://www.visualizing.org/visualizations/population-growth-africa-1950-2100
Don’t confuse the poor boy with facts, his LLDD (Lefty Logic Deficit Disorder) won’t cope.
Oh I like this diagnosis!
Was it a recent one in DSM5…i`ll write it in a few of them once the shrinks have left the room?
I now reckon I`m worth a blue badge in the school car park now…and can all my Guardian-reading chums claim for LLDD too?
“London’s £36bn benefits bill is bigger than the UK’s whole defence budget”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londons-36bn-benefits-bill-is-bigger-than-the-uks-whole-defence-budget-8623674.html
Well, yes, but then the benefit money is probably being sent to more countries than even our Defence forces are.
Isn’t Mr Cameron’s policy that we should be sending even more money abroad? I wonder if any of it will brush off against any Etonians or EU ‘advisers’?
And don’t we actually have to borrow that money?
Are the BBC covering this any better than Eric-the-sandwich-board-man?
Good point, Theo when you think about it – we are borrowing money to give to ‘poorer’ countries, because we can somehow afford the debt but they can’t. Why don’t we leave it all to China – they can exploit Africa’s resources whilst giving back to the continent in infrastructure etc (now where have I seen that model before…..)
Wait… liberals are trying to press gang everyone into their touchy-feely crusade against malaria?
Really?
Isn’t that kind of like Ian Huntley coming out against child abuse? We already have a way to dramatically reduce deaths from malaria. We know from experience that deaths were far lower when DDT was in common use, but a dying liberal chick wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Monsanto (aka Silent Spring) and liberals decided that chemical bogeymen stories about dying birdies were far worse than the actual deaths of Africans.
Millions of people died senseless deaths as a result of hysterical rubbish – that really would make a compelling drama but the radical rebels at the BBC are too busy pushing Disneyfied liberalism.
Yes, we have a solution to the problem already. It’s the same solution we were using before. But we can’t use it because it doen’t fit the narrative / mindset / re-written history / latest lefty trend (delete as appropriate).
Responsibilty for the deaths of millions of people rests on their heads. How the hell do they sleep at night?