Last week Channel 4 had a ‘big scoop’…Murdoch on tape saying the police investigation into phone hacking was a crock and he would support any journalist who was convicted.
A stunning piece of journalism making astounding revelations.
The BBC must have thought so because this story was one of the headlines on all its news bulletins that day…..tone of voice was all as they relayed to us that Murdoch would support his journalists even if jailed… they managed to convey that this was somehow a reprehensible way of acting by Murdoch.
Justin Webb though rather let the cat out of the bag, (08:43) and revealed more than he intended when talking to Steve Hewlett from R4’s Media Show about this. (Not a sympathetic analysis by Hewlett…but he is BBC/Guardian….so perhaps not the most impartial person to be interviewed on this subject really…especially by another BBCer)
Murdoch said that this was the biggest inquiry ever into next to nothing…..
This is from Spiked magazine ‘This is the criminalisation of journalism’:
The police operation against tabloid journalists now exploded into the biggest in criminal history. Last year, deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, who was then running the three investigations, told a committee of MPs that the operations were likely to last three more years, involving almost 200 officers at an estimated cost of £40million.
Webb suggests that:
‘There’ll be people outside The Sun who think that Murdoch’s got a point….he said at one stage that people have been paying the police for information for donkey’s years and we didn’t invent it, and actually he’s right isn’t he?’
What does that reveal? That the BBC, of course, knew all along that this was an anti-Murdoch purge and had nothing to do with ‘media standards’ or the police…..or indeed ‘phone hacking’ as a technique per se…as used by various other organisations such as companies and law firms.
This was political and the BBC was part of the attack.
Neil Wallis, ex Murdoch man, says:
‘This will have vast repercussions for journalism’, says Wallis. ‘The oppressive left wants to crush journalism that it doesn’t approve of. It will stultify and terrify a lot of journalism. Whether they like it or not, the tabloid press does an important job informing and entertaining millions of people. The Guardian and the Independent are not going to do that. The BBC is certainly not going to do it. And that’s bad for democracy.’
Other than this piece by Webb I haven’t heard anything on the BBC that takes a look at the phone hacking affair from such an angle…that Murdoch is the victim of a Left wing pogrom, and hung out to dry by those who used to stand side by side with him.
Bad for democracy?
The politicians have made a pact with the ‘devil’….they think they neutered Murdoch and have the BBC on their side….but the result is that the Press has been enraged and as you may have noticed the politicians have been under constant attack from papers that previously they counted on as ‘onside’…..and all they have to defend them now is the BBC and the Guardian…..good luck with that Mr Cameron.
What a bizarre, confused post. So Hewlett’s a hero when he makes a broadly sympathetic documentary about Murdoch (check your own archives) but a Guardianista when it suits you? And Webb is a shill until he makes an inconveniently pro-Murdoch comment, at which point he is revealing some dastardly BBC plot? Has it occurred to you that they might be two journalists who – unlike you – aren’t ideologues and can see the world other than in black and white?
And a simple factual point – it wasn’t Channel 4’s scoop. Private Eye printed it weeks ago.
I don’t just accept what the BBC spoon feeds me…unlike you it would seem…when you actually listen to what they say, which you haven’t done in this case, you would understand what is being said.
He does not want to understand. As with most ‘left wingers’ his judgement is clouded by his adherence to the dogma of the left.
Leveson was all about Murdoc switching allegiance to the Conservatives and NOT a proper inquiry into the malpractices of the Press and Media as a whole.
Lawyer, even a broken clock is correct twice in a day
I am, of course, referring to both Webb and Hewlett.
The Guardian gets away with bribing coppers for information –
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/news-of-world-investigation-guardian.html
Deafening silence from the BBC….
“That the BBC, of course, knew all along that this was an anti-Murdoch purge and had nothing to do with ‘media standards’ or the police”
The BBC lead the charge not so much against Murdoch but what they view as the right wing press. They were clearly disappointed when they couldn’t make the hated Daily Mirror centre of the story, hard as they tried .But down played any thing that implicated the Guardian or the Daily Mirror
Its was always about silencing dissent from their constructed bourgeois liberal consensus That’s why every kind of faux leftist fell over themselves to get behind leveson. From common purpose to labour luvvies they couldn’t wait to silence free speech.
You see it from them on here daily
In the second para’ of your three, I think you mean “… the hated Daily Mail centre of the story, …” I’m not trying to be clever or disruptive, I thought I’d just point this out. I think you really did mean “Daily Mirror” the second time at the end of the second para’.
No your right ,thank you for your proofreading service
I got the feeling they were really after The Sun, and still are for that matter, more than The Mail due to the “working class” background of most Sun readers…if they could have closed that one down, where else would those readers go?
The Star is more of a comic, The Mail is considered a little too “Up-market” (plus, there are no tits in it) and I think The Sport has gone…The Sun, although more a light hearted sort of paper, does at times, produce some decent stories…ones, that the filth at the Beeb do NOT approve of.
the worst thing about this story is the nasty odiuos far left labour mp tom watson the unite union fixer who had to resign last week is calling for rupert murdoch to be arrested and put on trial over the comments he made,huh.
Perhaps the BBC/Guardian and the fascist left are looking at the the record with envy of Turkey and its Mien Fuhrer/Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. There 47 journalists have been imprisoned for their work by Erdoğan. Turkey is the world’s leading jailer of journalists — ahead of Iran and China. Now why doesn’t the BBC report this?….Oh, and isn’t Turkey being considered for membership of the EU?
Yes it is, and dont ever forget Dopey David Cameron fully supports their application.
He actually thinks it will be wonderful to have 80 million turks roaming across a borderless EU.
“Turkey is the world’s leading jailer of journalists — ahead of Iran and China. Now why doesn’t the BBC report this?”
31 October 2012 : Viewpoint: What now for Turkey’s ruling party?
“The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists recently awarded Turkey the dubious title as the country with the most journalists in jail.”
29 October 2012 : Turkey’s press continues to feel pressure from the state
“Turkey has put more journalists in jail than any other country, thanks to strict laws which punish dissent against the state.”
22 October 2012 : Turkey ‘cracking down’ on press freedom
“The Committee to Protect Journalists says it has identified 61 journalists imprisoned because of their work – more than in any other country in the world.”
21 November 2011 : Turks sense dawn of new era of power and confidence
“According to the International Press Institute, Turkey has more journalists in prison than either China or Iran. Many have not been charged.”
… at this point I stopped looking
Stopped looking or couldn’t find anything newer?
Once again one of our resident D.O.I.s delves into the BBC’s online news archives in an attempt to discredit one of our posters. James Stables (how long will you be using that name,one wonders?) can you provide links to TELEVISED or broadcast news items relating this? How many people actually bother reading BBC online news items?
Can you explain why BBC web content can be used as evidence of bias by bBBC commentators but when used to counter arguments of bias it suddenly becomes “an attempt to discredit one of our posters”?
Links please…I’m sure James Stables can manage that.
“How many people actually bother reading BBC online news items?”
22 million people a week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/services/online/service_reviews/online_redbutton.html
As opposed to 24.5 million people who watch BBC TV
http://uk.ask.com/question/how-many-people-watch-the-bbc
Are you trying to argue that it doesn’t count because it’s online?
” providing public service content to 22 million people each week.”
They don’t even say 22 million hits a week just that it is available
Same with the 24 million watching
real time audience figures show that most people are watching something else most of the time
you really shouldn’t suck down every thing the BBC give you ,they are seriously abusing your love for them
Scott’s post was deleted, even though it was completely relevant to this exchange. Alan, how can you defend that?
I’ll say it for him:
Read the link – it makes it perfectly clear that BBC online content is actually reaching 22 million people a week.
The point is, you can’t hide behind the ‘it’s only online, so most people didn’t see it’ meme. Because it’s not true.
Apologies, only the word ‘reaching’ should be in italics.
Chris
Someone who continually posts highly offensive comments about other posters on this site is not welcome here whether or not he occasionally manages to curb his bile. He has been banned by David Vance but slips through on a proxy server…so be aware if you reply to anything that gets through your comment may well be orphaned.
His last comment was perfectly civil, and completely on topic. Why delete that one?
Reaching isn’t the same as reading how many of those are they reaching via BT yahoo I wonder
Its spin to justify the cost
Do you deny that millions of people access BBC content online?
As Albaman pointed out above, this site uses online articles all the time as evidence of BBC bias. Surely therefore they are equally valid when disproving the accusation originally made by Jack de, as in this case.
Do I deny
are you suggesting that 22 million people read every story on their web site down to those hidden under any other parish news
I’m am clearly saying the figure of 22million even reading the headlines is creative accounting at best
And no like the vast majority of people in this country I don’t read their web news even when delivered unasked for – so it doesn’t count in my book
of to bed now early shift in morning you can work on that Perry Mason act while I’m gone
Of course it’s not the case that all 22 million people read every article. But plenty will have read the article James showed above.
‘So it doesn’t count in my book’
Therefore, by your logic, all the online articles used as evidence of BBC bias on this site don’t count either.
Careful Chris or you will get banned like Scott and myself. Nothing to do with the contents of the posts and all to do with Alan’s ego.
Perhaps the site should become subscription only – that way all the regulars can spend all day and night stroking each others ego’s without the facts getting in the way.
No…I haven’t banned you….even though you have lost the critical honesty that you started off with and have resorted to the lazy fallback of those who can’t find anything otherwise to fault on this site…counting the number of times ‘Islam’ gets mentioned.
Disappointed in you Albaman.
As I said, David Vance has already banned him…he can’t expect to continually post abusive comments and then think he can just come back as if nothing has happened.
Anyone can post on here but to keep posting you have to maintain a civil manner towards others….don’t do that and you lose the right to post.
Hope you understand that.
So all those who posted abusive comments to Scott lose their posting rights as well?
In fact many other abusive comments get deleted and edited here….but most people accept the rationale behind that.
Looking at the threads it is Scott who usually starts the ball rolling….it is apparent he is not on this site to engage in ‘debate’ or challenge any claim about BBC bias…he comes on purely to disrupt threads and to be abusive.
When Scott is not on a thread they are remarkably civil, intelligent and coherent. Usually.
This isn’t a free for all where anything goes….your comments get moderated to a greater or lesser extent.
If you don’t like that there are plenty of other sites that deal with BBC bias out there.
Yes Chrisuemada you are absolutely right, web content from C4 ,Channel 5
ITV and the like doesn’t count either
which is why I don’t site it
I, for one, won’t miss Scott M, who spent most of his time on ad hominem attacks and disruption rather than logical arguments. He is perfectly free to disagree but it must be based on more than abuse and contrarianism. Otherwise he is just wasting everyone’s time.
can you provide links to TELEVISED or broadcast news items relating this?
No. Alas I have no way of searching video content that isn’t online. Do you?
How many people actually bother reading BBC online news items?
About 38m people a week.
how long will you be using that name,one wonders?
Probably as long as you will be using Andy S.
I very much doubt that, I suspect James Stables will change very soon. Please post the links to above claims (no more than 4 or 5 in case you get spam-binned.
btw, EVEN THEN it proves nothing as BBC are proven hiders of stories…which if you are here often you would know.
I am sure you can use the BBC’s search tool as well as I can. I didn’t put links in because a lot of sites automatically block posts with too many links.
Have fun.
To suggest that it proves nothing is simply wrong. It was claimed that theBBC had not reported something. It has as was demonstrated. You can argue black is white as much as you like but it doesn’t make it so.
Now I am not expecting some Pauline conversion here, but i would hope for at least the honesty to admit that in this particular case the accusation against the BBC is demonstrably false.
Unfortunately you are wrong: the examples are too numerous to mention of stealth edits and reports after the event and hidden away. If you can prove those bits of text are real links (I mentioned above no more than 5 links, you have 4 apparently so you can post them) from the dates in question and were linked an visible on the main news pages you may be closer to having a point. As things stand you have nothing.
Span Ows, that ‘defence’ is utterly desperate. Here are the links.
31 October 2012 : Viewpoint: What now for Turkey’s ruling party?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20141894
29 October 2012 : Turkey’s press continues to feel pressure from the state
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20083163
22 October 2012 : Turkey ‘cracking down’ on press freedom
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20026491
21 November 2011 : Turks sense dawn of new era of power and confidence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15815319
You say the BBC are proven hiders of stories – can you prove that these 4 were all hidden?
Not desperate, just true. One recent and high profile example was the Stafford hospital scandal, if you search the BBC or Google you could come up with a dozen or more links but that news DISAPPEARED from every BBC online page with 24 HOURS.
P.S. how hard was posting the links?
I was referring to how you didn’t believe that the pages James showed were real until the links were actually posted.
When compiling those links I copied and pasted from James’s post. However, I have just searched ‘turkey press freedom’ using the BBC search function, and immediately found the ‘Turkey’s press continues to feel pressure from the state’ and the ‘Turkey ‘cracking down’ on press freedom’ links.
I also searched ‘staffordshire hospital scandal’ using the same BBC search function, and found 53 results. So they haven’t disappeared from every BBC online page.
Scott, at least you’ll have more time to devote to your own website. Your last six postings have garnered the phenomenal tally of…zero comments, zero reactions. Dr Who? Scott Who? Hey there, lonely boy, lonely bo…
Scott, I certainly don’t discount discussions on other social media, but twitter, for example is constrained by the number of characters etc.
If you were to broaden your subject matter a little, step outside your usual remit, perhaps a post on something like the continuing popularity of Jim Reeves in India, you might receive more attention. Only a suggestion.
Have a good day.
Dr Who – analysed by “intellectual heavyweights” for 50 years.
Good grief!
I’ve no time for Murdoch nor any of his employees – if you choose to work for ‘Evil Corp’ then you can’t complain when Mr Bond sets fire to your secret base.
That said …
It comes a pretty pass when we are forced to defend Evil Corp against its enemies simply because they are worse than Murdoch!
Isn’t it about time we brought the whole stinking mess down in flames? How? Haven’t the foggiest. So we are left with tabloid shit versus BBC & co shit.
If only we were pigs we’d be happy.
Agree entirely. If I had to choose between the world as seen through the Murdoch newspapers and the world as reported by the rotten BBC, I would – with a rather heavy heart – choose the former. A sad state of affairs but at least the Murdoch press have some relation to ordinary people.
Bottom line is that no-one has to pay for a Murdoch paper just to read another one.
Stop on
Off topic but worth mentoning that the ‘fascist evil empire’ that is New International sacked Keyes and Gray after sexist comments ; the holier than thou BBC have issued an apology and ‘national treasure’ John Inverdale basically called Bartoli a minger. At best he may be asked to ‘stand aside’ for a couple of weeks – coincidence that a recent report found the BBC to be, in employment terms bullying, sexist, racist and ageist. THE IRONY, THE IRONY
I note there is no more important news story in the UK on the BBC UK News website today than “Murdoch prepared to face MPs again” (as at five past midnight on 10 July complete with typo re Evan Harris’s name).
That’s why we pay the fee to see the Beeb major on its feud with News Corp?
Nice job, it’s an incredible post. The details is good to understand!