CCE in the comments pointed out this offering from the BBC:
NHS failings ‘suppressed for electoral reasons’
An independent expert on mortality rates has suggested that ministers have suppressed details of NHS failings to avoid losing votes.
Prof Sir Brian Jarman said a “basic problem” with the NHS was that the government both provided health services and monitored them.
In a report out on Tuesday, he says 14 NHS trusts totalled 13,000 more deaths than the national average in 2005-10.
Note the present tense despite the dates provided at the end giving the impression that the present government is possibly to blame.
‘Labour’ doesn’t get a namecheck until halfway down the page despite this being a story about them.
But even when it does get a mention it’s almost as if they are merely commenting on something that’s happened but which had nothing to do with them really…they aren’t actually answering for their atrocious record on the NHS.
Here Sir Brian Jarman is quoted but it is still unclear who he is talking about
Sir Brian told the BBC: “One of the basic problems is that the government is responsible for provision of the health service but also for the monitoring of it.
“The NHS is very popular, and quite rightly so, in the country, and they don’t want a bad news story for electoral purposes.”
In an interview with Sky News, he said: “When they had a problem with quality, they couldn’t really say what it was, so things were suppressed…. spin.
“Effectively they had to deliver good news for the minister. The minister then indicated that the pressure came from Number 10. Although he then denied it.”
In response, Mr Burnham said the last Labour government had “established independence” by setting up the independent regulator and that “was not the move of a government that wanted to hide”.
Note that first paragraph:
‘Sir Brian told the BBC: “One of the basic problems is that the government is responsible for provision of the health service but also for the monitoring of it.” ‘
The Telegraph tells a slightly, but significantly different, version:
“The government was in the position of providing the health service and monitoring it, it was a conflict of interest. Ministers have an electoral interest in getting out good news.”
Now as the BBC mentioned the correct tense at the beginning of the report….‘a “basic problem” with the NHS was that the government’….is it possible that the author changed it for the second quote but forgot to do the first one? Changing the tense changes the whole meaning of the sentence and the sentiment.
The BBC end with a final quote from Sir Brian Jarman:
‘”We have another group of Mid Staffs hospitals.”
Which leaves a lot of questions….does he mean that in the historical sense…that more problem hospitals were hidden…or does he mean that the problems still exist and are ongoing under this government?
The BBC have left that very much open to speculation.
Why would anyone be surprised? The BLiar government was wholly corrupt, and as many of the faces carried on into the Brown government. The shake of of Nu Liebour corruption is being deliberately held up by lefty Dave whose government has ground the Iraq inquiry to a standstill by refusing the release of vital government paper work to the enquiry.
It should come as little surprise though, back in 1964 Harold Wilson went to the Director General on the eve of the election and had him reschedule the very popular comedy Steptoe & Son.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8589797.stm
Quite an interesting read as the BBC still decades later doesn’t even think it did anything wrong ! Bias goes back a long way.
on today’s today prog it’s 1300, not 13000.
did anyone see the health committee’s interrogation of whistlebloweers, nasty labour cow sh1tting on the witnesses to protect burnham.
also, anyone noticed the contrast between how keen burnham was to expose the dozens of hillsborough deaths while suppressing thousands caused by his own regime?
Await more spin on this trying to pin responsibility for excess deaths on “managers” and “targets” instead of the real reason – poor clinical standards of care by nurses and doctors.
Because Hunt’s message is “get Labour” and “blame targets/managers” – the BBC’s will be to protect Labour and protect doctors and nurses.
None of these things address clinical standards, and the lack of transparency in what the NHS gives you in the way of care, which is an inevitable consequence of a nationalised industry with no freedom to choose who treats you. Take what you are given, which too often means overseas-trained doctors and third world nurses, along with wards full of health tourists from around the world, and grannies who do not need to be in hospital but are difficult to send home.
The World-class NHS: a Labour Vanity Project, and a politically managed bloody mess.
What a beautiful bit of BBC bias. Anyone with half a braincell would read that and associate it with the current Government – ooh those evile toreez. But that is the BBC’s intended audience and exactly the message they want to put across.
BBC all over the £26000 benefit cap this morning. Lots of anti-cuts speakers but only IDS speaking in favour. Compare with the virtual silence over 13000 NHS deaths. Shameful bias by BBC again.
Funny thing is that for most people it isn’t a cut! It’s a cap which stops more than a reasonable amount being claimed.
A family of Somalis with 8 kids living in state funded housing in Knightsbridge are going to notice, but as they’re never going to work anyway what’s wrong with housing them in North Wales or the North East where housing is plentiful and cheap?
Oh no say the hand wringers, they’re as much right to live there as any other billionaire !
The BBC need to wise up to the fact that the vast majority of the electorate support this cap.
according to bBC its a “polarizing” issue.
between the bBC and the vast majority of the population, maybe?
Pat Condell said it: Guardian-reading white middle class left wing pricks.
Every time I tune in to the bBC I am reminded of the truth of every word.