The BBC joyously and shamelessly joined in the campaign against Murdoch, their media and ideological rival.
The BBC and its cabal of Guardianistas and celebrity sleazeballs instigated the Leveson Inquiry and the resultant sham of a press regulator…designed it seems solely to rein in Murdoch.
But now that old phrase ‘Careful what you wish for’ springs to mind as the Guardianistas are panicking.
Their all powerful fabricator of the news agenda may be going to come under some serious scrutiny and regulation which may limit its overpowering reach.
Polly Toynbee is distraught that this democratic asset, this defiant symbol of non-market success, this monument for the Public good may be restrained, its dominance curtailed, it’s present splendour diminished.
Who will buy all those copies of the Guardian if the BBC goes under?
Polly might have to get a real job instead of sitting on her well paid backside telling us how awful it must be to be poor.
Arch-’Guardian’-BBC-Labour Party political propagandist, Ms TOYNBEEB, churns out another predictable piece today, demanding that the the financial, monopolistic, political status of the BBC is sacrocanct.
I was particularly amused by this bit:-
“Let no one doubt how much the BBC agonises over bias, although its self-criticism, recently on immigration and climate change reporting, is always seized on as another weapon by its enemies.”
Yes, Beeboids sitting around, agonising, working out just how much political bias they can get away with for:- the Labour Party, the E.U., mass immigration, Islam, Green Peace, Obama,etc., etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/bbc-conservatives-democratic-murdoch?
[-from previous ‘Open Thread’.]
The BBC is about as much of a democratic asset as Pravda was in the old Soviet Union.
That the idiot fool Toynbee could even begin to have the slightest notion of having a fleeting impluse to fire a single neuron in the regard of thinking this, shows her to be so utterly inept and divorced from all reality.
The BBC is the biggest threat to real democratic accountability we have in this country.
How would Toynbee make a living if the Beeb and The Guardian folded?
Tory outriders join the fray, as the Centre for Policy Studies this week claims the BBC is biased leftwards by favouring reports of centre-left over centre-right thinktanks. That’s highly specious without independent assessment of the relative quality and news-worthiness of the research in those reports: IPPR v IEA is a no-brainer for news content.
That’s the same thing I say about the BBC’s defense of their impartiality and getting it about right, based on their claim that they get complaints from both sides.
Surely under bbc rules that should be the extreme and dangerously”right wing” with connections to the EDL!
News International broke the law. Press regulation had to be enforced to prevent this from happening again. But, quite hypocritically, the same left-based sources that demanded action on Murdoch now wish to be excused from the same principles and practices despite both the Guardian and the BBC not only showing blatant bias and careful selection of information they publish, but also on several occasions broadcasting libelous stories that have later turned out to be not only untrue, but engineered or accepted as fact on the premise of who the victim was (usually Conservative MPs).
The BBC and the Guardian thought they could live by a different set of rules from its competition, and they’re both now finding out that’s not possible or acceptable.
Not to mention the current fraud investigation on over generous pay offs, the blowing of £100M on the digital programme (has to be misconduct in public office); a no. of examples of at the very least facilitating the activities of paedophiles on their premises and turning a blind; reported cheats on quiz shows and programmes even the naming of the Blue Peter animals; a lot of murky stuff hushed up by external lawyers and redacted evidence; possible expenses frauds – have all of those people who moved to Manchester done so and if not returned the generous relocation packages – do they fund travel and hotel expenses themselves or via the taxpayer – the alleged looting of old premises by staff, etc etc,
AND The Guardian’s use of phone hacking and paying the Police for information ( I know one female Guardian journalist paid for her information by giving her Police informant something a bit more physical than mere cash).
They also have a bad reputation for printing fabricated stories – remember the lie that News of the World journalists hacked Millie Dowler’s phone and deleted messages? That little whopper lost the jobs of 300 fellow journalists when Murdoch closed down the NOW.
Integrity? Don’t make me laugh!
“I know one female Guardian journalist paid for her information by giving her Police informant something a bit more physical than mere cash”.
I am sure you reported this to the proper authorities. No, what a surprise.
As you said: “Integrity? Don’t make me laugh! “
And the source from which you know this accusation is laughable is…?
Toynbee says, presumably keeping a straight face whilst typing her copy:
‘You might think any true Conservative would want to conserve the BBC, a landmark of Britishness, globally admired export-earner, cultural nourisher, its independence proven by clashes with every government.’
Well, I for one couldn’t keep a straight face reading it.
Free Libertarian Democracy: An Old Conservative or New Libertarian UKIPist would want a BBC to succeed or fail, based on a democratic demand for its products, and a voluntary subscription for its services.
Dictatorial Authoritarian Elitism: A Socialist would want a BBC to be a left-wing media monopoly paid for by an undemocratic legally binding compulsory subscription on all the proletariat, those one and a third million who unilaterally chose the democratic right to vote NO to the BBC, are state criminals.
BBC a ‘defiant symbol of non-market success’, says Polly.
BBC:-financed by taxpayers, granted monopolistic powers, to be politically biased.
“BBC a ‘defiant symbol of non-market success’, says Polly.
‘the flaccid simper of nonce-market excess’
is more likely, given what we now know.
I can understand, though, the way she habitually applies the pig-lipstick glossing her own lifestyle and ethics to the BBC.
I’ll give you a measure oi how much Toynee is lying.
Far from ‘agonising’ about accusations of bias, let me reveal how little the Corporation really cares.
Recently, for the first time, I was canvassed by a market researcher asking about media. Normally, I am far too busy (not to mention sceptical about most market research) to take part but as it was on a subject dear to my heart this time, I agreed to sit through the half hour or so of answering the same questions, over and over again, about my media consumption and habits.
Part of me, I admit, was just waiting for the chance to score the BBC on its integrity and freedom from bias. But I didn’t. Because in the course of the entire questionnaire there was not a single request for any opinion about the BBC’s reliability as a source of news and information. Not one
Yes, there were plenty of questions about whether its programming was ‘innovative’ and ‘fresh’ (no doubt the things every little ‘Willl’ and ‘Jake’ agonise over in their endless meetings) but not once did the Corporation want to know whether its viewers and listeners believe a word it says.
So there you have it. The BBC doesn’t give a damn whether we think it is biased or not, Ms. Toynbee. So we might as well tear it down and start again, mightn’t we?
pollly toynbee is the female version of tim stanley.posh.middle class,lives in the leafy surburbs,they dont speak up on behalf of the working classes,how can they,they have never experienced what it is like to be working class and poor and live on a council estate,these people are just class snobs who in fact sneer and and look down at the working classes as witnessed last week when posh boy tim stanley attacked the working class roots of tommy robinson of the edl,polly is the same,she sneers at the working classes and calls them racist if they dare complain about her mate tony blairs decision to open the floodgates to mass immigration,toynbee and stanley are just class snobs of the worst kind.
Don’t forget that we have until 22 October to respond to the government’s consultation on ‘media ownership and plurality’ which they have expanded to include the bBBC.
Click to access Media_Plurality_Consultation_2013.pdf
‘While it is clear that neither Government nor any other body can compel people to consume a range of media voices, or control the impact that these voices have on public opinion, the principle remains that the Government should seek to promote the availability and consumption of a range of media voices.
The government can, should but doesn’t do a bunch of things already, so it’s hard to imagine how this will make any difference.
The BBC is the most dominant media monopoly in the country, yet is allowed to account only to itself. Look at Pollard and all the other ‘inquiries’. A bit of faux humility, some side-stepping before a pay hike and all continues as it did untroubled.
Its staff block any opinions they don’t like on social network pulpits they pitch under the BBC banner, yet claim (and are supported in claiming by their employers) that any personal opinions have nothing to do with their professional positions.
The BBC mods and House Rules away anything they don’t fancy on interactive systems that claim to speak for or allow ‘says’, or close down when things spin out of their control.
The BBC complaints system is a national disgrace, integrity black hole and professional joke. They expedite (ban) people for asking them questions they can’t answer or holding them to account for things they are in no position to justify.
It is pure propaganda backed by censorship.
That harks back to a time when lies, told often enough, become truth.
It didn’t work out well for a long time then, either.
‘yet is allowed to account only to itself’.
Which seems to trouble the Government not very much.
‘A further safeguard against potential influence on the news agenda by media owners are the requirements for due accuracy and impartiality in television and radio news. These standards – amongst others for broadcast TV and radio – are set out in the Broadcasting Code, overseen by Ofcom, and in the case of the BBC, in its Editorial Guidelines. In 2007, the BBC published a report on safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century. Drawing on the views of BBC staff, the report noted that what might be expected in a large organisation – a ‘groupthink’ – is not peculiarly absent at the BBC, which could lead to certain opinions being under-represented.
Google News and Facebook, which were founded in 2002 and 2004 respectively, have now become two of the three most-used online sources for news after the BBC. Yet, our current regulations do not recognise this.
FaceBook and Twitter are now also used as news sources by the BBC. These are unregulated (here), free, US-based, commercially-driven aggregators the BBC charges the UK public to pass on as sources of or content as news.
This seems to have passed our public sector market rate talents by too.
‘it is considered that the BBC’s overriding requirement to be both independent and impartial, the fact that it is subject to extensive and detailed editorial and governance controls, and that it is tied to serving the public interest through its charter and through the high expectations of, and accountability to, licence payers mean that it should sit outside any new regulation.
Great, except it answers only to itself, and the senior management, overseen by the ‘Trust’, are clearly either inept in oversight roles, up to their necks in the mess they have created, or both.
‘There is also a body of research suggesting that broadcast impartiality is challenging despite strong governance arrangements. … limits of time and space have inhibited the BBC’s ability to give profile to a full range of opinions.
Or, they will skew anything as far as they can, as long as they can.
Witness some complaints epics shared here, where they will swear black is white when called on it… and then try and ban any who hold that to public scrutiny.
This piece shows just much the left treasure and need the BBC. The last thing that they want is for there to be a level playing field in news and current affairs broadcasting. If we were told the truth , rather than the BBC’s heavily censored version laced good dollops of left wing propoganda, we would be up in arms about so many of the liberal left’s key policies.
The Tories must get rid of the BBC and free the people from its liberal /left bias and allow them to choose which news they want to pay for and to listen to. The whole notion of a state funded broadcaster supplying the nation with a near monopoly of news and current affairs is fatally flawed, simply because it cannot be relied upon to provide the plurality of view that a democracy requires.
The same argument of applies to having too greater share of news coverage in the hands of one company or Press Baron. A healthy democracy requires that the people have a variety of sources to choose from with widely varying views and political outlook.
How anyone can claim to be a champion of liberal democracy and yet support the BBC beats me.
Sadly too late bbc, nhs, ngo’s, most ‘charities’, already dominated by the fascist groupthink left only counter is a big clearout of the stables and does anyone the sainted (woman of the people) SamCam would let diddy dave do this – just think how embarrassing it would be for her – have you no humanity
ngos – schoolboy error
SamCam – Mumsnet – anybody notice how Camerons public utterings all seem to echo the Mumsnet agenda – porn-filters, website bullying, we seem to have government by pillow-talk. What with windmill-troughing father in law, what is going on here?
“a landmark of Britishness, globally admired export-earner, cultural nourisher, its independence proven by clashes with every government.”
(c) Polly Toynbee.
Pardon me, while I PMSL!
“Its independence proven by clashes with every government.”
Yes, but only when they dare to stray from the BBC’s own biased political manifesto.
It’s already too late for the bBC to revert back to “impartial” news broadcasting, being that its become infested with the champagne socialists that we all know and love.
close it down.
Unfortunately it seems likely to me that a lot of Beeb-icitis has infected news programmes on other tv channels. I think it was Sky news who referred to an ‘incident’ when actually reporting on an ‘acid attack‘
(were they somehow expecting the girls to play down their burns, or say it was some sort of misunderstanding?)
I also recall that on their coverage of Lee Rigsby’s funeral most of the Sky personnel talked as if he had just fallen over in the street and died – one didn’t, though, so maybe it’s just that the rest are angling to get into the Beeb.
….But Channel4 news is right up there with the HemmmBeebaroids, especially with their climate ignorance and fracking scares (any EU funding involved, I wonder?).
I’m slightly amused at the people on here that say the Tories must get rid of the BBC, no offence meant. Do people still think there is a difference between the likes of Cameron and Millipede and Cleggo. Listen people, they are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
A very good point. There are frequently cries for the Tories to take us out of the EU but it is the Tories who took us in and who have wielded us ever more tightly to the Eurocorpse.
Even without quisling Cameron in charge, the Tory Party is almost as much of a problem as the BBC itself.
I would agree with most of that ,But you are forgetting that while Ted took us in, the vote to stay in was under Harry’s watch (I know I voted) And since the 80’s (when François Mitterrand came to power) the labour party have been far more pro Europe than even the wet end of the tory party
I’m 42, and have never had a say on Europe…
Sad, eh?
I was 18 and voted to stay in for all the wrong reasons (cheap holidays to Rimini etc..) An argument against further lowering of voting age -In fact an argument for putting it back up to 21
🙂
Given most 21-year olds still behave like 15-year olds, mek it 30.
Read ” The Great Deception” by Booker and North, for the real facts about the biggest lie ever told by politicians.
It’s a long read, but well worth a week or two of concentration.
It truly is an education.
I’m 55 and I never had the chance. However, I would have voted Yes at that time as there was, we were told, no prospect of the EEC becoming the evil empire it is today.
My Father was convinced the whole thong was a fix purely down to the fact that he didn’t know anyone who voted to stay in. He was of the generation that fought for this country, and were proud of that fact, no way was he going to give up what he fought for that easily.
I laughed and ridiculed him at the time of the vote, I’m not so sure now….
My Grandfather was the same. Working class his eyes were opened to travel during the war. From the 50s onwards he went abroad yearly either to Germany , Italy , Austria or Spain yet was very anti Common Market. His argument (a solid one) was that if Heath was in favour of something then it wasn’t a good idea !
Demon you must only just missed out on chance to vote in 75 referendum
Your point is valid though. We were voting to stay in or leave an economic club ,not join a authoritarian super state.
Yep, I was 17 at the time of the referendum and, as you say, I thought we were joining an economic club with reduced trade barriers. Britain was a mess, mainly due to the disgraceful behaviour of Trade Unionists, but also weak management and a succession of diabolical governments – particularly Wilson’s. Germany, on the other hand, was thriving within the EEC and I thought it would be great to have some of that. We were told we would not lose our sovereignty – any discussion about integation was done with a lot of secrecy and the general public weren’t informed, aka lied to. I was disappointed to miss out on the vote but I’m glad now that I didn’t vote the wrong way.
Does anyone buy the Guardian?
Only for others
Every government department seems to have it.
Line to take…
“Polly Toynbee’s BBC.
“The reason why Polly Toynbee sees no ideological bias at the BBC is because all its prejudices are hers too.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4049/polly_toynbee_s_bbc
Richard Littlejohn bitchslaps Toynbee
Notice how Toynbee claims to want to seek agreement between parties, when in reality she is seeking to shut down any opinion which is not hers and get all those of different opinions only to agree with hers.
Well that was a bit disappointing.
Toynbee was wobbly, her voice cracking & at a loss for words that someone should dare, dare to mention her hypocritical over-privileged lifestyle while she was pontificating on how we should all suffer more for her ideals…
and he just lets her off the hook.
Still, now we know that whenever she mouths off we should just start talking about her jets flights to her luxurious (decadent?) Italian villa, and should then go further and ask what she gets up to while she selfishly squanders those expensive resources that could be spent on …essential medical aid … the many starving children …and various other foreign-government inflicted tragic inequalities that are not our responsibility that she ruthlessly tries to emotionally guilt us with.
Cow.
Like to see any evidence of Polly Toynbee “living with less”, as she advocates this as a solution to the worlds problem. With the birthrate in Africa of six children per mother, what effect does Polly opting for Lidl champagne make?
“POLLY TOYNBEE: WHAT IS TO BE DONE?”
(2011).
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/polly-toynbee-what-is-to-be-done/