Too Big, Too Left Wing


From the Daily Mail:


The BBC is too big and too left wing and should lose some of its licence fee, the Corporation’s former head of TV news has warned.

Roger Mosey claimed the BBC had wrongly kept critics of Brussels, benefits and immigration off the airwaves and veered to the left on many issues.

He said it would ‘enrich the nation’ if rival commercial broadcasters had access to some of the licence fee to take on the BBC’s dominance.

Writing in The Times, Mr Mosey said that while the corporation faced widespread competition in network television, its market share of 70 per cent of all news consumption on both TV and radio was something that ‘even long-term loyalists find uncomfortable’.

He suggested that while the BBC’s stance of co-ordinating its editorial content across the organisation was a good thing, it can ‘lead to homogeneity’ and conformity.

Mr Mosey said: “On the BBC’s own admission, in recent years it did not, with the virtue of hindsight, give enough space to anti-immigration views or to EU-withdrawalists; and, though he may have exaggerated, the former Director-General Mark Thompson spoke of a ‘massive bias to the left’ in the BBC he joined more than 30 years ago.

Editors’ views are ‘influenced by like-minded peers’ and co-ordination of policies across programmes can lead to homogeneity, he warned.

‘That can be intensified by regulation that sees there being “right” and “wrong” answers.

‘The BBC Trust speaks the language of diversity but in its edicts it promotes conformity, whether it’s about an agreed approach to the science of climate change, “correct” terminology in the Middle East or the way a documentary about benefits should be constructed.’



Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Too Big, Too Left Wing

  1. Amounderness Lad says:

    Try finding any competition at all for the BBC Propaganda, sorry I should use their name for it, News and Current Affairs programmes on the radio. I that media they have what amounts to a total monopoly with only a few brief headlines as an alternative from other broadcasters.
    Ever since the time in the 1950s when it’s broadcasting monopoly was first challenged by the introduction of Commercial Television the BBC has used it’s Tax Enforced Funding to try and drive all competition from the airwaves. As soon as any new form of broadcasting is created the BBC uses it’s State Secured Funding to swamp it in an attempt to make any commercial alternatives as financially weak as possible by reducing the audience footprint to lessen the value to advertisers.
    They have used this technique at every available opportunity and it is long past the time when they should have had their State Funded ability to continue behaving like that terminated and they were made to sink or swim on their own merits in competition for their funding with all other broadcasters. Their monopoly funding arrangement, which means the public have to cough up for the BBC even if they have no wish to should be ended. In this modern day and age it simply cannot be justified, it is an historic anomaly which has outlived it’s reason for being.


  2. DownBoy says:

    ‘Too big and too left wing’. The entire problem in a nutshell. I await a Panorama expose of institutional bias……and I expect to be waiting till hell freezes over.


    • DownBoy says:

      Not that Hell will freeze over, what with all this rampant global warming we are (not) experiencing.


  3. Max Roberts says:

    The trouble with the first analysis is that ITV used to be very rich, and used to be able to do current affairs (remember Weekend World and World in Action?), and didn’t particularly want the license fee to go because it didn’t want the BBC competing for advertising revenue. Then all the new channels popped up, the audience collapsed, people started fast forwarding over adverts with their digiboxes, and ITV digital crashed out of orbit. With ITV cashless, the BBC could now exploit its position, and the license fee enabled the monstor to go out of control. That it why we need action now, but didn’t seem to need action in, say, 1995.


    • John Anderson says:

      It was Granada TV under the Bernsteins that really opened up political broadcasting in this country.


  4. George R says:

    End the BBC Empire now!

    There seem to be only two empires which Beeboids now do not criticise:-
    1.) Islamic imperialism, and 2.) BBC global broadcasting empire.

    And in the Beeboid world, 1.) and 2.), above, are often politically enmeshed.

    For example, the BBC employs as journalists local people in Pakistan and Afghanistan who report with political empathy about our Islamic jihad enemy, the Taliban; a similar political relationship can be seen in the Middle East in relation to Islamic jihad, Hamas; and in Somalia, in relation to Islamic jihad, Al Shabaab.

    In 2014, the finance of INBBC World Service (which is already used for INBBC domestically related reports) switches from the Foreign Office, to us, INBBC licence-payers.

    We will be directly funding all the above propaganda of the INBBC global empire. Close it down now!

    Here’s ‘The Trust’ (ha) and its propaganda on it.
    Close down ‘The Trust’!
    Sack PATTEN!

    Click to access wsol_positioning.pdf


  5. Charlatans says:

    Now is the time!
    BBC Trust consultation, (handy reminder) by 13th December – it would be a travesty if we missed out :

    It is quite a detailed review. Asking for examples .
    I have completed mine. A few extracts: (from my lengthy submission):

    ……………..balance ……………………………not wholly satisfied

    ……………. I never have a problem with the Daily Politics and the Sunday Politics…………….

    ………………programmes like Question Time and Any Questions ………find these play more to the gallery

    ………………….For example, the ‘so called’ bedroom tax. ……………………….they obviously do not currently pay any personal tax whatsoever.

    …………………………….Labour spin, it is not what our tax funded National broadcaster

    ………………it would be fair to always inform the BBC audience of any conflict of interest that any guest or commentator

    ………………………………………….examples ………… Evan Davis on the Today programme……. Mr Osborne was interrupted, shouted down and badgered in comparison to Mr Balls, …………….was blatantly unprofessional and much biased in favour of Mr Balls.

    …………………………Stephanie Flanders also seems to leave one questioning whether there is something just not quite correct in what she is telling us…………………. I remember…..unemployment ….., (down 46,000,…………. she indicated…. “hidden unemployed” …….not satisfactorily explained

    ……………………………………Education, health, immigration, climate change and the EU are also news contents that never quite seem to come over on the BBC as totally balanced.

    ………………….Milliband Marxist ………echoes of the BBC ‘dancing on Thatcher’s grave’ bias …………………total left slant diversion added to BBC news.

    …………..gasping at the TV…….. Peston said ………………………….. “what is unraveling is the Reagan and Thatcher induced global economy”……………………….. such vast resources at its disposal, …………………… analysed more fully

    ………………….Labour ……………………………negative legacy that is likely to affect the nation for a generation.

    BBC dances around ……………………….. immigration, ……………..political left slant which does not give an accurate conclusion.

    ……………………… imposition of Sharia law, female genital mutilation, sexual abuse and targeting of minors and
    radicalisation by mosques………………….BBC attempting to disguise the issues or keep them out of the public arena.

    ………………..EU ………. something lacking ………………

    disgust and resentment the way the BBC treats ……….. taxes ……… gigantic corporation management payoffs………enormous salaries …………..costly waste digital media IT cancellation, staff
    perks and even the way the BBC entered the avoidance of tax arena with its own employees, (you really know how to push our noses into it)
    ……………………Additionally I believe the mainly progressive left of centre, ‘champagne socialist culture’ that for years and years has been allowed to exist within the BBC, has been a contributory factor that has resulted in such criminal ‘Savillle’ and similar scandals to develop and also the corporation ethos is the reason in my having sometimes to receive biased reporting, leaving me to trawl other media for the full balanced facts.
    One other point which I would wish the BBC takes more seriously. Why are our Magistrates Courts clogged having to deal with hundreds of thousands of non-licence fee payers, making this the largest single crime these courts deal with. This is an enormous national scandal generally affecting the poorest in society and is the next big thing to be exposed. Surely you can find a better way?
    It is no surprise therefore that I personally find your organisation needs radical reform and quickly.
    Possibly the BBC management recruiting in a more balanced way, other than from mainly left of centre sources, would possibly be a good start to enable you to
    represent the majority of the nation.
    If the BBC could also enhance further its already highly successful commercial activities, this saving could go to reducing the licence fee………………


    • uncle bup says:

      But of course if a Trust consultation was likely to change anything the Trust wouldn’t consult.

      Just an exercise in nothing really.


  6. Richard Pinder says:

    The licence fee is immoral because it is stolen money, while a subscription is moral because it is money obtained by voluntary means.

    Politicians steal money from the people to spend on their ideological projects through taxation, so the upper class Tory twits idea of redistributing the licence fee would only encourage the spreading of left-wing bias to those commercial media organisations who receive the money, because it would relieve commercial pressure on these companies not to be biased against the people as is the case with the BBC.

    So vote UKIP to kick out the Cameron upper class morons, and help the poor by abolishing the licence fee.


  7. +james says:

    How many times have we heard ex-BBC staff saying the the BBC has a definite left wing bias. Yet the BBC is still in complete denial, or in my opinion still lying about their bias.

    The TV license is only around 60 yrs old. And in that 60 years it has been used to fund an increasingly greedy, biased, corrupt and paedophillic organisation.


  8. stuart says:

    i would like the bbc to do an election special and yes a secret poll with a difference down att bbc hq,this poll will only involve bbc presenters working for that organisation,my question would be this,if there was a general election today who would you vote for,the conservatives,the liberals or the labour party,ukip or other minow partys,the bnp are excluded because no bbc employee who supports that party can work at the bbc.what do you think would be the result of this election,i think the labour party supporters at the bbc and radio 5 live would win it by landslide with the bbc liberal voters scooping up the remaining vote,i could be wrong and all the bbc presenters and staff are all tory and ukip supporters.but that would be a miracle.


  9. DB says:

    For those without access to the original Times article Roger Mosey has posted it here.

    Spotted a couple of interesting responses to his article on Twitter. Here’s Raymond Snoddy, ex-presenter of Newswatch:

    And here’s Newsnight’s Mark Urban:

    The bit about the BBC no longer being dominated by the left is nonsense – one only need follow a few BBC Twitter lists to know that leftist thought utterly dominates – but it’s interesting to see that even Urban is willing to acknowledge the suffocating nature of the BBC’s “liberal” conformism.


    • Richard Pinder says:

      According to notes on an ongoing investigation for 2016. The BBC lefty who set the bias in concrete was Mark Damazer.


    • John Anderson says:

      It was Mark Urban who wrote the recent thorough article on how Saudi Arabia is moving towards acquiring nuclear bombs. Urban is one of the few reasonable senior journalists at the BBC.

      Compare his seriousness with the flatulence churnalism of people like Roger Harrabin.


      • Not Brain Washed Yet says:

        Harrabin is not a journalist. he is an environmental activist that writes propaganda for the BBC


    • Guest Who says:

      This exchange spiralling nicely. Latest post from Ray:
      “@RaymondSnoddy: @rogermosey @David_Waddell Evidence noted but Newswatch could rarely, if ever, find BBC executives who would admit viewers had a point”
      Shocked, I tell you, shocked!
      Seems they are struggling also to find sceptic scientists to feature still, and of course any turkeys for forthcoming Chistmas recipe shows.
      Luckily, the processes behind such decisions or corporate inabilities are safely locked behind FoI exclusions.


  10. Conspiracy Theory Central says:

    See, if you had more threads like this one, and fewer bonkers anti Muslim rants, the site would be less completely risible and I would actually contribute something useful once in a while. Roger Mosey made some sensible points in moderate language. If you did the same more often, you wouldn’t be totally ignored by the MSM, and who knows, maybe serious commentators people have heard of might drop in once in a while without feeling they’d joined an extremist wing of the EDL.


    • Guest Who says:

      CTC – “I would actually contribute something useful once in a while”
      Have to admire the honesty in that. Rather puts past & future contributions in context too.
      Tx for that.


      • Conspiracy Theory Central says:

        So why do *you* think this blog is never quoted by Hitchens or Phillips or Delingpole or any of the other journos who basically agree with the premise of this blog? Curious, isn’t it?


        • Guest Who says:

          “So why do *you* think this blog is never quoted”
          That would be me?
          Ok… No idea. Isn’t it? So what. Don’t care.
          My interest here is factual exchanges (ok, being a private, independent blog I enjoy a bit of opinion too) on BBC inaccuracy, lack of integrity or objectivity.
          That and the obsessions of those who have dedicated themselves to defending it by various, if rather daft means.
          *You*, clearly, don’t.
          Curious. Possibly unique.


        • GCooper says:

          The MSM rarely credits blogs that are not written by ‘professional’ journalists. Even acknowledged experts like Dr Richard North are ignored, as he points out, because they are regarded by ‘professional’ journalists as dangerous, unpaid competitors.

          I will await you ‘useful’ contribution. Novelty is always such a tonic.


          • Conspiracy Theory Central says:

            So ‘ignored’ that he has co-written a book with Booker. Any book deals in the offing for BBBC? I thought not…


            • GCooper says:

              That’s a truly shaming level of ignorance you have there. Booker and Dr North have worked as a team for decades.

              The significant point is that Booker is part if the MSM (just) while the non-journalist, North, is ignored.

              But do carry on. It’s always amusing to watch a noisy idiot blunder around in a field about which he knows nothing.


        • John Anderson says:

          Philips HAS quoted this blog, more than once.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          CTC, you couldn’t be more wrong. Delingpole and Ed West, just to name a couple of obvious journos, have mentioned the blog more than once, as have Phillips and others. And never mind Guido Fawkes, which nobody reads, right?


    • Not Brain Washed Yet says:


      i think you will find its islamic savages and their swivell eyed looney lefties are bonkers

      take this muslim extremist for example, lefties think he’s moderate!


    • Max Roberts says:

      Yes of course, because Sweden isn’t the rape capital of the Western world/Northern hemisphere because of Moslems.


  11. Teddy Bear says:

    To try and counter Mosey’s recent statements the BBC must have asked ex-BBC Martin Bell to write something in the Telegraph. He admits all the things that are common knowledge, like the various scandals , the pay-offs, etc, but can’t see anything biased about it. He also tells us that Hall is just the right man to do something about it.

    A sense of entitlement at the top has damaged the BBC
    To restore lost trust, the BBC needs a dose of austerity, argues Martin Bell


    • Guest Who says:

      Man’s a fool.
      He seems to think treating the BBC like an American soap teenager and grounding her without her allowance for a week is going to make her behave, while her bedroom window appears to have an escalator open to every ex-Labourite on her iPhone list to pop up for a quickie and walk off with the family cookie jar.


  12. Philip says:

    There are some great comments here.

    I suspect the BBC has a serious ‘bipolar’ disorder i.e. claims to be the victim whilst robbing the taxpayer of 3bn a year (whilst claims to represent England are clearly false).

    Much as I may admire Tony Hall (new BBC DG) he cannot turn around the BBC juggernaut on his own (nor will he be allowed to do so, after all he is just another Labour man, in common with all the other DG’s since John Birt (1976) who himself ‘redefined’ the BBC to it’s current role as political modernists (for that is how they see themselves, as a dynamic superior elite of news shapers (not simply Newspaper reporters). News shapers.

    The current BBC sexual ‘bipolar’ disorder which stretches way back to the start of the BBC itself (the building of the BBC London HQ is not without Eric Gill inspirations (of the subtle covert pedophile) and the entire cohort of former (BBC Radio 1 DJ’s have either been arrested (or are under suspicion) – notably Chris Denning, former Controller of Radio 1 who was convicted in 2008 and extradited back Slovakia for sexual abuse (and rearrested in 2013 under operation Yewtree) is a disturbing example of public ‘trust’ misplaced in 1970’s BBC TV and Radio.

    Yes they may have infected (or influenced) Westminster MP’s in recent times, you only have to consider who was the deputy speaker of the House of Commons (or even the Speaker himself) to know how influential the BBC has become.

    I have not mentioned the million pound pay offs for ex BBC executives either.

    Given the BBC (expected in 2016) austerity ‘haircut’ is not enough. The BBC should not ask for a license fee at all. It should be partly privatised (as is Top Gear and many other BBC ‘fringe’ activities such as all BBC magazines and merchandise ‘sold’ or sponsored ‘on-air’ is factual ‘advertising’ and ‘sponsoring’, often sold or ‘licensed’ back to the BBC trust fund). It is political lobbying by decree.

    What are the chances that the License fee in 2016 will be banned, I wonder?


    • John Anderson says:

      A year or two ago I would have put the odds for stopping or sharply cutting the BBC licence tax at 10 to 1 against, in spite of all the valid arguments for a change to subscription / encryption.. There appeared to be too much inertia through a mixture of squishy sentimetal public opinion about the BBC, and a spineless Tory Party.

      But in the past year or so I think the public mood has changed. I would reckon it is now about 2 to one against a really radical change – because the Tory Party is still spineless, or is talking of marginal changes at best. But public opinion has veered strongly against the BBC – sexual and spending scandals, the endless repeats and lack of worthwhile programming, etc. Plus I think there is a growing awareness of the leftie bias, and the harshly regressive nature of the BBC tax..

      When the debate on the tax starts in earnest next year and through to 2016, I think we could have a sea-change in the pressure for abolishing the licence tax. You can bank on the BBC continuing to provide crap programming, the squeeze on people’s incomes is continuing, and at least UKIP plus some newspapers will be speaking loudly for radical change. Also, this time round the case for moving to subscription is techically stronger – it was probably too early last time round.


  13. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    Nobody seems to have picked up the points I made when commenting on Mosey’s Times article last week (the day before this thread was started).


    1. He attributes the ‘language of diversity’ to the BBC Trust, the only time that the Trust is mentioned in his article. Reading between the lines, Mosey appears to be trying to shift the blame for their PC agenda to the BBC Trust, rather than admitting it is a long-standing aim of the bBBC’s senior staff to use their tax-funded platform to indoctrinate us.
    2. Mosey’s contorted explanation for why they’re all left-wingers. Because the BBC has around 70% of news consumption, on TV and radio, he says (contrary to their impartiality Charter, of course) that it has to have a consistent ‘editorial voice‘. This means that the editorial content has to be coordinated (he used to do that job himself), so there has to be a ‘shared understanding about stories within a framework of editorial guidelines‘. But apparently he and his colleagues could only trust fellow-travellers to follow that ‘shared understanding’ and so they only worked with like-minded lefties.
    To me, this sounds like a weak excuse for employing only left-wingers. If they followed their Charter and broadcast material impartially, they could allow staff of any background and political leaning. But because they chose to ignore their Charter and spout only a left-wing ‘editorial voice’, they couldn’t trust anyone but fellow-lefties to do it.


  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    He suggested that while the BBC’s stance of co-ordinating its editorial content across the organisation was a good thing, it can ‘lead to homogeneity’ and conformity.


    So they do after all, eh? If things like 28-Gate and Mark Thompson’s admission about laying off Islam aren’t enough, the reason for this blog’s existence has been proven now. Time for all defenders of the indefensible to retire, and for James McIntyre, former Newsnight producer, to apologize for lying that they don’t do this.

    It’s a good thing “John Reith” and Nicked Emus and Jim Dandy and other journalists aren’t around any more.