I wonder how many of you had the misfortune to listen to the TODAY programme on the BBC this morning? It had PJ Harvey as its guest editor and we are treated to reams of anti-arms trade, pro UN waffle, with Joan Baez even getting a song played in the peak 8-8.30am slot. It was the MOST unlistenable edition I have heard in ages but I am sure BBC comrades will have nodded in agreement with the leftist dross served up by Harvey.
MOST BIASED “TODAY” EVER?
Bookmark the permalink.
Sorry David, I tuned in towards the end of a total lefty rant from John Pilger and that was followed by the promise of poetry to come from Rowan Williams, at which point I exercised the right of a free man to turn the thing off.
Rowan Williams is a sweet, decent and intelligent man but the idea of him reading his poetry on Today sounds like a sketch from The Secret World (or for older readers Spitting Image). Bless.
Rowan Williams may be sweet, decent and intelligent, but he is also a deluded lefty with no apparent ability to observe political reality.
Beeboids are setting an even more politically biased leftist tone for 2014; they know that D.G. Tony HALL gives his tacit approval to this way of spending our licence tax.
What a miserable programme to wake up to. I thought John Pilger had sunk without trace some time ago?
Next can we have,say, Mark Steyn as a guest editor – purely for balance, you understand.
Don’t worry, I won’t be holding my breath.
Surely, to achieve balance they would have to get Kevin Alistair Bryan to guest edit -at least
BBC-ASSANGE: assume god-like power to spend our money on politically dictating what we should think.
‘Telegraph’ (£):
“BBC Radio 4 Today criticised for ‘left-wing tosh’ chosen by guest editor PJ Harvey.
“Listeners flood Twitter with complaints over award-winning musician’s selection of contributors for special edition of flagship radio programme, including Julian Assange and John Pilger.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10546604/BBC-Radio-4-Today-criticised-for-left-wing-tosh-chosen-by-guest-editor-PJ-Harvey.html
It WAS utter tosh. I couldn’t believe my ears. Classic FM to the rescue.
Who on earth is P J Harvey? I maintain that celebrity in music, does not give you any right ( i.e,. more than any other citizen) to vent a rather naive personal view of the world in the guise of a news programme. The content was not so much biased as lacking complete objectivity, though John Humphrys’s pre recorded interview gave a good account of himself in tackling the odious ambulance chasing lawyer. Please no more of this, especially the music, even as a gimmick.
I listened to this bore-athon for its final 40/45 minutes. The solemn introductions to the various agit-prop items by Mishal and Sarah were redolent of Radio Pyongyang at its exciting best. Moreover, Humphrys was muted and respectful as he “interrogated” Phil Shiner and his friend from the Guardian (Ian Cobain) while they trashed the reputation of the British army – and Britain generally – unchallenged except for an occasional “but the Ministry of Defence says” from Humphrys which Shiner and friend dealt with without further challenge by Humphrys.
We did learn from Phil (or Ian) though that suitable “training” of interrogators would remove the necessity for over-robust questioning and elicit the required information thereby. It’s a pity that Humphrys and Co. won’t be required to undertake such “training”. They need it, although “over-robust” questioning of the enemies of this country is not a crime that any of the regular staff on Today, or the BBC generally for that matter, are guilty.
Later, Assange’s claim to the throne of Global Truthspeaker to Power was the expected self-regarding rubbish but I think we were all moved by the poem from Shaker Aamah – the last “Briton” in Gitmo (actually a Saudi Arabian – with a technically British wife – arrested in Afghanistan while doing “charity work”). In all, the usual lefty bien pensant fare from Today although issued under the P J Harvey imprimature.
This was followed by the “news”, the first and main item of which was the report of protest concerning the rise in rail fares which took some annual charges over the £5,000 mark. We only were told later that the rise (although admittedly unwelcome) was the lowest for years and was in line – or lower – than inflation. Thus 2014 continues the BBC tradition of partiality and biased provision of information.
Agree with everything apart from what you have said about rail fares. You can’t live or work in London as otherwise you wouldn’t make that comment
I live and work in London. Fortunately I’m not a commuter and my office is a short bus/tube journey from home. However, I did not want to underplay the fare rises. My point was that if we’re talking about news ie the relaying of information rather than propaganda ie editorialising to make a political statement, an organisation devoted to impartiality would have informed us first that fares have gone up (as usual); second that the increases are not as large as in recent years and then third the reaction to the news (both negative and – possibly – positive).
Instead of an attempt to relay information as neutrally as possible, the BBC chose to lead on the protests despite, as I originally wrote, the lower than inflation rises. IMHO, the “news” is that the rises were lower than usual although, as you imply, they’re still unwelcome. Whatever, the main “news” is not the reaction, it’s the rises themselves.
Paul Mason, the former BBC2 Newsnight economics editor who now works for Channel 4 News, was impressed by the different slant on the Radio 4 morning fixture.
He wrote: “Brilliant @PJHarveyUK edition of @BBCr4today demonstrating difference between ‘truth’ and ‘editorial policy’ – amazing how weird it feels.”
It was sarcasm.
BBC News Deployments Editor (?) Jonathan Paterson used a tired cliche to describe what he imagined was the reaction to this morning’s Today programme by that dumb mass of people known as Middle England:
Take that, stupid Middle England. If only you were more like the metropolitan sophisticates at the BBC such as journalist Andy Dangerfield who loved it:
And BBC News Magazine’s Jon Kelly was giddy:
The Today programme’s business reporter asked what listeners thought of the business segment on this morning’s show:
‘That sound? Middle England spluttering on it’s cornflakes.’
At least he didn’t post that here, or its possible there would have been trouble from the also still dry-spelled home team too.
Wouldn’t there?
coming from someone who is born and bred middle class
Doesn’t admit to that, mind.
What he does say is this:
‘BBC News, World News Deployments Editor. Mostly the day job, occasional culture, and misc. Views? Mine. Yours. Not the BBC’s
But he does speak for you, the nation. But not the BBC.
Apparently.
Great work as usual, DB. More for the list, which is just moving from strength to strength. Wish I could figure out a way to properly publicize it.
You’ve just reminded me of this tweet from 2011 by young lefty BBC hack Jane Bradley (already promoted to senior broadcast journalist – having the correct politics opens doors at the Beeb) :
One trusts she was happy enough with two out of three on this morning’s Today.
LOL. That one’s already on the list. But proof of what we say.
Oh brave and fearless PJ!
The revolution begins here in North Dorset and the hotbed that is the Somerset Levels( we`re going back to Civil War days up to Tolpuddle….but PJ sees herself like this).
Private school was it dear?…and has Lord William Bragg of Burton Bradstock been whispering sedition(i.e…ring fence Letwins car park space on Tolpuddle day)into her shell-like sculpture piece, made of locally sourced Portland Stone?
Ah me-the Good Rebellion-from West Bay to Regents Circus via North Dorset and Grayson Perrys favourite dress shop.
If this is the BBCs call to arms, all it does is make us listen more closely to the muezzin on Mile End Road….THAT is where we need to pay heed.
The BBC only leech our minds, take our money and deflect and distract…Islam .to be fair, isn`t so easily bribed as PJ and her muses.
the best bit was where the speaker on north korea segued the beloved leader’s attitude to his late uncle into an attack on british attitudes to immigration. the segue was rather awkward , and felt more like a pointed 90 degree turn.
Rubbish. They know it was rubbish and ,like annoying children, only do it to upset the grown ups.
The BBC is not going to have a good year.
As Lou reed “sang” in his “Last Great American Whale”…and boy, was I a muppet for giving it houseroom as a local Green Party Spokesman…”they throw battery acid in the lake…and then complain that they can`t swim in it”.
Hardly poetry-even in my vague recollection of the “lyric”/rant-but …hey…Lour Reed said it.
QED!
The BBC do this kind of thing because they can – it really is as simple as that. Who’s going to stop them?
It will be interesting to see if they really intend to fulfil the spirit of their Charter requiring impartiality and hand over the programme next time to a suitably rightwing ‘celeb’ with all the same freedoms from censorship that Ms Harvey apparently enjoyed.
What are the chances?
No ‘celeb’ in their right mind would go on Today and be ‘right-wing’ these days. It would be the end of their career and the start of years of abuse from BBC comedians, dramatist and other propagandists. Why wreck a career just to edit a programme that would be sabotaged internally anyway?
‘the end of their career and the start of years of abuse from BBC’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
“a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives.”
Ah, I see.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10546604/BBC-Radio-4-Today-criticised-for-left-wing-tosh-chosen-by-guest-editor-PJ-Harvey.html
“This is what being run by lefties would be like. I like it.””
Especially when still uniquely funded by those who may feel less inspired?
I don’t know, Jeremy Clarkson is behind the BBC’s most lucrative programme and he’s considered right wing. He regularly gets celebs to come on and chat. Maybe it just needs some pop celebs to come ‘out’ as right wing. Certainly if tax avoidance is a criteria (and who can blame them!) there are several candidates.
Look at the abuse he gets from his colleagues at the BBC; every time he says anything remotely right-wing, even in jest, he is castigated for it.
Clarkson is only tolerated for two reasons. Whenever anyone says there is no one right wing on the BBC they can point to him and, secondly, Top Gear earns the BBC bucket loads of cash to spend on jollies around the world.
Clearly it generated discourse which means that the 109% record of “getting it about right” is preserved.
This was a now low, even by the appalling standards of bias that are recorded daily on this website. I also heard part of a left-wing rant by Prof Joseph Stiglitz on the World Service over the weekend; the presenter was clearly of awe of Stiglitz who he described in glittering terms. There was no effort made to challenge the highly questionable views put forward by Stiglitz, while the invited audience seemed to be all cheer leaders too.
The BBC is under the control of not just the left, but the extreme left, and I think they are testing the water to see how far they can go.
what i cant understand about the likes of pj harvey and russelll brand is when they become media luvvies and mega rich they all turn into raving lefties and socalists who want to be anti establishment,there is a guy on radio 5 live called mark kermode who does the film review with simon mayo on fridays who admits he is a great fan of fidel casto and a proud marxist,i have a theory why these people turn into counter revolutinarys when they become famous,it is all about rebelling against there middle class and privileged backgrounds,they think by with taking up all types of left wing causes they are seen as hip and trendy at the bbc and other media outlets,russell brand is a great example of that,these people are just a laughing stock who was born with a silver spoon in there mouths and dont have a clue about the struggles of the working classes but for some strange reason they think they represent us,well you dont.simple as that.
My theory, born from having to spend a lot of time with these wankers, is that they are the also-rans of private education. They are the kids who arrive from a prep school believing themselves to be the biggest and best of the whole widey world – just cause Mummsy (or rather Nanny) told them so. They get to ‘big-school’ and suddenly find out there are people richer and more popular than them. This turns them into bitter little Normans and, to cope, they become ‘lefties’ on the grounds that ‘they don’t want to be popular anyway. So there!’
In time they club together and do what all Normans do. They ensure that they and theirs get on – at the expense of the rest of us.
The aptly name Kermode ( a toilet disguised as a chair for Muppets ) is just another disappointed rich kid with an over-weaning ego. He cares nothing for the working class, especially the Anglo-Saxons, and is only interested in his own ‘success’.
Yes Kermode like his namesake is usually full of s**t. His reviews normally focus/gushes on the sort of tripe you would even struggle to find in the bargain bins at Poundland!
They also want to identify with their fan base and not seem out of touch. But, sometimes they are genuinely altruistic, and I think they are just young and idealistic. It’s the media that likes to reduce politics to a celebrity circus.
They can be anything they like on their own time. The problems start when they wrongly believe that they are entitled to foist that opinion on everybody else.
The BBC has been soundly destroyed by these people.
PJ Harvey would occasionally come to a bar I worked in – years ago. She was a miserable hippie bitch then, obviously a miserable commie bitch now.
I still maintain it was so unintentionally hilarious it set back the revolution by many, many years. The ticky-tock ending was genuinely funnier than anything BBC comedy have commissioned in years.
“Today programme edited by singer PJ Harvey is slammed by listeners, MPs and even the BBC’s own staff over juvenile, unedited, left-wing rants.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532552/Radio-4-Today-programme-guest-editor-PJ-Harvey-praises-courageous-WikiLeaks-fugitive-Julian-Assange-reads-Thought-Day-Ecuador-Embassy-bolt-hole.html
Going bang according to plan, then.
There won’t be a tissue box to be found around certain parts of London or Salford.
Though as consequences of reactions from the rest of the UK seep through at this latest unidirectional envelope push, there may be some heads a bit less giddy.
There are still a few reviews and inquiries not yet concluded.
Well, that’s alright, then. Instead of extreme Left views, it’ll be back to the normal straightforward Left-wing approach. How many BBC staff felt uncomfortable on principle, and how many felt liberated? I bet the answer won’t be balanced. By the way, have any other celebrity guest editors been given the same free hand?
The BBC’s defense was that they also had a banker this week. Was his edition full-on Right-wing, conservative, free-market rants? No. As usual, the BBC’s claim of balance because they get complaints from both sides is a sham.
As Evan Davis revealed to DB the other day regarding Mandelapalooza, these incidents (and tweets from Beeboids Jonathan Paterson and Andy Dangerfield about it) just prove that complaints about this ideological stuff makes them hold the public in more contempt than ever.
In the interest of balance, do you think the BBC will give Frederick Forsyth a free hand as editor of the day….
What’s that, the sound of bien-pensant pseudo intellectual wankers spluttering into their organic soya lattes?
Didn’t he do it one time?
No, he was allowed to do a few ‘essays’ on the air – counter balanced by Will Self. Unfortunately the BBC couldn’t abide anything so right wing and he was taken off air
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/apr/21/bbc.books
The BBC can stomach raving leftist fellow travelling (and yesterdays’ bilge really had it all from IRA ‘victims” through to Assange) but will not give someone with robust Euro-sceptic or libertarian views the same platform…..
” For the BBC to give airtime to such a grubby man is both cringe making and unpatriotic”
By STEPHEN GLOVER.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532455/STEPHEN-GLOVER-For-BBC-airtime-grubby-man-cringe-making-unpatriotic.html#ixzz2pFj4PiPd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
“‘Worst Today programme ever’ BBC Radio 4 show slammed for rants and Assange guest spot”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/451637/Worst-Today-programme-ever-BBC-Radio-4-show-slammed-for-rants-and-Assange-guest-spot
By way of balance I understand that the BBC will be inviting right winger, Billy Bragg, as guest presenter soon?
BBC-NUJ’s ‘Today’ Politburo will NOT give over editorial control to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer next week, who both oppose the Islamic jihadists of Guantanamo.
The BBC reaction will be quite predictable – all criticism will be ignored as the spittle flecked rantings of the right wing loons and all praise will justify their brave decision to put out such a show.
Maybe not. It seems some are ‘uncomfy’ and insisting on ‘balance’, albeit at another time, as that’s how best to frame debate, with as much separation of all involved as possible.
“The main presenters Sarah Montague and Mishal Husain at times sounded unconformable with the content of the programme, and insisted balanced views would be broadcast tomorrow”
It will be interesting to see in what form this ‘balance’ tomorrow gets manifested.
Maybe a special dedicated to Leo Hickman interviewing the Icetanic 52 survivors on what their ordeal tells us about what lies in store for humanity? And then a report on the early military careers of a few notable oldies form, say, South Africa & Israel?
That kind of balance. BBC style.
Isn’t this discomfort more from the sense that giving over the programme to blatant left-wing extremist propaganda may begin to call into question even the more subtle day-in-day out leftist bias, than from any genuine concern for impartiality?
That must be part of it, anyhow.
The poetry readings reminded me of Hancock Half Hour’s The Poetry Society episode…
“Hick, Hack, Hock!
Rinky-tinkey on purple grass,
Shafts of light – hobnailed boots,
Tramping down the bamboo that grows,
Upwards, downwards, sideways into the concrete cosmos,
Life is mauve, I am orange
Hick, Hack, Hoc!”
“Steel rods of reason through my head!
Salmon jumping, where jump I?
Camels on fire – and spotted clouds,
Striped horses prance the meadow wild,
And rush on to drink at life’s fountains deep,
Life is cream, I am puce…
Ching, Chang, Cholla!”
That is brilliant!
I’m fairly certain that is a verbatim transcript of today’s poetic offerin.
‘TODAY’ should give over uncensored editorial control for a three hour programme putting the case for BBC to be provided as SUBSCRIPTION ONLY.
We’ve had enough of our money being spent on this self-serving propaganda-
“BBC rejects subscription fee calls”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25576289?
Couldn’t help but note this story on the same page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25572390
‘Exceptional weather’ with rain, wind and high tides to hit UK
Rain and wind, in winter.. in the UK? Unheard of.
As to high tides, I’d always thought that was more a moon-based and predictable phenomenon.
i am sure the communist president of north korea will be sending an invite to pj harvey to perform at his splendid palace very soon
balanced views would be broadcast tomorrow”
Nick Griffin on?
The Guardian is running a poll (with helpful signposting article) on this season’s best guest Today editor.
Harvey is winning easily, of course – twice as many votes as everybody else combined. I really hope the Guardian-reading idiots at the BBC look at this and think “Hey, this is the way to go! REALLY pissing off those dumb fuckers in Middle England is clearly what the licence payers want!”
Guardian-BBC: the mutual admiration propagandist society.
That being the case I’m sure they would be happy to maintain it by subscription
Oddly, they may not be getting a vote from this chap:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100252541/please-bbc-radio-4-can-we-drop-the-today-programme-guest-editors-thing/
Given his background, this may be a concern.
David Vance,
“It was the MOST unlistenable edition I have heard in ages…”
OH MY GOD, David Vance and his obedient well trained monkeys on B-BBC heard some opinions on the radio WHICH THEY DIDN’T AGREE WITH! These opinions really should not be allowed because David Vance (1,856 votes) and his obedient well trained menagerie of proud racists, white supremacists and violent sociopaths didn’t like them. No further argument necessary.
OH MY GOD, Sarah Monatgue and Mishal Husein make dez look like an idiot. No further argument necessary.
David Preiser,
“OH MY GOD, Sarah Monatgue and Mishal Husein make dez look like an idiot.”
Really David? Then perhaps you can quote something Monatgue or Husein actually said instead of a second-hand interpretation of what they said by the “completely-disinterested-and-un-biased” Daily Mail?
Go on David, surely you know what you are talking about; don’t you?
Why, yes, dez, yes I do. Your extremist ideology and uncontrolled anger has led you astray once again.
54:22
After some drivel from a former UN Human Rights mandarin, Sarah Montague spoke.
Mishal Husain quickly followed with:
And she wasn’t just talking about having so many music clips. Followed by giggles from both of them. I know you’re going to pretend you couldn’t possibly think of any inappropriate reason for their giggles. Personally, I’m sticking with my earlier assessment, that they feel exactly like Paul Mason does. I also kind of liked the change of having music clips and poetry, although I didn’t much care for most of her choices, and would have done something different.
1:38:50 Montague again:
This was followed by a piece of music: 57 Channels and Nothing On
Now, I’ll grant you this could simply have been a swipe at the Levtiathan that is the BBC. I mean, we all know they have way too many channels, much of it crap, repeats, or yet another version of a tired format. After that, we got John Pilger’s screed.
I won’t even bother to say anything about Montague’s nervous tone of voice or her stumbling over what amounted to an impromptu disclaimer, as we both know you’ll just pretend you didn’t hear anything.
After Pilger finished, we were assured that Today would have an alternative view tomorrow. Harvey wanted to do an entire show that was highly politicized, and all far on one side of the issues concerned. That’s why they had to throw in those disclaimers. In other words, they both knew, and the Today producers knew, that the programme was not balanced, and was way out of bounds.
See, although I can’t speak for everyone here, I can say that most of us want some balance, at least a fighting chance for both perspectives on issues. Most of the time, Today will have another segment later on in show, where one of the presenters gives someone else a chance to give the opposing view (or attack it, depending on, well, you know….) Or at least somebody will get asked a question, or two guests will discuss/debate something. Except for two segments (I think – if there was a third I missed it or forgot to note it), everything was a monologue, a speech, a screed. All on the far Left of each issue, and essentially all issues covered were Left-wing pets. There was nothing even remotely close to the kind of interesting discussion from other guest editors, never mind the usual fare. People’s reactions to today’s show are very revealing of their mindset, and what they really think of the BBC, balance, and impartiality, not to mention their stance on all the issues.
Of course, you don’t care. You don’t think anyone who doesn’t share your ideology can ever take a reasonable position on anything. So your refelxive anger made you decide I just went with whatever the Mail said, and hadn’t listened or wouldn’t bother checking. Even though I’ve posted tons of comments here listening and checking, you instinctively assumed that I couldn’t possibly have done so. What this shows is your own bizarre personal animosity and your extremist mindset preventing you from understanding – or admitting if you do – the difference between not wanting ever to hear something we don’t agree with, and having a viewpoint we do agree with being given half a chance in between platforms for the other side. It’s not about hearing something we didn’t agree with. That happens all the time. This was about hearing only highly politicized, Left-wing lectures.
If you think that’s good journalism, then you’ll fit right in with most Beeboids.
Even the editor of the Independent admitted that the programme skewed to the Left. If that’s not good enough for you, I don’t know what is. The reactions of people like Paul Mason, Jonathan Paterson, and Andy Dangerfield prove we’ve been right all along about them.
‘…extremist ideology and uncontrolled anger has led you astray once again.’
And he might have got away with it but for you kidding with those doggone facts ‘n stuff.
It has not been a good end to the last or start to the new year for our resident geniuses Pinky and the Brain.
Usually he and comical Albie just offer a drive-by and run, but rather foolishly so far seem keen to stick around and to cop their duff rounds ricocheting straight back. And a few extra incoming to follow given the target rich environment painted.
But it would be helpful if they issued rules of engagement of the day (they appear to vary a fair bit) too. Because it seems they’ve decided it’s again entirely OK for them to appear to comment (having agreed ‘smarts’ is the meme du jour. Worked out well, then), off topic and on person of course.
But now, things having gone a little South (maybe stuck in ice?)… radio silence. Maybe there’s a metaphor there?
Step away from the meths.
This is the ultimate proof of how terrible it was. Diane Abbott on Twitter: Really enjoyed @BBCr4today edited by PJ Harvey. She should do it every day.