Paxman has once again been rampaging around the country on his obsessive hobby horse making highly political comments about Tory ministers…and calling Cameron an idiot because Paxman thinks commemorating WWI is somehow the same as celebrating it.

Jeremy Paxman reopens war of words with Michael Gove over the WW1 centenary: ‘A charlatan’ who scores ‘cheap political points’

Can’t quite see how the BBC can continue to use Paxman as a political interviewer when he is so openly antagonistic towards the Tories…or indeed politics as a whole.  His comments during and after the Brand interview/farce should have immediately brought to the attention of the BBC hierarchy that Paxman is past it, jaded and unable to maintain a professional front.

Could he be shunted permanently sideways into the graveyard for past-it interviewers, making history programmes, like Andrew Marr?

Andrew Marr’s grasp of history is pretty shaky and prone to a leftwing take or revision of it…but judging by Paxman’s reading of Cameron’s speech on the WWI commemorations historical accuracy and honest analysis doesn’t seem to be one of his strong points either as we’ve pointed out before:

Going Over The Top

and noted in 2012 as well….

Jeremy Paxman on Gordon of Khartoum: so laughably inaccurate that I thought I must be hearing things

By coincidence John Humphrys piped up recently about BBC pro-EU bias (A coincidence that the next day the BBC began its defense of the license fee? Can’t help thinking Humphrys was prodded into saying this and to say the usual ‘We were biased but you know what…its all right now.’)

Craig at ‘Is the BBC biased’ has done an excellent job transcribing John Humphrys’ defense of his comments on Feedback where Roger Bolton isn’t impressed……

Roger Bolton: There is a question mark about whether you should say it publicly at this time, because…

John Humphrys: Why not? Public money!

Roger Bolton: Well, some people would say, one, because there’s a campaign going against the BBC and, therefore, you’re aiding its enemies.

So no one should criticise the BBC?  Those that do are ‘enemies’ however justified the criticism?

Then we get to a bit that is relevant to Paxman and his political outbursts…..

Roger Bolton:  The point I’m making, John, and it is difficult for all presenters. If they express themselves forcibly on a matter of public contention and debate when they come to chair something in which they’re required to be seen as objective they are compromised. 

John Humphrys: Well, on some issues you’d be absolutely right. I don’t, for instance, conduct interviews on assisted dying, which is a hugely contentious area, and I’ve written a book about it, and I have views about it, and I told the BBC I was writing the book and they said ‘Fine!’ and I agreed without hesitation. I suggested that I shouldn’t do interviews on it, and of course I don’t. So, the BBC is different. We are ALL the BBC.

If Humphrys is required to refrain from doing certain interviews upon subjects which he has publicly expressed strong views then shouldn’t the same requirement be made for Paxman?…and looking at his views on politics in general that would surely count him out of doing any political interview as he would clearly be basing the interview on his own jaundiced views.

Paxman is compromised right up to the hilt.

Finally a last word from Humphrys which is just a confirmation of what we all know….who gets invited for an interview onto the BBC is critical…..which is why programmes like Today pack the airwaves with musicians, artists, poets and writers because they know they will almost certainly have a leftwing take on events and will be suitably critical of people like George Bush or pro-climate change……and the presenters never seem to forget to ask them…‘By the way…any thoughts on Iraq/welfare/education?’……

Roger Bolton: Has anyone ever told you to go soft on the subject of Europe?

John Humphrys: Nope. But that doesn’t prove the point, Roger, because I don’t edit the programmes. I don’t decide who gets interviewed. And that is crucial to it.

Of course that isn’t the end of things…the presenters are indeed all too often of a likemind with their guests…..

As evidence by this recent bit of smearing by association spotted by ‘Is the BBC biased’:

What’s your advice, in the European countries, to the mainstream parties who see parties on the far-right with populist appeal of one kind – bashing immigrants or bashing European institutions? How should they behave? How should David Cameron, in this country, behave to UKIP?

‘Bashing immigrants‘…of course he means merely being critical of immigration doesn’t he?

And linking UKIP, once again, to the ‘Far Right’….the BBC et al were quick to denounce people who reminded us that Hitler was a socialist….and Labour are socialists.  Didn’t like that link for some reason.

Labour ‘One Nation Socialists’...National Socialists?

You can’t keep a good man down, but it seems ex BBC climate change activist, Richard Black, has slipped off to pastures new…and unknown?

He was Director of Communications at the Global Ocean Commission but hasn’t tweeted since December 17 and that position looks to have been filled now by a ‘Justin Woolford’.

Justin Woolford, Director of Communications

Justin joined the Commission in January 2014 bringing extensive experience in communications and campaigning to the Secretariat. He runs The Change Co., a consultancy supporting social and environmental change communications, and has previously run major international projects for WWF and The Co-operative, together with various civil society and private sector partners.

Let’s remember exactly why Black was so good at his job….more activist than journalist:

The BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Richard Black, gave this BBC College of Journalism presentation on impartiality and reporting climate change. He was speaking in the wake of the BBC Trust Report by Prof Steve Jones on science reporting and impartiality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gto8VTGhtZs

Tony Hall clearly has no control over the direction of travel the BBC takes politically….how can he claim impartiality is in the BBC’s DNA when it’s prime time current affairs programmes are stuffed full of people with quite obvious leftwing tendencies?

Guido reveals that Newsnight has, unbelievably?, hired a Labour stooge as its economics editor:

Newsnight Hire Pro-Labour TUC Wonk as Economics Editor

TUC’s senior economist Duncan Weldon has been hired as Flanders replacement. Weldon is a former Labour Party staffer who has blogged for the Fabian Society, Left Foot Forward and written a series of posts praising Labour politicians and attacking the Tories on LabourList. If that were not enough he also writes regularly for Owen Jones’ launched and Unite-funded CLASS think tank. Guido looks forward to his fair and balanced reporting…

BBC sources say that it would be unfair to blame the former Guardian deputy-editor Ian Katz who is now Newsnight’s editor for the hire as James Harding (ex-Times editor) signs off the hires. Katz seems sensitive to complaints about the politics of Newsnight:

@MediaGuido Excellent work!…thought it would take you longer to expose whole conspiracy—
Ian Katz (@iankatz1000) March 14, 2014

 

The BBC is the major news source for the majority of people in this country and therefore holds a particularly powerful and influential position…..and therefore should be held all the more rigorously to its charter and legal obligations to be impartial.

That clearly isn’t happening.

There is hardly a day go by without a Union representative, a Charity worker or a Labour politician being given airtime for some grievance against the government which then dominates the news agenda for that day, managing to paint a picture of destitution and ruination spreading across the nation despite an economy on the up, employment rising and inflation falling.

What to do with a dishonest BBC?  Keep sacking the DGs until they get a grip (unlikely with the hopelessly untrustworthy BBC Trust in charge)…or take them to court….after all it is a legal obligation to be impartial not merely a nice to have thing that can be disregarded if it doesn’t suit.

First Bob Crow, now Tony Benn. It’s been a tough week for the comrades at the BBC. The floor is yours…

Nick Robinson has a present for Ed Balls

Nice bit of a puff for Balls….nothing too rigorous from Robinson….just enough to allow Balls to paint the pretty pictures:

Ed Balls ‘daunted’ by chancellor task

Ed Balls has told me that he is “daunted” at the prospect of becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, given the scale of cuts a future Labour government may have to make.

“I’m daunted, because it’s going to be such a task with the deficit we’ll inherit.”

“I think David Cameron and George Osborne look so out of touch – they don’t understand what’s going on in Britain. I do. We do. We’ve been there and in the future we’ll sort things out for people.”

Nothing like an easy going journalist in the camp to make getting your message across so much easier.

The BBC were fast to keep hyping Miliband’s energy price freeze…..not so quick to report something that may well provoke a furious reaction from consumers…especially as the blame can be laid squarely at Miliband’s door….the man who impoverished us while subsidising his mates in the green industries.

The Telegraph reports this from ‘Which’:

Energy bills may rise by £600 a year

Cost of building power stations, replacing grids and erecting wind farms will add £640 a year to household bills, Which? consumer group warns Treasury

Meanwhile the BBC chooses to ignore that and report this from ‘Which’:

Energy bills ‘still confusing’, says Which?

The BBC once again laying into Big Business and hiding stuff that doesn’t play to the green agenda.

Biased BBC likes not just to amuse and amaze occasionally but also aims to inspire its readers….so if you’re starting to feel you’ve spent too much time couch potatoing here’s something to either scare the hell out of you or get you moving….if only to the fridge for another beer…..

and one more just because…..enjoy…

The BBC is quick to air grievances expressed about groups lobbying politicians…say the food industry or energy companies…but it seems they aren’t immune to a bit of arm twisting as they go nuclear to defend their gravy train license fee…..as Douglas Carswell points out in The Empire Strikes Back:

The magnificent Andrew Bridgen MP has tabled an amendment to the Deregulation Bill to make non-payment of the BBC license fee a civil, rather than a criminal offence. And quite right, too.

Now the £3.6 billion a year BBC empire has struck back.

In an unintentionally funny “briefing note” sent to naughty MPs minded to back the amendment, the BBC complains that “the BBC cannot turn off services for those who do not pay the licence fee”.

A ‘briefing note’ to MPs?

Perhaps, just like Prince Charle’s letters as demanded by the Guardian, we should be allowed to see all BBC ‘briefing notes’ to politicians….independent?  My backside.

Did you know that Miliband was going to hold a referendum on Europe?

If not you can’t have been listening to the BBC who trumpeted this apparent fact all day yesterday.

There does seem to be some confusion even amongst BBC journos about the meaning of Miliband’s little pledge.

John Pienaar, surprisingly perhaps,  drew a deep breath and actually criticised Miliband, saying that the….

‘Ed Miliband promise is extraordinarily tangled and is not meant to mean what it seems to mean’.

He later went on to say that Miliband’s plan was ‘incoherent’.

Contrast that with Nick Robinson who seems to lean ever more Labourwards these days:

Labour and Europe – is that clear now?

Robinson tells us that the message Miliband wants to get over is:

A message of reassurance to big business that a future Labour government will, unlike the Tories, not put Britain’s EU membership at risk.

At the same time, a message of reassurance to the wider electorate that no further powers will be given to Brussels without them getting a say in a referendum.

Is it though? That all sounds a bit pat and thought out.  Isn’t the message purely one that Miliband wants to stay in Europe and has taken it upon himself to make that decision….by himself….dodging the inconvenient problem of allowing the ‘People’ to have their democratic say on this weighty matter.

Miliband wants his cake and to eat it….stay in Europe but also give the diminishing hope of that long promised referendum that so many people want…..and thereby maybe win over a few gullible voters.

Robinson tells us that:

The result is nuanced and will be torn into by the Tories and their friends in the press who will claim there is now a simple choice between those who will guarantee you an in/out vote and those who won’t.

‘Nuanced’?  No it’s not, its quite clear as said….Miliband, the millionaire elitist, has decided the people get no vote.

As for the ‘Tories and their friends in the press’ comment…guess we know where Robinson is coming from here…..the tone of that suggesting any criticism of Miliband is ill-founded based on political prejudice rather than the fact Miliband has made a huge error….as Labour man Dan Hodges [Tory friend in the Press?] admits:

Ed Miliband hasn’t shown strength over Europe. He’s lost control of the narrative

Yesterday, watching Ed Miliband’s shambolic Euro referendum announcement, it finally occurred to me. Labour has no narrative. Or rather, it has no coherent narrative. And the elements of a narrative it does have bear absolutely no relation to reality.

Labour has no clarity of vision. That’s why there’s no settled narrative. There’s nothing to build a narrative around.

“We’re still just casting about,” one Labour MP fold me yesterday. “Cost of Living’s been tried and dumped. The Squeezed Middle’s been tried and dumped. Watch. There’s going to be a bit on child care and a bit on housing and then he’s going to run back to health. And when the Labour leader circles the wagons around the NHS you know the game’s up.”

Robinson was clearly reading the runes wrong and then he rounds off with this:

[Miliband] will invite voters to choose between a government led by David Cameron which he’ll claim would be obsessed with Europe and riven by splits over it and one led by him which would focus on what most people care about more – the economy, living standards and the NHS.

Odd how any BBC analysis always manages slip in critical comments about the Tories (obsessed with Europe…riven by splits) whilst Labour is associated with the good stuff….NHS, building the economy (ha ha ha) and living standards.

‘A 2009 poll by Gallup found that British Muslims have zero tolerance towards homosexuality. “None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable,” the Guardian reported in May that year.’  Mehdi Hasan

Dan Hodges in the Telegraph asks:

Why did the BBC censor a debate about gay Muslims?

The programme was conducting a live debate last night in the Birmingham Mosque, in which people are invited to submit video clips on various current affairs issues, which are then debated by an invited panel.

One of the questions was from Asifa Lahore, who self-describes as “Britain’s first and only gay Muslim drag queen”. The question Asifa wanted answered was: “When will it be accepted to be Muslim and gay?”

The question was shown, and then just as the panel appeared to be preparing to debate the issue, the BBC presenter Rick Edwards announced, “We were going to debate that question but today after speaking to the mosque they have expressed deep concerns with having this discussion here… so we’ll move on to our next question.”

The program is called “Free Speech”. Its website boasts that “Britain is a democracy where we can say what we want. So let’s say it”.

Let’s say it? Let’s say it unless you’re a gay Muslim appearing on the BBC.

Dan Hodges obviously never watches the BBC  [As indicated by this article: The BBC isn’t anti-Tory. It’s anti-government] as he finishes with this:

It’s not the BBC’s job to pander to censorship or prejudice. The corporation has some serious explaining to do.

And as Raheem Kassam noted:

No one batted an eye-lid. Even amongst the predominantly ‘liberal left’ panel, no one said a word. Not the Liberal Democrat peer, not the Huffington Post editor, not the left-wing comedian, and not even the transgender rights activist.

All appeasers and apologists….the old cultural cringe….or as ‘Jim Watford’ says in the comments to Kassam’s article: