Christopher Booker has a pretty sharp analysis here of the BBC cadre..
“When Jeremy Paxman joins the growing chorus of those who criticise the way the BBC has become a “smug”, dysfunctional, over-blown bureaucracy, run by overpaid unaccountable apparatchiks, one might think that they are describing the European Union, which is doubtless why the BBC loves it. We are familiar with the main reasons why the BBC, for all that it continues here and there to make much-appreciated contributions to our lives, has come to inspire such hostility (“loathsome” was Paxman’s word for it)”
Another worthy quote:
“On pretty well every issue of the day, the BBC has its “party line”, dictating what can and cannot be said, who it invites on and who it excludes”
Of course, BBC market rate talents or spokesdroids, or spokesdroids speaking for market rate talents, say this is not the case. Their evidence for this being… it is so because they say so.
Efforts to delve into such claims are, of course, by default resisted.
It must be nice to control the edit, and hence the narrative.
But propaganda backed by censorship has poor historical precedent.
Yes, and the Beeboids’ politically leftist tendency for ‘group-think’ on all key issues mentioned by Christopher Booker is getting worse; as is their tendency to censor out alternative views, and even words, which do not fit the political agenda. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC)- 57 nations’ Islamic bloc in U.N General Assembly – has a similar global strategy, e.g.-
“OIC blames free speech for “Islamophobia” in the West”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/12/oic-blames-free-speech-for-islamophobia-in-the-west
The Party Line list must be the reason nobody is ever sacked by the BBC. They don’t want disgruntled ex-employees leaking copies of the thought instructions they are given.
David Bellamy was sacked because he didn’t read the instructions.
And see this one too: Life Imitates The BBC
http://www.americanthinker.com…
“Try these tests next time you are watching your favourite BBC drama. If the characters happen to include – say – a white middle class guy and a non-white working class guy, who is going to turn out to have surprising hidden qualities and who is going to turn out to have a surprising hidden dark side? Or compare the proportion homosexual characters on your tv screen with that in your own real life. Try and find the drama where the ‘right wing’ character turns out to be full of compassion and the ‘left wing’ character full of bile or where the successful business executive turns out to be rather a nice chap”.
Written a few years ago but still as true as ever.
The tests don’t only apply to the BBC. There is no who-dun-it mystery in ITV’s “Foyle’s War” as the basic rule is: “the toff did it”.
Talking of Groupthink:
“Groupthink:
Can we trust the BBC on immigration?”
Pdf pamphlet
By Ed West.
Click to access bbc_immigration_report.pdf
I suppose that widespread censorship in Journalism has become the defining definition of left-wing Journalism, especially since Editors of Scientific publications where sacked for resisting censorship of Climate science.
While right-wing Journalists have become few and far between, because they where sacked for doing a proper job, without censoring the science, scientists and scientific debate, when it comes to the science that conflicts with the environmental ideology of left-wing Journalists.
But then will not Paxman and Humphries be shown the door by the BBC, just like Bellamy, Ball and all the others, because the BBC needs to keep the dysfunctional madhouse, purely insane.