ON THE FUTURE OF THE BBC AT WESTMINSTER…

Here is another guest submission, this time from Biased BBC contributor Guess Who? It’s on the issue of the Parliamentary Discussion into the future of the BBC. It is lengthy, detailed and astute analysis and I commend it you.

“The remit is wide and covers issues like bias, accountability, size, licence fee etc.’

Well, in theory all of the above. But mostly so far the last, best I can see.

The initial submission posts did cover a fair spread, and the process is in theory ongoing:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/future-of-the-bbc/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter
However, that is a wee bit tucked away (last back in March), and the focus seems more on the in-person oral evidence from various selected, guests, experts and witnesses, many of who seem to either owe the BBC a living, depend on it for their pensions or simply appear smitten.
And almost all seem to be pretty clear that the BBC does a great job so the only real issue is making sure it keeps getting its unique funding via compulsion, and maintains that ‘we only hold others to account’ accountability epitomised by the Trust’s recent ex-chair, whose unexpected departure has managed to throw a few spanners in a few works whilst bringing spotlights on dark corners some clearly thought would get away with anything if those darn kids could be kept occupied elsewhere.
Let’s have a quick look at what has been run up the flagpole, and then saluted, thus far:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/5368.html
Potentially promising start, but stacked from the off like a BBC QT panel and audience either side of the table.
The only dissenting voice David Elstein, and even then he opens by saying he’s ‘a great admirer and strong supporter of the BBC’.
This was the session that already caused my concerns when Steve ‘no conflict of interest at all’ Hewlettt suddenly chimed in on 28Gate (see Qu10) professing not to know much about it but then having an awful lot to say in the BBC defence.
Which MP Angie Bray was trying to amplify upon before being told to shut up.
There was also an insight to the mindset and priorities of the rest of the committee:
Q22 Mr Leech: The reason for my argument is that you started off with quite a lengthy contribution, starting off by saying that you were a big supporter of the BBC but then gave numerous reasons as to why you did not really like the BBC at all.
David Elstein: Honestly, Mr Leech, you can’t have been listening to me very carefully. I am a strong supporter of the BBC. I wish it were a bigger, better, bolder, braver, richer organisation than it is, funded voluntarily by citizens of the UK and elsewhere. That’s all I have to say about the BBC.
Mr. Farrelly also seems a fan.
We also get to hear from Ben Bradshaw:
Q47 Mr Bradshaw: a number of other countries with strong public service broadcasting traditions have moved away from a licence fee, either to funding their public service broadcasting by general taxation or to funding it by household charge. Would that not overcome some of your objections to the licence fee without jeopardising the funding stream or the BBC’s independence?
He does seem to view this more in terms of how to keep things going as is rather than any question on how well it manages on the current £4Bpa compelled funding less the loophole opt-out losses they are all trying to plug and drag those with real issues with BBC professional performance back into doing so by force.
Jim Sheridan seems a fan, too, and keen to share interesting facts it may have been of value to see less BBCphilic committee members or experts in the mix to challenge if in error:
Q64 Jim Sheridan: The figures that I have seen are that the popularity of the licence fee is increasing in the last decade. I think it is up to 47% compared with 31% just a decade ago. What I am intrigued by is that the costs of collecting the licence fee are relatively low. Would there be any significant change for the alternative method, subscription?
Paul Farrelly then chimes in again to try and put words in David Elstein’s mouth. He also refers to lack of time and wanting to get on governance.
Handed to BBC groupie Claire Enders to mea gulp a lot, but basically waffle the time away until Steve Hewlett kills off the rest in his best ‘it was another time’ manner.
Governance opinion barely afforded the sole vaguely BBC critical witness there.
Philip Davies’ question was facile and the answers lost in the rush to close. Job done.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/6170.html
A hideously white male session asking a bunch of guys just how much they’d like their index-linked golden pensions to stay golden and any dodgy activities taken kept under wraps for ever.
Like that was going to go any other way.
Again Mr. Sutcliffe being more than undertstanding that no one knew anything about Saville then, or now, and this was understandable.
Then of course there’s Mr. Farrelly:
Q89 Paul Farrelly: Greg, you mentioned the BBC has enemies, both ideological and commercial. In one area, News Corp probably would dearly love to restrict that website, the BBC being a free source of online news.
Not sure Murdoch or the DM had much to do with McAlpine though, Paul. That seemed pretty much all BBC.
But mostly it’s about keeping the money spigot open, on full:
Q99 Mr Bradshaw: Could I ask you for your views on the desirability and sustainability of the licence fee as the long-term funding mechanism for the BBC?
Angie Bray a lone voice trying to delve a bit deeper. And again some claims being bandied about I’d have liked an actual informed, impartial guide on, as the BBC big-wigs clearly only read BBC PR. And it is, also, very well funded to tell the BBC story often enough:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-spending-slick-pr-condemned-after-website-reveals-220-press-contacts
One wonders if they ever post elsewhere under rotating nicknames?
Anyway, at least governance was agin popped at the end for a quickie:
Q114 Mr Bradshaw: Why not just change it into a more normal-looking board with a chairman and give the regulatory responsibilities to Ofcom?
That would be under DG-applicant Ed Richards, friend and colleague once to Ben, James Purnell and so many others in the revolving door between Labour and the BBC, now overseen by the Trust in interim by a Labour Minister’s adviser.
What follows is a bunch of Lords a-leaping. Add Hall & Patten and the number of Lords seems to exceed anyone actually capable of operating on a day-to-day basis.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/8328.html
More insiders and academics. Public interest, what public interest?
Professor Beckett: I will start. In terms of its actual performance, most people’s experience of the BBC is of services that have improved generally in terms of quality, usability and so on.
Most people being his gilded, ideological circle?
They are clearly trying to wear folk out and grind them down by attrition.
These clowns are paid no matter what to deal in this guff.
Who else, out in the real word, has time to wade through all this?
Let me skip to one exchange on the done deal of funding options:
Professor Barwise: I am still in reasonably amicable dialogue with Elstein and—

Chair: You cannot say nobody disputes your findings.

Professor Barwise: What I meant is that no economists dispute my findings.
Showing just how wild the claims are and how often goalposts get moved if you take the eye of the ball for a split second.
And… yet again… governance is tacked on in a rush at the end, with editorial supposedly overseen a non-issue by now.
And frankly the answers were pure partisan or waffle, with near zero challenge from a committee that always seem keener on lunch than anything.
Next (which is what they are banking on- near every utterance of witnesses and committee deserves a fisking. Who, anywhere, supporter or critic, MP or activist, could put hand on heart and say they have read through all this?)…

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/6881.html
Old boys and girls arguing over pie shares, not how well the pie is prepared and served, or the ability of the audience to not be fed it and/or pay no matter what.
I simply cite this one ‘question’ to show how this committee seems set up:
Q159 Mr Bradshaw: You go on about the things that you think the BBC should be doing, but do you not at least acknowledge the argument that the only way the BBC can do these things—the public value, the distinctiveness—is because of its funding through the licence fee, which is only justified because of its universal appeal, including Radio 1 and Radio 2? You are nodding, so you do agree with that.
It’s like listening to a Today or watching a Newsnight ‘interview’, with the person being interviewed mainly existing so the BBC view can be pushed.
So, again, near zero on actual calibre of service delivery or oversight. Just industry insiders jockeying for a slice of public pie or worrying about turf.
Next….
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/8476.html
Sorry, they have worn me out.
It’s pure attrition.
The BBC will get its money, and a toothless oversight system, and blanket immunity from being held to account, because vast public funds have been spent paying public sector professional committee wafflers to generate vast reams of guff so those who want the gravy train to continue can simply get it signed off by their mates.
I’ll stay with this showcase of Yes Ministerial ushering a national treasure into a new, comfier, more secure age, but if the core issues of the BBC failing across the board on accuracy, objectivity and integrity of editorial are actually addressed I’d better not blink, and likewise with governance also being a neat little old-boys’ club stitch up with censorship of critics kept as a given, little secret, like Jimmy & Stuart’s activities.
Meanwhile the rest of the media estate, even those tasked with checking out each other, will quickly scan a BBC press release and spout as their tribal hearts’ desire based on the executive summary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10813893/The-future-of-the-BBC-is-at-stake-and-David-Cameron-must-take-control.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/08/howard-stringer-bbc-trust-chairman-martin-sorrell-wpp?
I’ll leave the last quote to a poster responding to one of those odd BBC-supportive one line posters in no way connected to the special projects PR budget who see even discussing the future of a £4Bpa broadcast monopoly as something to be contained:
Vlad_the_Inhaler
No-one is taking about banning views. But you seem to think it’s fine that we should all be forced to pay for an organisation that voices only your views?

A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE?

DC Alden, author of the excellent The Horse of the Gates, and a reader of this august journal (!) shares the following with us;

“I’m sure you’re probably aware by now but there was a newspaper review on BBC News this morning with a female Muslim blogger. She began with a piece about Christians offering sanctuary to Muslims wishing to leave Islam’s embrace. I didn’t catch the whole package but what I did see appeared bizarre. She claimed that Muslims who leave Islam are in no danger at all and in fact are free to choose whichever religious path they prefer. I think we  know that this is completely false and perhaps an attempt to paint Islam in a positive light in the wake of the obvious (and as yet unmentioned by the Beeb) Islamic terrorist attack in Belgium”

Anyone else catch it? Thoughts?

Girl Power!

 

 

 

Gotta laugh at the do-gooding worriers of the BBC.

Honouring ‘International Women’s Day’ we get this from the BBC:

 

Dolly + Beyonce + Miley = Girl Power!

First broadcast:
Friday 07 March 2014

Fearne creates a Girl Power Playlist in honour of International Women’s Day, including tracks from the likes of Beyonce, Miley, Adele and even some Dolly Parton!!!

 

And there was this:

Girl Power: Going for Gold

Image for Young British Olympic weightlifting hopefuls

 

 

I imagine Google could keep on churning out the links for quite some time…however it’s all got to stop…you know…all this ‘Girl’ nonsense….so derogative and insulting…belittles and demeans wimmin:

 

BBC in censorship row after the word ‘girl’ is cut from documentary

The BBC has been caught up in another censorship row after the broadcaster cut the word “girl” from a programme about the Commonwealth Games over fears it could cause offence.

Mark Beaumont, the presenter, was being filmed grappling with a judo champion, and after he was sent crashing to the floor he said: “I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old girl.”

When the half-hour episode of The Queen’s Baton Relay was originally aired in April on the BBC News channel, the 31-year-old’s remark was broadcast in full.

However, the word “girl” was edited out of a repeat of the programme, leading the Corporation facing claims it had been overly politically correct and sanctimonious.

A BBC spokeswoman said the unedited version of the documentary was broadcast soon after being filmed because the baton’s tour was treated as a news event.

She added: “They had more time to edit it the second time. Mark didn’t mean to cause offence. But the word ‘girl’ was taken out just in case it did.”

 

 

Surely then the whole piece should have been expunged from the record…why should he feel that he couldn’t live it down…being beaten by a girl?  Surely we are all equal now and the BBC should recognise that girls…women…are just as capable on the mat as men…boys…no…men.

The broadcasting of his comment “I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old girl”, even without the ‘girl’,  just perpetuates the sexist stereotypical attitudes that prevail in sport and society as a whole that women are worth less than men and aren’t as capable.

The BBC’s attitude is trivial and demeaning, whether or not women are called girls or babe is a superficial matter when the greater issue is that a man feels he should always beat a female.  The BBC obviously has no issue with that stereotype and take it for granted that a man should be embarrassed to be beaten by a female.

Appalling sexism by the BBC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPROMISE??

This item was posted by my colleague Mike Cunningham over on A Tangled Web and I think it warrants your consideration.

“Listening on the Beeb’s Today Programme to what must be considered a true favourite of the BBC’s way of group-think. The woman being interviewed had a son who had been kidnapped by the Nigerian Boko Haram bunch of criminal terrorists, and he had been killed during a rescue attempt. The woman was being interviewed as she had personal knowledge of these muslim killers, but she was saying that the Nigerian government should ‘open a dialogue’ with these fanatics, they should explore ‘areas of compromise’; and if necessary her son’s killers should be released as part of a deal with the Boko Haram bunch, who hold nearly three hundred girls from a school in Northern Nigeria.

When I state ‘true favourite of the BBC’s way of group-think’, I believe that this is what has been a total ‘belief’ tenet of the Corporation for decades. We must, in the eyes of the BBC, always compromise, always defer to others, never ever stand on principle, never ever argue or stand up for what we, as a nation, used to believe in or argue from a moral standpoint.

The woman whose son was murdered by these muslim killers is, of course, tragically mistaken in hoping for dialogue or compromise with any group who operates under the shadow of terror, or the bullet. The Nigerian government must, in my own view, organise and operate a policy of ‘search and destroy’ against the shadowy terrorists who seem to operate with impunity in the north of that burdened and corrupt country. They must operate as we, in Great Britain, singularly failed to during our own terrorist struggle; they should operate on a ‘shoot to kill’ policy, they should operate on the fact that ‘the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist’ with no bargains, no cushy prisons, no cosy deals, and they should never, ever, offer a place in Government if the terrorists would only promise to ‘disarm and place their weaponry beyond use’; mainly because we all know how weasel promises like that end up!

Snapshots From Inside The Bubble

 

 

Just a few confirmations of the usual casual bias or lazy thinking from within the Bubble.

 

Nicky Campbell on Friday declared that it was quite unfair of the Press to publish those photos of Miliband munching on a not very Kosher bacon sarny:

However…Miliband was on the stump looking for that photo opportunity to present himself as a man-of-the-people….he made a mess of it and showed bad judgement…so fair game.

Would Campbell have said it was unfair coverage if the PR stunt had come off and the Press had reported what a superb way with a bacon sandwich Miliband had…his statesmanlike consumption of it a shining example of his man-of-the -people credentials?

In contrast Campbell made absolutely no mention of the blitz on Farage by just about every single paper and broadcaster.

 

 

On From Our Own Correspondent the ever reliable source of bias or notably daft comments (remember Fort Hood) Mark Mardell told us that in the UK the words ‘Liberal democrat‘ describes a party and are not an insult.  Really?  He’s been out of the country too long.

 

Later Peter Oborne on a ‘Week in Westminster’ looked at UKIP….quite balanced (from Oborne not the politicians)  even though he is a cheerleader for UKIP….but what was of interest was a final word (24 mins) from Stephen Glover from the Mail who panned the BBC’s coverage of UKIP during the election run up….the Media class are just as out of kilter with the public as the politicians are…and yet the BBC itself does not look at this question preferring to talk only of the politicians lack of connection to the ‘country’.

 

Following on from that what of John Humphrys’ interview with Osborne on Saturday? (08:36)

Humphry’s sole narrative was ‘Will the Tories do a deal with UKIP?’

A fair question and the answer is rather strange…the Tories did a deal with the far left lentil munchers but won’t do a deal with the natural allies politically and philosophically of the big C Conservatives.

The real question of course is if they aren’t going to do a deal with UKIP how are they going to attract those voters who like UKIP’s policies on immigration and Europe.

From what Osborne said you could infer that he was going to ignore those voters and rely on people just not wanting Miliband in power…his election plan is to basically say if you vote UKIP you’ll get Miliband…but we’re not changing our policies on immigration and Europe.

So despite his slogan, ‘Listen, Respond, Deliver‘, he’s not going to do any of those things…but of course nor are Labour.

But Humphrys didn’t ask the question…Humphrys concentrated on the solution being the deal with UKIP…but if no deal….what policy changes will the Tories introduce to win those UKIP voters?….that surely is the big central question that needs answering but Humphrys didn’t notice the inference that Osborne & Co are going to ignore UKIP voters

 

 

iPlayer……iMess

 

 

 

Is it just me or is the new iPlayer a complete shambolic mess?

The old one wasn’t perfect by anymeans, clunky but usable, but the new one is abysmal, confusing and hard to navigate and find anything…browsing wasn’t a delight before, now it’s just a lucky dip or a grind through the hidden listings…almost as if they didn’t want you to find things to watch.

Pretty certain it won’t grow on me.

Hope they have some money left in the kitty for a revamp of the revamp.

 

 

Londonistan

 

 

Why does UKIP not attract so many voters in London?

 

The BBC tells us:

Crowds outside Whitgift Shopping Centre in Croydon chanted and waved posters whilst waiting for UKIP leader Nigel Farage on May 20, 2014 in Croydon, England.

Demography

Neil Hamilton said London was “difficult territory” for UKIP because it was so “cosmopolitan”. Earlier it was put to the party’s communities spokesman, Suzanne Evans, on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the party had some difficulty appealing to Londoners because they tended to be “cultural, educated, and young” – reportedly a direct quote from one of her fellow UKIP spokesmen. The party was “increasingly” attracting such people, she replied – but not yet in London. After much criticism of her role in these exchanges, Ms Evans said she was emphatically “NOT saying non-Londoners [are] ‘thick'”. But there is no point denying that most research and polls suggest the party has significant support among older voters – a demographic group that is both growing in size and remains more likely to vote.

 

Curiously whilst the piece is titled ‘Demography’ there is no mention of immigration…..London being merely ‘cosmopolitan’ as Neil Hamilton describes it…the BBC ventures no thoughts on what that might actually mean.

And note the photograph….the BBC have managed to find a photo with not a single obviously ‘ethnic’ face in it.

 

What is going on in London is precisely the effect that Labour intended to engineer across the whole country eventually….a land ‘ethnically cleansed’ of the native Brit and now populated by those with no loyalty or relationship with the historic land and its people and whose votes will swing elections.

Importing millions of Europeans was no ‘mistake’….one reason for doing so was that any future referendum on our relationship with Europe could hinge on a few votes…therefore importing people who come from ‘europe’ and have an affinity for it and who in all likelihood would vote to stay closely tied to Europe is an obvious strategy.

 

This BBC report might give a clue as to the reality of that suggestion:

Elections 2014: Poles seeking to get their voices heard

May’s local and European elections will see record numbers of Poles going to the ballot box in the UK. With up to half a million votes up for grabs, is it time British politicians took them seriously?

Lucas Szlek came to the UK from Poland as a 16-year-old with his parents in 2001. Having spent most of his adult life in Britain, he is standing as a Labour council candidate in Southampton.

“I think voting in the democratic election is part of integrating with British society,” he says.

“I believe lots of Polish people share the same principles as the British people and I think part of integration with a society is to contribute to the further decision making in Britain for everyone.”

Research by Polish City Club and Ipsos Mori suggests 72% of Polish people currently in the UK intend to stay. Is Mr Szlek pointing to a future where greater Polish representation will be a natural element of Britain’s political scene?

Daniel Kawczynski, for now Britain’s only MP of Polish origin, hopes so. “I do see Parliament changing and evolving… to properly reflect the changing nature of British society,” he says.

The 2011 census showed there are more than 600,000 Poles in the UK, and all EU citizens have the right to vote in both local and EU elections.

“These elections definitely will be those elections that Poles participate in, in the largest numbers, I think, throughout the last 10 years,” says Mr Byczynski.

Not least because the issues affect them.

“We cannot talk about relations with the EU and ignore the voice of the main immigrant group,”” he says.

But before it is assumed this means votes in the bag for the pro-EU campaign, the research by Polish City Club and Ipsos Mori paints a more complicated picture.

They found that half of Poles in the UK were intending to vote, but 50% of those were yet to decide who for.

“If the parties canvass their votes, they will receive support – even from a minority group called the Polish friends of UKIP,” Roger Casale, chairman of New Europeans, says about the Polish community.

“Very few politicians seem to have understood this. Yet the number and the concentration of Polish expat votes will change the outcome of elections in many marginal seats.

“Some Polish candidates have enough support to win even as independents.”