I was fascinated to hear the Muslim Mishal Husain’s views on the DUP on Tuesday’s Today programme…..she told us that they were socially and politically conservative and as such, some might say, were a party with unpleasant and backward views.….remind me in which little book they urge their followers not to make friends with people who have other political persuasions or indeed to kill them, or to reduce women to mere chattels, or to whip or stone to death adulterers, or crucify criminals or kill those who leave the party?
Maybe she’d got wind of this...Democratic Unionists: we’d seek review of BBC in hung parliament talks when the said ‘they would place the renewal of the BBC charter on the table in talks with Labour or the Tories in a hung parliament, after accusing the corporation of distorting UK politics in its handling of the television election debates.’
Something that a Tory government might also be considering as they say…BBC Today show debate ‘very, very anti-Tory’, says culture minister..
‘Culture secretary Sajid Javid has accused the BBC of bias – calling one item “very, very anti-Tory” – and said the job of changing the way the press is regulated is done.
Warning that the upcoming charter review would include an investigation into bias, Javid said in a Daily Mail report that Labour’s commitment to revisit regulation risks interfering with press freedom.
The comments, come after the ambitious Conservative minister has already indicated that the BBC’s licence fee could be cut if the party returns to power.
In comments made more than a week after the flagship morning news show ended with a three-way debate in which Scottish comic Rhona Cameron calling the Tories a “cancer”, Javid said: “Last week, listening to the Today programme, there was a debate… they were all anti-Tory. It came across as very, very anti-Tory.”’
The BBC’s response…
‘A BBC spokesman said the corporation believed it had “reported fairly and impartially on the policies of all parties”.’
Of ocurse they are as they try to rig the election once again….
Conservatives outnumbered two-to-one in audience for BBC Question Time debate
Up to two thirds of the audience in Thursday’s Question Time Leaders’ debates will be left wing, The Telegraph can disclose.
The numbers of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters in the audience for the programme will reignite the row over audience bias which dogged the last election debate.
The Tories’ David Cameron, Labour’s Ed Miliband and the LibDems’ Nick Clegg will be quizzed separately during the 90 minute in that order.
The breakdown means that as much as two thirds of the audience could be left wing – likely to vote for Labour, the LibDems or the Greens.
The composition of the audience is highly relevant because only they will be able to submit questions to the three party leaders.
Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative MP who has been long term critic of the BBC, said: “This confirms what we have known for a long time – the unashamed left wing bias of the BBC.
“When you see the unrepresentative make-up of the audience in the most important Question Time programme for five years the BBC are not even subtle about.”
The BBC’s response…
In a blog posted on Wednesday evening, by Ric Bailey, the BBC’s Chief Political Adviser, defended the composition of the audience.
He said: “The thinking behind this is that it will ensure that there’s a level playing field. Each leader engages the audience on the same terms.
“It also means that the BBC has done all it can to ensure that each leader gets the same shot at a fair hearing with the much bigger audience at home.”
A ‘level playing field’ and a ‘fair hearing’? How does he work that out?
Lefties have no fear though about Tory revenge…the troops are mobilising to ‘save the BBC’….as a campaign is launched by unnamed media persons ‘#7DaysToSaveTheBBC ‘
‘There were rumblings of disquiet at the FT Digital Media conference this week, and they were not at the quality of freebies being offered in exchange for taking out a sub to the Pink ‘Un. Instead, delegates were discussing the sudden appearance of a divide between politicians over the future of the BBC. In the past week, the three parties that might constitute a Cameron-led government have each made threatening noises against Auntie, apparently over perceived bias in its election coverage.’
‘There are clear lines between these positions and the broadly pro-BBC noise coming from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even the SNP – though the latter may want to use the Beeb as a bargaining chip. Thus it was that some of the assembled delegates were murmuring about the urgent need to kick off a popular campaign to save the BBC, pointing out that 78% of the UK population is in favour of the BBC receiving strong licence fee support. Look out for the descending hashtag #7DaysToSaveTheBBC.’
Sounds suspiciously like these journalists are trying to start a campaign that is highly political and is aiming to exploit people’s fondness for the BBC in order to attack the Tories by suggesting they will damage or do away with the BBC that people allegedly like so much.
Might be good to know who those campaigning journalists are….just how many are from the BBC?
‘A BBC spokesman said the corporation believed it had “reported fairly and impartially on the policies of all parties”.
****
As templates go, that one seems about perfect. It’s all in there: the anonymous drone referring to corporate belief in telling it often enough.
Have to say, argument like that is persuasive. Not.
Things do seem to be polarising and hence ‘interesting’ in the Chinese sense.
The BBC has pushed and nudged its blatant conflict of interest stance further and further until even those who know they really shouldn’t provoke a £4B meddling media monopoly snap, perhaps figuring they have nothing to lose as the BBC support for a single aim has become now so overt.
The BBC of course have the upper hand on a win-win basis no matter what. They either get allowed to persist by being unaccountable and untouchable. Or they fall back on the lie that their false independence is being threatened.
The only danger to the BBC is the all or nothing game they are playing whilst glimmers of democratic process, and other factors in the minds of the public, prevail.
If what the BBC ‘believes’, wants and pushes turns out not to be reflected by the wishes of the majority (relatively, given the dilution of scores of minor parties) when it comes to counting ballots, they have stood well above the parapet, declared themselves, and made some enemies who can still actually claim to represent those who voted.
Dizzzgoostin’!, says Amy.
This hash tag campaign is in itself telling at this juncture, with the fortunes of the BBC and those on record as ensuring the status quo of their unique funding and existence inexorably linked.
A clearer statement of the political alliances now established it would be harder to imagine. Politics well and truly not left at the door and trampling around every home, from producers tweeting to comedians snarling, to audiences being rigged and vox pops editted, all pretty much unidirectional, and all quietly indulged by a BBC top brass almost exclusively tied ideologically to one corner.
It’s been a long time coming, but the masks are down and gloves are off.
I saw it during the phoney stage, where claims of upsetting ‘all sides’ was cited as evidence of balance.
No, it was not. Because the solution was simple: if all sides were dissatisfied, then make the BBC subscription and let the people vote with their wallets.
The minute that notion gets floated, even the Media Lens crowd start scrabbling around demanding ‘Aunty’ is preserved, just… even more the way they like it.
Descend away, chaps. Not sure I wish to go down to the level you have reached.
‘A BBC spokesman said the corporation believed it had “reported fairly and impartially on the policies of all parties”.
One cannot have any organisation or individual, congratulating themselves on their”fairness”.
Fairness is something others decide. For the BBC to think it can, is evidence that they live in a narcissistic self -adulating world.
Up to two thirds of the audience in Thursday’s Question Time Leaders’ debates will be left wing, The Telegraph can disclose.
It will sound like 90% of the audience is left wing.
“Ukip vs BBC: Nigel Farage complains ‘like hell’ over leader’s debate and Have I Got News For You joke”
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukip-vs-bbc-nigel-farage-complains-like-hell-over-leaders-debate-have-i-got-news-you-joke-1499065?
“BBC rocked by new bias scandal – as TWO-THIRDS of debate audience are left-wing”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/573918/BBC-left-wing-bias-Ukip-leaders-debate-audience
Does INBBC’s Ms HUSAIN prefer the Islamic-dominated ‘Respect Party,’ which she does not criticise?
Nick Cohen said of ‘Respect’
(2004)-
“for the first time since the Enlightenment, a section of the left is allied with religious fanaticism and, for the first time since the Hitler-Stalin pact, a section of the left has gone soft on fascism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_Party
“for the first time since the Hitler-Stalin pact, a section of the left has gone soft on fascism.”
Except for the left-wing fascists themselves, like Mussolini and Hitler and their political-descendants.
For INBBC-
Religious voters ‘intimidated’ to vote Labour after claims candidate endorsed by holy man
“MUSLIM constituents are being urged to vote for a Labour candidate who is claimed to have the blessing by the Prophet Mohammed’s living descendant.”
By HELEN BARNETT.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/573964/Muslim-vote-Labour-Prophet-Mohammed-descendant-endorsement
Apols to whoever posted it first, but I can’t find this that I bookmarked and have now read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/b5673787-5188-4535-a88a-cb2facd87848
This is all I really needed to read:
‘And, in the end, this is an editorial judgment. It’s for the programme makers to decide how best..
Got it in one, Ric. If perhaps not in the way you meant it to be taken. The BBC cannot be trusted with what best serves ‘the audience’ any more, and even if the methodology is questioned, its commitment to transparency means an army of BBC lawyers will ensure no one ever finds out. The BBC ‘selection’ filter is clogged with a plug of goo no sane person would want to go near.
So far the comments not going too well as a % of the total. In the BBC bubble that usually is cue for a closing if enough forces cannot be rallied to redress the ‘balance’. We’ll see.
“But if you’re a regular viewer of Question Time, you’ll know that once assembled, how audiences express their views can often be pretty unpredictable.”
No, not really Ric. Pretty bloody predictable, actually.
Actually, I don’t have a problem with the BBC per se…(it should be a lot smaller, though)…but I do have a problem with the left wingers who have colonised it and who are using TV Taxpayers money to promote their politics and use the Corporation as a vehicle to impose their socialist view of the world.
No wonder that MI5 used to have an office in Broadcasting House. The governments of the day knew how important that it was to keep the BBC clean…and what a huge prize the BBC was for Communist infiltrators.
I do have a problem with the BBC per se. In 2015 it is ridiculous that Britain should still have a state broadcaster. Any state run body is going to end up being run by people who believe that the state is the answer to all problems, which is to say, leftists.
Leftism is in the BBC’s DNA; there is nothing that anyone can do to reform it or change it, no believer in free markets is going to want a job at the BBC, or get one. You may get the occasional presenter such as Andrew Neill, but I am talking about the people who run the thing, the James Purnells of this world. For the BBC really to see no issue about giving a senior job to a former Labour minister tells you all you need to know.
The only reform the BBC needs is to be allowed to compete fairly for its audience, or die as the case may be.
Well said.
“Any State run body is going to end up being run by people who believe that the State is the answer to all problems, which is to say, Leftists. ”
It is even worse than that (although of course you are correct) the Left is inherently intolerant. Ask a Leftist (for example the self-styled “Man on the Clapham Omnibus”) what the Right is about and he will not have a clue (something to do with it being OK to hit negroes on a cotton plantation or disliking men kissing) because all that matters to him is his own hatreds.
Watching ignorant Leftists (journalists on Newsnight for example) trying to construct a narrative of the world would be comic were it not so pathetic. Yeah we get it, you vote Labour.
Which reminds me to its credit years ago the BBC showed a programme where they went over programmes they had made about the USSR. They were embarrassingly pro-Soviet. They asked Barbara Castle if she was embarrassed that she made a programme saying how wonderful the USSR was (they showed a cringworthy extract in which she showed how marvelous their education system was) and needless to add her response was “I think it stands up well”.
The Left are not the slightest bit interested in any reality other than their own hatreds. An accurate Leftist history is a contradiction in terms. The same goes for Leftist journalism.
Even though he waters down his Leftism so that only a faint taste remains you know that any history of Britain by that New Labour BBC journalist Andrew Marr is going to be complete crap. I did not watch it but I do not have to because I already know the script – the glorious post-war Labour government and it heroic programme of nationalization. Oh the problems it faced.
HALL:
‘Drop what you’re doing, and spend next twelve months on getting BBC Charter re-newed’-
“BBC factual boss takes on charter renewal role”
By Jake Kanter.
[Excerpt]:-
“Emma Swain is to take a year out from her role as controller of factual to help shape BBC television’s approach to commissioning in the run-up to charter renewal.
“Swain will become BBC director, future of commissioning, channels and online for 12 months to help devise the corporation’s approach to content in a digital age.”
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/bbc-factual-boss-takes-on-charter-renewal-role/5087192.article
Labour Party supporting Beeboids are in denial about:-
“The price that Ed Miliband is prepared to pay to win the Muslim vote.
“The Labour leader’s pledge to redefine Islamophobia as an aggravated crime will be cheered by child sex-grooming gangs in Rotherham and election-stealers in Tower Hamlets.”
By Allison Pearson.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11570745/The-price-that-Ed-Miliband-is-prepared-to-pay-to-win-the-Muslim-vote.html
Better get all the Islamophobia in before the Evil Millipeed/SNP take over next week , or keep at it,& cancel your licence fee . They can`t jail everyone for both . it would clog the system up .
Why’s that then. Apart from the fact that the ever non thinking Essex Man gets his script from the gutter press maybe he can explain how hate crime disbenifits sex crime. Most people would regard both behaviours as abhorrent.
Unhappy Clappy , I never mentioned any sex crimes , & a lot of them recently came from your mates in the mosque & Millipeeds councilors turning a blind eye to those crimes . P.S . like most socialists you don`t like the Truth . Better get your Saga hols booked for Cuba or North Korea soonest .
remind me in which little book they urge their followers not to make friends with people who have other political persuasions or indeed to kill them, or to reduce women to mere chattels, or to whip or stone to death adulterers, or crucify criminals or kill those who leave the party?
Is this a trick question?
It can’t be Islam, as ISIS crucifies innocent Christians, using theologically consistent arguments from the koran, and other canonical texts of Islam.