Jonathan Dimbleby summoned up an alarming vision of Western Civilisation under threat as the dark shadow of a Tory government looms across the land intent on turning back the clock, if not to the ravages and poverty of the 1930’s then at least to 1984, a Western Civilisation under threat from the commercial Vandals and the predations of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies in Westminster, under threat from the People, the People, once patronised and denied a voice, now, thanks to the internet, able to find not only their voice but all the information that the Media for so long jealously guarded to ensure its own dominance. Dimbleby does not like the People having a voice. Dimbleby told us that the BBC was all that stood between the end of Western Civilisation and those barbarians that want a free for all, a free world, a free press, free speech. Dimbleby doesn’t seem to want any of that, not the bloggers, not the commercial rivals, not even the politicans were to be allowed a voice…he wanted the BBC to be the ‘one voice’ that spoke ‘truth’ to power and the People…countering the lies of government, Murdoch and the People. The problem is that his highly misleading claims, his lies, his abuse of his position as a BBC Grandee, his extremely biased attacks on the ‘enemies of the BBC’ in the commercial sector and in government, all undermine his claim that the BBC and those who run it are trustworthy enough to be granted the supremely privileged position as that ‘one voice’ that alone could be trusted as the credible authority with the integrity to produce totally impartial, balanced and fair news and programming. There is a credibility gap all too obvious when you hear the likes of Dimbleby making grand statements proclaiming the BBC’s worthy intentions and then look at the methods he employs to slate his enemies and promote the BBC.
That credibility gap is all too evident elswhere, none so much as in the BBC’s reporting into the various child abuse scandals.
What is the BBC’s main concern? Is it to investigate fully any child abuse claims, to explore the issues, to help bring to justice those who perpetrate such crimes? Seemingly not. The BBC’s main concern seems to be looking after the BBC’s reputation and scoring political points against its ‘enemies’.
We all know about the BBC’s slur against Lord McAlpine.…was the BBC all too eager to brand him a criminal because of this high ranking position in the Tory party and his close links to Thatcher….‘ a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years.”? Were they desperate enough to try and smear Thatcher by association on the flimsiest of evidence?
Then there was Savile and the BBC’s attempt to sweep that under the carpet in a damage limitation exercise. The journalists who exposed the BBC’s role in that farce have all been forced out…..and maybe we know why as BBC bigwig, Alan Yentob, is claimed to have called them ‘traitors to the BBC’. I’m guessing this suggests he would prefer to hide the truth than allow the BBC’s reputation to be sullied by an exposé of that truth.
Now the Independent reports that Panorama is finally to broadcast its film about allegations of a VIP paedophile ring, originally scheduled for April. It will now be screened on October 6th, during the Tory Party conference. Go figure. Even though the film apparently debunks the VIP paedophile ring claims, or at least those about murder, it is odd timing to broadcast it, the BBC undoubtedly knowing that the film will dominate the Media scrum and overshadow the Tory conference and at the same time have the Tory politicians cornered with every journalist undoubtedly only interested in one subject…definitely not how well the economy may be doing! A cunning BBC plan? Just maybe.
The Independent says:
Reports suggested that BBC executives were at loggerheads over the film, which is expected to cast doubt over allegations made by a witness known as “Nick”. Executives within BBC News were said to be concerned that the programme would be seen as an “attack on the victims” and might discredit its own reports into the alleged abuse.
In other words it’s all about the BBC’s reputation….how the ‘victims’ would react towards the BBC and any subsequent bad publicity coming the BBC’s way. And what of that curious statement that it ‘might discredit its own reports into the alleged abuse.‘ What are they suggesting, that the BBC’s reports on the VIP paedophile ring may have been less than balanced and trustworthy….seeing as they targeted mostly Tories?
Is the BBC more concerned about managing its reputation than getting to the truth, is it using the sex abuse claims to target the Tories, is there a huge credibility gap between the values the BBC proclaims and how it actually operates in the real world?
Alan. Your going to have to make these questions a little more difficult.
I’m going to go with Yes, Yes and Yes.
Final Answer.
Much as the BBC has been using the drip-drip method of getting it’s agenda across, it seems to me that the other side have been using the same tactic since before the GE.
The damn really broke with Farage calling them out on live TV. Since then people, who would normally have grumbled to their friends, have started to openly challenge the BBC. This has forced the BBC to defend itself or not, as the case may be. Even someone who gets even a small portion of their news from their news from other outlets will have begun to notice their shocking arrogance in never admitting a mistake.
In my opinion the Yentob / Kid’s Company debacle may have done more damage than they realise. In the normal run of affairs, the story would have been read by few. The fact that the stories will have had pictures of the ludicrous Batmanjellylegs may have made some people read for a laugh and be shocked at what they read.
Now all this will have come as no surprise to B-BBC readers. Most of us realised long ago what a rotten structure the BBC was. The thing is, for normal people, these things will have come as a big surprise. It will have made many sit up and take notice.
In the normal run of things the much loved “Auntie” could have ridden all this out. Nothing to see here. That was until Saville.
Saville hurt the BBC in a way I am sure they never thought possible. Not only did it shake the public’s trust in the Corporation but lead to the DG, standing of a matter of days, being able to “resign” with a massive payout but also lead to the very public implossion of their current affairs unit. They have been fighting like rats in a sack ever since.
Now if this Panorama even whiffs of a Tory hatchet job, I think that some Tories will come out swinging (no pun intended). And in this climate, I think people may begin to side with them.
Like I said at the start. Drip, drip, drip!
All good points, I still had a lot of trust in the BBC until very recently. Now that’s evaporated and I wonder how many others have made the same rapid journey. Savile was bad enough, a definite hole below the waterline, but the BBC’s reaction to it and the coverup is even worse imo. Yentob allegedly calling the whistleblowers “traitors” is another arrogant kick in the teeth. I’m inclined to believe it simply because these courageous people were all ultimately cut loose.
I knew almost nothing about Farage until recently either, bar from the smears about him I’d see on the British news, but having found out about him through YouTube, I believe he talks a lot of sense. And I found him very funny and personable to boot. The guy can really make me laugh; when he called his BBC debate audience “left wing even by the standards of the BBC” it did a bring a smile to my face. Dimbleby’s attempt to salvage the moment by saying “excuse me Nigel [what a liberty using his first name! xP] this audience has been very carefully selected from a panel of…” Nigel (cutting in) “very carefully!” The guy’s a natural comedian. Absolutely cracked me up, watched that bit several times. Glad to hear he’s had a positive influence on people speaking out against the bias.
Vote here to get rid of this anti British broadcasting company , and tell your mates …………………………..
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
I think the BBC is increasingly caught in a cleft stick of its own devising. For years now it has been spreading a message of disillusionment with our institutions and values. It has attempted to dislodge obstinate loyalties on the part of most of our population, seeing itself as a cultural enabler for widespread political change.
It is now being inadvertently caught up in the very same wave of disillusion and disdain that it has itself been responsible for whipping up. If the BBC becomes, as seems possible, a ‘failed corporation’, it will not be because of disagreement over its politics, although heaven knows why it should have such a clearly perceptible bias amounting to bigotry.
If it is eventually dismembered, it will be as a deeply ironic result of its own loss of credibility in the eyes of ordinary people – not you and I, who have worried and got angry about the appalling Corporation for a long time now. Just ordinary people, sometimes disparagingly called ‘sheeple’. but the ones that Mr Orwell knew were eventually capable of turning, with much grumbling and reluctance, on the powers that oppressed them. They are the ones who will make the decisive judgment, that they neither need nor heed the BBC, and that they can do very well elsewhere, thank you very much. They will do this without becoming better people, as the moving powers within the BBC would like. They will simply turn over in bed and cut out the buzzing in their ears.
It may be that our most productive task is to help in marginalising and bypassing the BBC, to counter its last desperate argument that it is ‘indispensable’ to the nation.
Some BBC programmes are certainly entertaining and informative.
BBC news and current affairs programmes, however, show the worst bias of any news gatherer. BBC news has it’s own agenda , it’s own unique way of manipulating it’s audience, the editors are skilful propaganda managers and they believe their audience is daft enough to swallow all their crap.
This website proves that they are wrong in their assumption that we’re all idiots but, I wonder, does anyone from the BBC ever read what goes on here, do they care that not everyone is enamoured of the Corporation and will we be the first to be beheaded when their ISIS friends get here?
Some BBC programmes are certainly entertaining and informative.
BBC news and current affairs programmes, however, show the worst bias of any news gatherer. BBC news has it’s own agenda , it’s own unique way of manipulating it’s audience, the editors are skilful propaganda managers and they believe their audience is daft enough to swallow all their crap.
This website proves that they are wrong in their assumption that we’re all idiots but, I wonder, does anyone from the BBC ever read what goes on here, do they care that not everyone is enamoured of the Corporation and will we be the first to be beheaded when their ISIS friends get here?
The Daily Telegraph (25/9/2015 page 7):
“Dimbleby: It’s too costly to have politically balanced BBC audience.”
“The chairman of the Radio 4 programme [‘Any Questions?’], responding to claims of Left-wing bias, said a balanced audience would never be selected because it is “complicated”, “expensive” and because the BBC is “a tad strapped for cash.” … … …
“Allison Pearson, The Daily Telegraph columnist, claimed she was ‘shouted down’ while appearing on the panel at a recording in Cambridge, adding that a producer told her it would cost “£5,000 a week to pay someone to assemble a politically balanced audience.” … … … …
“Julian Knight, the Conservative MP and a former BBC journalist, described Mr Dimbleby’s comments as ‘ill-judged’. He told The Daily Telegraph: ‘It is deeply disturbing to hear such an eminent broadcaster as Jonathan say it is acceptable for the BBC to host a major political show in front of a potentially biased audience and using the questionable issue of funding for the state broadcaster as a fig leaf.”
Some simple maths for the BBC: Even taking the BBC’s figure at face value, £5000 per week for all 52 weeks would cost only a little over a quarter of a million pounds. With guaranteed income of £3.6 billion a year from the BBC Poll Tax and other revenue increasing that to around £5 billion, this is not a large sum. Remember also that Mark Byford was getting £949,000 per annum as the BBC’s number two man until the post was done away with (in 2010, I think); Mark Thompson took over £700,000 as the number one before going to the USA, and even his successor (post-Entwhistle) the relatively impoverished ‘Tony’ Hall, gets over £400,000; Alan Yentob and Danny Cohen get over £300,000 each; the failed Digital Media Initiative cost £0.1 billion for no tangible return; etc, etc, etc.
How DARE the BBC, through Jonathan Dimbleby, claim that they are “a tad strapped for cash”!
What is the BBC’s main concern? Is it to investigate fully any child abuse claims,
NOT. The BBC was not too keen to investigate the brutal and systematic gang rapes of tens of thousand of young White non-Muslim girls by Muslims of a Pakistani “heritage”