Non-subscribers will now be limited to just 20 free articles a month as the new “Digital First” Telegraph goes behind a paywall. It seems to be an FT-style half-and-half-measure. If you want to carry on reading you will have to fork out £2-a-month, or a tenner on tablet.
You’ve got to give it to the BBC…they are if nothing else, completely unbiased when it comes to matters of religion.
They rewrote the Koran, reforming Islam on the way, writing out all the nasty stuff about killing unbelievers and imperatives not to make friends with Christians and Jews….it is officially ‘The Religion of Peace’ now.
And they have now rewritten the Bible and changed how the Christian Faith should be perceived….and on Good Friday of all days.
Thanks to George R who provided this link:
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, said the programme, presented by Melvyn Bragg would be “hugely offensive” to devout Christians because it amounted to the “sexualisation of Christ”.
He said it was all the more upsetting because it is being screened at midday on Good Friday – the moment the Bible says Jesus was put on the cross.
Bishop Nazir-Ali accused the corporation of deliberately causing offense to Christians and questioned whether other groups would be treated in the same way.
The Pakistan-born cleric, who was the fist non white bishop in the Church of England, added that the programme could cause particular problems for Christians in Muslim countries where they are already facing persecution.
He said “I am concerned about the misuses of very obscure Gnostic gospels to impugne the integrity of the Bible.”‘
I think the answer to the Bishop’s question is ‘No, other faith groups, especially Islam, would not be treated in this manner by the BBC.’
Indeed the BBC goes out of its way not to offend other religions even on the smallest scale:
The BBC’s Religious and Ethics Department explains on its website that it uses BCE and CE in order to be “religiously neutral.”
It states on its FAQs page: “In line with modern practice bbc.co.uk/religion uses BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD. As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.”
A BBC survey of viewers found that they viewed it as anti-Christian:
The BBC is widely regarded as displaying an anti-Christian attitude in its programming, according to the Corporation’s own research.
According to viewers, the BBC uses “derogatory stereotypes” of Christians which portray them as “weak” and “bigoted”.
The BBC report, carried out as part of the corporation’s diversity strategy, said: “In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.”
A former BBC news anchor warned that Christians are “fair game” for insults at the broadcaster whilst Muslims must not be offended.
Peter Sissons, whose memoirs were being serialised in the Daily Mail, said: “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”
That was in 2011…it doesn’t seem to have changed anything…so much for a ‘diversity strategy.’
It is perfectly legitimate for the BBC to ask questions of Christianity…but only if they do the same to other religions. especially those such as Islam which is such a dominant and aggressive force….and the timing with the BBC is always the same….designed to raise the most amount of offence to Christians and controversy as possible.
This is perhaps a classic example of why the BBC should not be a ‘campaigning’ organisation, one that takes sides or a particular narrow view of any concern….the inevitable unintended results that follow a lot of ‘do-goodery’ are often more harmful than those that would have resulted from taking a wider, more nuanced, perspective and not resulting a one size fits all solution.
In 1984 the BBC broadcast reports from Ethiopia asking what is the attitude of the rest of the world to the situation…in 2009 they still seemed pretty pleased with the results:
‘Twenty-five years ago Michael Buerk’s harrowing and moving reports for BBC News on the famine in Ethiopia sparked an international reaction which led to millions of pounds being raised for aid to be sent to the region.’
Africans however have a different take on things saying that their continent has been stereotyped as lawless and violent…a hopeless basket case.
They say: ‘That’s not me, that’s not my Africa’
They have made a video to highlight their concerns about the image of Africa being portrayed on our screens by the likes of the BBC:
Africa For Norway charity single
The BBC has, without any recognition of its part in this stereotyping reported on the video and the thinking behind it:
Even the Charities have admitted the previous approach was wrong, concentrating too much on the negative in a relentless manner that made people switch off as they believed Africa was a ‘hopeless case’…ironically again reported by the BBC….
Africa image harming aid effort, says charity Oxfam
A negative image of Africa in the UK is harming efforts to raise food aid in the continent, charity Oxfam has said.
It found that three out of four people had become desensitised to images showing hunger, drought and disease.
Respondents to the survey said over-exposure to negative media and advertising portrayals of Africa and developing countries in other parts of the world was “depressing, manipulative and hopeless”.
“If we want people to help fight hunger we have to give them grounds for hope by showing the potential of countries across Africa – it’s a natural instinct to turn away from suffering when you feel you can do nothing to alleviate it.”
And when speaking to the BBC, Dame Stocking said a negative image of Africa was “not the truth” about that continent.
Such events have to be reported and the results of famine dealt with but if a wider view of circumstances was taken perhaps a much more longer lasting and effective solution could be found.
Michael Buerk reported that nature may have started the famine but that it was man, in the shape of armed militias, that was compounding it.
Perhaps a better use of aid money might be to deal with the militias and provide protection for the population allowing them to farm and produce a living, drought permitting….that different view could have been taken if more had been made of the militia’s dangerous heightening of the impact of famine on some of the people of Ethiopia.
How does such focussed reporting impact now?
A good example would be climate change where the BBC has taken sides…promoting one view of the causes, subsequent effects and desired solutions to the exclusion of all others….solutions that may be costing lives.
This means we don’t get the full picture, we are not ‘allowed’ to dissent from the consensus and the result is that government is able to plough ahead introducing disastrous and enormouosly expensive, and it turns out deadly, policies without any effective opposition.
There were excited claims in 2003 that climate change was killing thousands of people and in 2001 the BBC was reporting that the ‘experts’ say:
‘Climate changes could cause thousands of deaths every year – but reduce the number of cold-weather deaths….warmer conditions could cut the number of elderly people who die during the winter months by around 20,000 each year.’
The BBC does report that ‘the UK could see health benefits from climate change‘ but doesn’t expand on that, but does give room for an environmental pressure group to make dire predictions:
‘Frances MacGuire, climate policy officer at the pressure group Friends of the Earth, said: “This report shows thousands of British people will die early from skin cancer, in heatwaves and during extreme weather events caused by man-made climate change.’
How times change as winters get more severe not less and the government green taxes, introduced to tackle the ‘warm winters’, push up fuel bills to unaffordable levels and costs the NHS over £1 billion:
‘Illnesses related to living in a cold home cost the NHS £1.36bn every year, a report by Age UK suggests. Age UK says thousands of older people are dying prematurely due to the health effects of living in the cold.
Each year in England and Wales there are about 27,000 extra deaths each winter, mostly among older people.
Age UK is urging the government and local authorities to help improve energy-saving measures in homes in a bid to reduce winter deaths.
The majority of the elderly who die in winter die from strokes, heart diseases and lung problems, worsened by the cold.’
‘More than 4000 people in the Midlands died last winter because of the cold weather, and more than a million families in the region were living in fuel poverty….That’s according to the charity National Energy Action.
The BBC has persistently taken one group of ‘experts’ side on climate and the results have been catastrophic.
Can the BBC be partly to blame for the ‘vulnerable’ dying in their homes as they turn off the ever more expensive heating?
A good question. Had the climate change sceptics been allowed a voice, had the BBC not decided that the science was settled, had the solutions not then been directed at what might not be the real problem….. perhaps government green policy may have been more targeted at the real problems and outcomes …and direct resources to dealing with those rather than waste enormous sums by ’tilting at wind turbines’ enriching already rich land owners and energy companies at the expense of the poorest who now choose…as the BBC tells us when it suits them (ie when attacking government cuts in welfare)…whether to use their meagre resources on ‘heating or eating’.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph gives an excellent perspective on climate and the cold and the fatal results of a misguided interpretation of science and the resulting policies.
David Miliband, the Private Pike of Politics, has fled the country.
The BBC, unlike with cuddly Boris Johnson whom they find ‘a nasty piece of work’, can’t find a nasty word to say about him other than he didn’t quite have it within himself to wield the axe on Gordon Brown’s Prime Ministerial career.
Peter Oborne in the Telegraph thinks he can help the BBC out in digging some dirt:
David Miliband a colossus? He’s a greedy failure in a cosmic sulk
The political breed the Labour MP represents has done extraordinary harm to the nation’s governance
Perhaps I could offer a few reminders of what any BBC interviewer could ask Milibland about:
On the R4’s ‘Great Lives’ Miliband said terrorism could be both justifiable and effective:
Asked by presenter Matthew Parris whether there were any circumstances in which terrorism was justified, Mr Miliband said: ‘Yes, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable, and yes, there are circumstances in which it is effective.’
How about a Labour champion of the poor wangling a low tax rate for himself?:
How David Miliband Ltd pays less tax
Quietly, he has set up a company called ‘The Office of David Miliband Limited’, which will be a tax-efficient vehicle for his non-parliamentary earnings.
It will be subject to corporation tax of 20 per cent (rather than the 40 per cent rate Miliband would have to pay on his income as an individual taxpayer).
Miliband is clearly a canny operator when it comes to tax. In the past, he exploited a Revenue loophole to reduce the family’s total death duty bill by using a so-called ‘deed of variation’ in respect of his childhood home.
Already, the money has started rolling into Miliband Inc. As non-executive vice-chairman Sunderland Football Club, he gets £75,000 a year and there was a £25,000 fee for a lecture at the Emirates Centre For Strategic Studies in Abu Dhabi
Or how about buying votes for Labour with government money?:
WikiLeaks: David Miliband ‘championed aid to Sri Lanka to win votes of Tamils in UK’
David Miliband championed aid to Sri Lanka during last year’s humanitarian crisis to win the support of expatriate Tamils living in key Labour marginal seats, one of his own Foreign Office staff claimed.
David Miliband championed aid to Sri Lanka to win the votes of expatriate Tamils in key marginal seats, a Foreign Office worker claimed Photo: PA
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter 6:45AM GMT 02 Dec 2010
Tim Waite, a Foreign Office team leader on Sri Lanka, was quoted in a leaked US Embassy cable explaining why the then foreign secretary was lavishing so much attention on the island’s plight.
“Waite said that much of (the government) and ministerial attention to Sri Lanka is due to the ‘very vocal’ Tamil diaspora in the UK, numbering over 300,000, who have been protesting in front of parliament since 6 April,” wrote Richard Mills, a political officer at the US Embassy in London.
“He said that with UK elections on the horizon and many Tamils living in Labour constituencies with slim majorities, the government is paying particular attention to Sri Lanka, with Miliband recently remarking to Waite that he was spending 60 per cent of his time at the moment on Sri Lanka.”
Or how about his judgement on Gordon Brown….was Miliband lying or deluded at a time when polls showed 1 in 5 voters thought Brown was a terrible PM?:
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, yesterday defended Brown as a man who commanded “the detail as well as the bigger picture. I don’t recognise the portrait John Prescott has set out”.
It seems that even as Foreign Secretary Miliband lacked genuine experience and judgement, as noted by Oborne above, and the Guardian as it continued:
More experienced colleagues recognised it all too well. “These memoirs are unhelpful, but there is nothing in them which people do not already know,” said another senior minister.
Or how about this as noted by ‘Mat’ in the comments here:
Last week, I reported on the strange eagerness of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office to appease the murderous regime in Tehran. Another example of the FCO’s willingness to kowtow to nasty regimes has been flagged up in another newspaper, where a columnist researching ahead of a recent visit to China came across a remarkable statement from the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, slipped out on the FCO website on October 29 2008, just before representatives of the Dalai Lama were due to hold talks in Beijing on the future of Tibet.
Buried in the statement was Britain’s recognition for the first time that, like “all other members of the EU… we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China”. The historic significance of this change was not lost on Beijing, since until then Britain, with its unique role in Tibet’s history, had for 100 years been very careful not to recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The group known as Free Tibet noted that Miliband’s concession gravely weakened the position of the Tibetan envoys without getting anything in return – commenting how extraordinary it was that Britain should have “rewarded China in such a way in the very year that China has committed its worst human rights abuses in Tibet in decades, including killing and torture”.
All good material to flesh out an interview with such a prominent, in the BBC’s mind, political figure….some very serious questions needing to be asked of a superannuated Labour politician…buying votes and selling out Tibet…..but then digging the dirt on 13 years of Labour destruction isn’t on the BBC’s ‘to do’ list.
Never mind…perhaps when he returns. You can’t keep a good man down.
Time for another……
Should you ever be stuck in a snow drift, climate change allowing, with a BBC journalist and he breaks out the ‘Travel Scrabble’ just check all the tiles are there…..I suspect it may be missing the B’s, R’s, O’s, U’s, A’s and L’s.
The Government today announced changes to the NHS to prevent any more scandals as happened at Stafford Hospital under the Labour government when up to 1,200 patients died because of lack of care.
Listening today to the BBC you would hear the dates of this tragedy…but once again no mention of the political Party which ran that NHS service at the time.
I heard no mention of Labour in relation to responsibility for the tragedy at all. The BBC were quite happy to report Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, attacking the government proposals today as not enough to prevent a reoccurrence of Stafford…
“We will never get the right culture on our wards if they are understaffed and overstretched,” Mr Burnham said
….but not an inkling of the irony of such a stance when it was his own Labour government’s policies which led to the deaths of all these patients that are having to be changed.
Listening to the BBC you would almost get the impression that it was the Coalition government that was responsible.
Just for comparison compare the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in 2009 when a similar number of people were killed….2/3rds of whom were militants.
The BBC still, 4 years on, tags the death toll onto the bottom of many reports about Israel….and makes sure we know Israel’s savage and oppressive army was responsible.
Contrast with how they report the deaths at Stafford Hospital and where the blame is cast…..who is ‘framed’ for the deaths…and it’s not the government of the day…the Labour Party.
I think it’s pretty clear that the BBC see Boris as a threat to the political consensus and Labour’s chances in 2015 if he were to somehow become leader of the Conservative Party.
This is the film by Michael Cockerell investigating Boris’ worthiness to be PM:
Boris Johnson: The Irresistable rise
I haven’t had time to watch it but you can always go to the end to get the final wrap and discover what the programme really hopes to put across to the viewer…in this case it is that Boris would be a dangerous choice for PM:
‘If he were to become Prime Minister the British people would spend their time on the very edge of their seats.’
I think that’s as close as the BBC can allow itself to get to saying ‘avoid voting for Boris.’
So ‘Operation Get Boris’ is underway. Twice elected Mayor in what is prime Labour territory, however unlikely, he may well pull off a similar political houdini act for the Tories…and win an outright majority escaping the dead grasp of the Libdems.
The BBC clearly are hoping that some mud will finally stick to what they call the ‘Teflon Mayor’ with Chris Mason concocting yet another BBC effort which seems solely aimed at having sly digs at Boris Johnson….who is as Cockerell calls him: ‘the country’s most popular politician’:
The ‘Teflon’ mayor: Boris Johnson and the future PM question
‘It is an era where institutions and figures of authority are held in a lower regard than ever before.
Critics claim Westminster is awash with identikit clones who look the same and sound the same.
So perhaps it is little wonder that one politician more than any other, who appears to ooze authenticity, garners so much attention.
And we, at the BBC, are going to show you he oozes alright…but it’s not authenticity.
His name is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
You know…de Pfeffel…the Old Etonian…just like that other out of touch millionaire Cameron.
Does he want to be prime minister?
Ah..there’s the rub! Can’t allow that.
“If the ball came loose from the back of the scrum, which it won’t of course, it would be a great, great thing to have a crack at.”
A great thing to have a crack at. The sort of phrase most of us might use to describe being persuaded to play for the local cricket team. Not run the country.
Ah…Boris is a joker, not someone serious or responsible.
As things stand Boris Johnson does not even have a seat at Westminster. So being an MP, let alone party leader, let alone prime minister is some way off, and to some at least, laughable.
Boris is a joke…laughable.
No disputes, Boris Johnson has got away with a lot.
Boris is a bit dodgy.
His force of personality, up to now at least, has given him a political coat made of Teflon. Nothing seems to stick, nothing seems to finish him off.
But we at the BBC are going to have a damned good go at it!
Quoting Conrad Black: “he is a sly fox disguised as a teddy bear”.
A final dig.
The BBC were probably taken aback by the response to Mair’s hatchet job interview and rushed this into circulation…it’s all OK…Boris loved it all….
Boris Johnson: BBC interview was splendid
But Boris would say nothing else..he’s not going to complain…so the BBC’s little ‘cover up’ of extremely partisan journalism is as dishonest as it is expected from the open and accountable BBC.
Something to chew on for our readers.
Sue and Craig who used to post here have set up their own site reporting on bias in the BBC….‘Is The BBC Biased?’
They say that the reason for doing so was that they were being stereotyped and labelled because of their views…and secondly that the comments below the posts were too aggressive and cliched.
Certainly there are attempts by some subversive ‘critics’ of this site to sabotage it and create the impression that everyone who reads it is some right wing BNP member….doing so by posting comments about Muslims or mentioning the ‘Final Solution’ whilst pretending to be right wing. They are trying their best to get this site labelled a ‘hate site’ ….they don’t like criticism of the BBC and seem to be keen to use any underhand method to stop it. They usually get deleted…as do racist, homophobic or otherwise unwelcome comments.
Having said that this is a pretty free and easy site for moderating comments….the occassional abuse and aggressiveness, which comes oddly mostly from our critics, serves only to discredit themselves…I remain entirely unbothered by it…they could learn something from Scott who, whilst I disagree with much of what he says, is reasoned and restrained in his comments…and by virtue of that would be all the more effective if only he was right.
The site does not block anyone for their politics or philosophy or their opinions or beliefs…..that is why we criticise the BBC for censoring the ‘voices’ of people they don’t want to hear, those who oppose the things that the BBC has decided it likes and supports.
The site is non-political…any mention of ideologies or policies is purely to provide context to illustrate why the BBC is biased and why that is the wrong approach with potentially damaging effects on society.
This site aims to stop the BBC declaring some subjects off limits or taboo…whether that is Islam, climate change or immigration or whatever. It is not for the BBC to decide what is fit and proper for discussion.
The closing down of debate and the lack of questioning of the ‘consensus’ which guides for example government policy, can lead to dangerous consequences…..we have an unusually cold winter right now…heating fuel grows ever more expensive and people are shutting off their heating….Age Concern tells us old people are dieing because of that…a result of the green energy policy implemented without any real debate or opposition…aided by the BBC….a rigorous debate on the science and solutions would have perhaps come up with a better, safer policy.
Some comments are aggressive, or rude, or extreme…but this is not a site that thinks you should all be enlightened, middle class, progressive libertarians…..as I said there are some limits but generally we prefer a wide spread of voices and opinions.
It seems to work though…and surprisingly perhaps, most comments are of a moderate nature….reasoned, intelligent, measured and bringing both a width of experience and knowledge to the blog that couldn’t come from the few regular posters such as myself….nor could we possibly do without the constant referrals to information that the readers provide…..the ‘Biased BBC Irregulars’.
All in all I think Sue and Craig are wrong about the comments on this site….they are a necessary part of it and bring life and an invaluable extra dimension to it…even if that extra dimension is sometimes ‘out there’.
This is Sue and Craig’s remarks on their blog:
‘Here on “IS” Craig frames his critiques in a conscientious and fair manner. Rational, and some may say, even-handed. Me – probably less so, but I try not to hurtle towards irrational or extreme language.
We hope someone somewhere will be persuaded by our brilliant reasoning and charming personalities.
The drawback is that the minute we express our views, we risk stereotyping ourselves and losing the very people we wouldst seduce. By continually hammering out complaints about the same old things we’re almost bound to be ‘stereotyped’ without really trying. But while the same old things are bothering us, what can else can we do? Give in?
When we wrote articles for the Biased BBC blog we had the same problem. Even when we set a measured tone, as reasonable and restrained as could be, the below the line commenters, in their enthusiasm, would frequently lapse into cliched memes and mantras. What more foolproof way to antagonise readers who didn’t see it their way.
A few years ago one or two spokespersons from the BBC dropped in to defend their employer, or to dispute some point or other with the B-BBC community. At best, a rally of claims and counter-claims might ensue, but the banter usually involved a lone BBC representative versus a gaggle of aggressive Biased-BBCers. You had to admire the pluck of the former. More often than not the BBC’s input would be in the form of a one-off snipe. Not much use to man or beast. Any replies and responses piled up unanswered, stranded; the best that could be hoped for was that the silent sniper had lurked, read and left.
In an act of principled self-destruction we decided to forgo a widely read platform and languish here on our own-io. To be hoist by our own supporters, or stand alone, fancy-free and self-determining in obscurity, that is the question.
No sign of Miss Israel 2012, Shani Hazan, on the BBC:
For some reason we have an encyclopaedic entry for Miss israel 2013:
An immigrant from Ethiopia when she was 12 years old, Yityish Aynaw learnt Hebrew with no extra help and served as an officer in the Israeli army. Those Israelis must be terrible people allowing that.
The BBC can’t let all that success go without having a dig at Israel:
“It was a new language. It was a new culture. Quite often children even laughed at me,” she says, though she adds that she also met many kind people.’
Oh and this little bit…..
‘Ethiopians often complain about discrimination when it comes to jobs, education and housing. There were even allegations last year that some new Ethiopian immigrants have been given contraceptive injections against their will.’
Nothing like spreading unfounded allegations to demonise Israel.
But never mind…. there might just be some kind people in Israel….blimey…what a surprise…though you might be surprised given the BBC’s usual coverage of the Middle East.
Hang on, what’s this…there are only around 120,000 ethiopians in Israel….not only is one of them Miss Israel…but perhaps more importantly, along with Arab members, there are already two Ethiopians in the Israeli parliament….
Aynaw’s victory “was very important for all Israeli society”, says Penina Tamanu-Shata, one of two Ethiopian Israelis currently serving as a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.
That Israeli apartheid is a funny old thing.
The BBC can’t help loving the new Miss Israel despite her having served in the Israeli’s ‘oppressive and savage army’, wonder why…..
‘….another hero, she told the BBC, was the US president…..“I was influenced and inspired by Obama.’
The BBC have launched an extraordinary hatchet job on Boris Johnson. using some pretty ancient history (the Guppy phone call made the news in 1995)….no coincidence that the newspapers have in the last few days been full of stories that the successful and popular Boris looks like going for the leadership of the Tory Party…..the BBC’s Eddie Mair making the highly personal and opinionated comment that Boris is a ‘nasty piece of work.‘…any doubts he knew that would make the headlines? Was it scripted or a ‘preconceived notion’ in the beat up for the programme? If so, very dodgy for the BBC...if the comment is seen as intentionally damaging to Boris’s reputation. (Link from Reed in the comments)
Perhaps Mair’s antipathy towards Johnson arises from this quote from Boris:
“If gay marriage were OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.”
Mair is gay and covers a lot of gay ‘politics’. for the BBC
The BBC, having seen how successful Boris was in capturing the London vote which should be prime Labour territory, may have thought he would wipe the floor with the highly unattractive Ed Miliband….and decided to intervene….with stories that have been dragged out of the archives…so the question is …why have the BBC done this now?
The first point is that the BBC supported the Leveson inquiry and has consistently attacked the reporting of personal affairs (link again from Reed in comments) and activities of celebrities and politicians claiming such things are irrelevant.
Nicky Campbell only a couple of days ago defending Prescott’s workplace dalliances….and the comments by another Labour man, John O’Farrell, in his book that he would have been happy to see Thatcher dead…Campbell claimed the reporting of such a comment was unfair.
How things change…Boris has an affair and suddenly the BBC is ‘acting like a Red top’….the BBC’s excuse…… its all to do with ‘integrity’.
Johnson was given no time to explain anything whilst Mair seemed to be conducting what amounted to a highly judgemental kangaroo court.
Johnson’s ‘crimes’ were either personal, minor or non-existent….for instance the phone call with Guppy….Johnson handed over no address and never intended to….and nobody was ‘beaten up’…..and yet Mair made an instant judgement and denounced him as guilty of partcipating in a plot to attack someone.
Having an afair…telling a porkie to the boss..about the affair…hardly the work of the Devil as Mair seems to imply.
Can it be that one of the BBC’s sanctimonious self appointed little priests, Mair, is spinning this up into a storm of finger pointing, pious indignation not out of any real moral conviction but as said before, because Boris is a Tory, a successful and popular one, and looks like he may be thinking of going for the Leadership one day?
The BBC are perfectly within their rights to question Boris about lying on the job or involvement in any plots to beat people up….as long as they give him time to answer, but it is far outside their remit to pronounce judgement upon Boris, or anyone else and certainly not in such vicious and abusive, and highly political terms….as ‘a nasty piece of work’.
And if Mair wants to talk about ‘integrity’ how about a journalist who invites someone onto his show to talk about one thing….‘he thought he “was coming on to talk about the budget and what’s happening in London.”‘ and then ambushes him with something else entirely for which he is not prepared or able to martial his thoughts under a withering attack designed to confuse and disorientate?
And the BBC’s own ‘integrity’ might also be in question when it uses a journalist to cover extremely controversial issues, such as gay marriage, who is gay but most viewers or listeners will not know that….. people should be able to judge whether his interpretation is coloured by personal interest or views…they can only do that if they know his background…..we can judge Marr’s or Naughtie’s interviews and programmes by knowing they are Labour supporters and we can assess the interview with that in mind.
Mair is gay, nothing wrong with that but he keeps it pretty quiet….which could be a problem when he is extensively reporting on gay political issues….it’s a legitimate question to ask does he use that position to campaign on behalf of gay rights whilst ostensibly merely ‘reporting’ on them?….as this comment jokes about:
‘I only found out about the gay radio presenters through trying to find out if Eddie Mair was gay after a comment from someone. I *think* he is gay but he keeps it quiet…even so seems he keeps it so quiet he isn’t on the list [famous gay people].’
The interviews with CoFE people etc trying to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws are even funnier with the thought that Eddie is gay and they don’t know.
It’s like Trevor MacDonald interviewing Nick Griffen and Griffen not realising MacDoughnut is black.’
Mair does many reports on gay politics…without people knowing his own position…'”he’s mightily good at keeping his private life private, though, isn’t he?”….he also interviews many politicians about gay politics, recently on gay marriage..again almost certainly without proclaiming his own interest or the politician or any viewer knowing that personal interest:
Richard Dyce @dickiedyce 5 Feb #personaljourney Eddie Mair eviscerates Theresa May on gay marriage. Nicely done
‘Miller was completely torn apart by Eddie Mair on Radio 4’s PM Show before Christmas’….(talking about gay marriage.)
‘Gay MP’s : Pride and prejudice in politics. “Eddie Mair looks at the homosexual history of Parliament and the hypocrisy that gay MPs frequently encounter”
The Independent seems to think Mair has some influence as a gay person voting him 52nd most influential..and rising:
52 (56) Eddie Mair
Broadcaster
The voice of Radio 4’s PM, Mair has gained new fans by standing in for Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight — with a much calmer style of interviewing. With Newsnight suffering its current troubles over Jimmy Savile, perhaps a more permanent position on the late-night BBC2 show beckons?
Should someone who has a personal interest in a subject, a highly political and controversial subject such as gay marriage, be interviewing politicians about it without declaring that interest or broadcasting what could be perceived as ‘gay propaganda’ on the BBC? If he was an ardent Labour supporter and was interviewing a Labour politician wouldn’t it be relevant to know his own views to judge the rigour and direction of the interview?
That example is of course a bad one as everybody at the BBC leans left by default apparently!
Mair is being highly hypocritical when he is so shy of letting people know he is gay himself as here he criticises the Tories for keeping quiet about being gay….. why just the Tories?, does no other Party have gay MPs who are not open about it?
“I’m sorry but I’m away on Sunday”. “Sorry – she’s away till mid-August.” “Can you call back in September?” We scour the world for the brightest and best guests every Sunday morning – but this time of year it’s like trying to find an openly gay Tory.’
Mair is clearly a good and popular journalist…
‘Wicked. And just a tad sneaky. Clearly a man who takes no political prisoners….when they try (as they so often do) to bodyswerve the tricky questions, Mair believes its perfectly legitimate for him rigorously to pursue them, almost to the point of rudeness.’
No kidding.
….and appeals to ‘the ladies’…albeit on the scary Mumsnet:
I am a little bit in love with Eddie Mair (57 Posts)
Snaf Fri 12-Sep-08 19:36:03 Was listening to the PM programme this evening and… he is just great, isn’t he?
Habbibu Fri 12-Sep-08 19:38:23 Oh, snaf. You are a woman after my own heart. I shall join you in stern looks if there are anything but positive comments on this thread.
constancereader Fri 12-Sep-08 20:01:52 Oh god I love him too.
He is absolutely the best interviewer
seeker Fri 12-Sep-08 20:04:30 you do know he’s gay, don’t you? Such a shame – just like Evan Davis.
Habbibu Fri 12-Sep-08 20:05:58 yes, I’d heard that, seeker – he’s mightily good at keeping his private life private, though, isn’t he? (Not that I’ve googled, oh no).
….but Mair does seems to be on a personal campaign to promote gay equality through the offcies of the BBC and in this interview with Boris has descended into personal abuse and judgement when that is not the BBC’s role, which is to establish the facts and not to proclaim them either good or bad….those are value judgements and in this case highly political.
