In common with sundry lazy newspaper hacks

(too lazy to pick up the phone to Kenneth Clarke, that is), BBC Views Online’s weekly Magazine Monitor: Ten Things column lapped up and repeated the story that:

5. The croquet set John Prescott so memorably used at Dorneywood was presented to the grace-and-favour house by previous resident Kenneth Clarke.

Except of course he didn’t, as anyone who saw Kenneth Clarke being interviewed on Sky News in the middle of last week knows. And here was me thinking that Beeboids while away their hours at ‘work’ watching Sky News…

Alice Miles, writing in Saturday’s Times, confirms The truth about that croquet set:

THEY probably thought it was just a bit of spin: John Prescott’s special adviser, Joan Hammell, tried to roll those embarrassing croquet balls back out of sight last weekend by claiming that Conservative ministers used Dorneywood far more than Labour ones ever had, and, “in fact, the croquet set was given to the house by Kenneth Clarke when he was the resident there”.

Blame it on the Tories. What sounds like just a piece of political trivia is in fact an extremely good example of an outdated instinct that Labour desperately needs to kick and can’t: pointing the finger for everything, be it chaos at the Home Office, deficits in the health service, or even croquet, at “18 years of Tory rule”.

This mantra, honed in Opposition when a lot of problems probably were the product of 18 years of Tory rule, simply doesn’t wash any more, as Tony Blair is discovering at Prime Minister’s Questions week after week. The formula is dated, predictable and increasingly ridiculous after nine years in power. Only Labour seems not to have noticed that.

Oh and incidentally, Mr Clarke didn’t buy the croquet set.

So there we have it. I expect the Beeboids at BBC Views Online will get round to publishing a correction to this piece of blatant Labour spin that they so eagerly fell for.

Also on Saturday, fellow blogger Iain Dale exhorted Check your facts BBC News Online!, noting typical BBC attention to detail, as well as unattributed lifting of chunks of an exclusive David Cameron interview from ConservativeHome.com, tsk, tsk.

How touching:

BBC Views Online presents In pictures: Remembering Khomeini:

On the 17th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomenei, Iranian photographer Mohsen Shandiz (centre) presents his memories of the return of the spiritual leader of the Islamic revolution to Iran in 1979.

Coming soon to BBC Views Online’s In Pctures series: Remembering Hitler, Remembering Stalin, Remembering Pol Pot, Remembering Saddam, ad nauseam.

For an alternative selection of Khomeini pictures, many snapshots, plus a smattering of, shall we say, alternative images, simply browse through Google Images selection of ‘Khomeini’ results.

For a fuller picture of the result of the Islamic revolution in Iran, do take a look at the likes of: Iran Focus: Human Rights, Iran Focus: Women, Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran, and so on. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the Iranian Revolution, including links back to some of the BBC’s better Iranian coverage, as well as some interesting thoughts on the machinations of various Iranian factions, the CIA, President Carter etc.

Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:


Please use this thread, and this thread alone, for off-topic comments, preferably BBC related. Please keep comments on other threads on the topic of that particular post. N.B. this is not an invitation for off-topic comments – the idea is to maintain order and clarity. Thank you.

Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:


Please use this thread, and this thread alone, for off-topic comments, preferably BBC related. Please keep comments on other threads on the topic of that particular post. N.B. this is not an invitation for off-topic comments – the idea is to maintain order and clarity. Thank you.

Biased BBC comments regular Ritter suggests

a couple of interesting links: Media groups unite against BBC:

“The government is handing the BBC an unfair advantage in the digital revolution that is changing the face of the media,” the submission says.

“The government is handing the BBC a prime public policy task that should not be the preserve of any media organisation. At the same time, it will allow the corporation to indulge in wide cross-promotion of an increasing range of digital products.

“There cannot be a ‘balanced media ecology’ where the BBC is given such strong public policy direction and support in the development of digital products. That remit needs to be curtailed.”

and ‘Prancing’ BBC News hosts berated:

Mr Mullin said: “Can we find time to debate the extent to which the tabloid virus is beginning to infect BBC television news?

“Have you noticed that newscasters increasingly no longer read news to camera, but they walk around the studio like a couple of ham actors emoting?

“I think it is called news with attitude.”

I wonder if the Beeboids will deign to have a (Don’t) Have Your Say on this topic – I’m sure the great British public will have plenty of views on the BBC (and other) prancing presenters. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a BBC (D)HYS though – tell us (and them) what you think in the comments here.

Reach for the garlic; the vampires of the BBC are killing current affairs

, writes Tom Mangold in Wednesday’s Independent. Formerly a senior BBC News correspondent and longstanding journalist on Panorama, I’ve always thought of Mangold as one of the better old-school guys at the BBC. Here are a couple of excerpts, laying in to the ratings chasing dolts that run the BBC nowadays:

What you are not seeing on Panorama generally are reporters of reputation, chutzpah and experience telling you what the hell Iran is up to; what on earth is going on at the CIA; whether the Labour Party really is sawing at its own throat with rusty razor-blades; how Israel and Hamas intend to co-exist; just who is the 17-year-old wunderkind chosen for England’s World Cup squad; how much longer can the Iraq imbroglio last before meltdown; and can anyone anywhere explain why our boys are in Afghanistan?

The appointment of a new editor will be BBC1’s last chance to salvage the wreckage of its current affairs commitment. One more mistake and surely the game will be up. But the omens are not good. My former boss Mark Thompson in his BBC “state of the union” message devoted exactly eight words out of 4,000 – that’s 0.2 per cent – to the subject of BBC TV current affairs. Here’s what he said: “[We are going to] find new ways of shaping our current affairs.” That’s it. Mind-blowing stuff, eh? Big commitment by Britain’s boss of public service broadcasting.

and:

Peter Fincham also promised his demoralised staff “hour-long, week-night special editions at 9pm”. Oh yeah? So what happened last Wednesday? A Panorama “special” (on yet another poor person close to death) was first kicked out of its usual Sunday night slot because it got in the way of a major feature film; next the producer was told he could have a slot on Wednesday but would he cut 10 minutes out of the film first. (Imagine Van Gogh’s agent: “Too many sunflowers there, Van old boy, take a few out, big canvases don’t sell any more.”) Then, what was left of the film was not run, as promised, at 9pm, but the truncated version appeared at 7pm (reaching a dismally small audience of 2.3 million). Why? Well, BBC2 was running The Apprentice at 9pm, ITV had the Uefa Cup Final, and Fincham could only fight back with a blockbuster film starting at 9pm. That’s the commitment to current affairs now on the channel. Cinderella was treated like Madonna in comparison.

Indeed. Lowest common denominator ratings chasing with ITV and Sky isn’t my idea of public service television either. I fondly recall, from the age of about 12 upwards, being increasingly interested, informed and piqued by BBC programmes like Panorama and ITV programmes like World in Action, TV Eye (This Week) and First Tuesday – the first of which is often but a shadow of its former self, whilst the latter are long since finished on ITV (pleasingly though, the news junkies among us can get classic World in Action programmes on DVD now – it’s worth it just for the nostalgia trip of the theme music, let alone film of things like Idi Amin on his rise to infamy. Do stop me if I ever start to reminisce about Richard Stilgoe’s piano playing on Nationwide though!).

Channel 4’s contribution to this area of TV is much appreciated. Series like Dispatches and one-offs by independent minded people of varying political hues (for instance Peter Oborne, William Shawcross, Martin Bell, Rod Liddle, Kenan Malik etc.) are to be commended, but there is so much more current affairs coverage that could and should be done, in particular by the BBC.

There are exceptions to this state of affairs at the BBC: Andrew Neil’s resurgence is a welcome nod in the direction of no nonsense inquisition (though Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo could do with a change now and again). Even Jeremy Paxman, and, to a lesser degree, Newsnight as a whole, have gone up in my estimation in recent times. Their section the other day on illegal immigration, including a packaged report by Steve Moxon, the IND whistleblower, and a studio discussion with Sir Andrew Green and Nick Clegg was very good – although Tony McNulty, the Labour minister could have done with a thorough mauling, including Green and Clegg, rather than being dealt with separately. If only Newsnight (and the BBC) could lose the awful (and thoroughly compromised) Kirsty Nark and ditch the right-on twaddle that masquerades as Newsnight Review.

There is still a place, a market and a need for decent, probing, investigative current affairs reporting in the UK. If the BBC could free itself from its prevailing anodine, politically correct pap, peddled by its self-selecting gang of Guardian subscribing drones (and the overpaid smiley, smiley ‘talent’ lounging on the corporation’s sofas) then we might get back to having decent current affairs programming that actually informs and serves the British public – the people who pay for it all – rather than pushing the right-on agenda of the Guardian’s metropolitan chattering classes.

Update: According to the Guardian Panorama jobs under threat, including, they speculate, John Ware:

Ware has produced some of Panorama’s biggest scoops over recent years, including the Who Bombed Omagh? special in which he named the Real IRA men thought to be responsible.

His loss would be a big blow to the corporation, which has repeatedly pledged not to downgrade its commitment to current affairs.

“There is a very small reporting pool within the current affairs area that is well and truly under threat,” said a source.

“They are all of a certain age and are investigative reporters who do what they do very well but can’t be fitted into other roles very easily. Ware is in a very vulnerable group.”

John Ware is another of the good guys at the BBC – if they’re stupid enough to get rid of reporters like him then they might as well axe Panorama in favour of more derivative crap like Lame Academy – paid for by voluntary subscription.

Hat tip to Ritter for The Independent link and dumbcisco for the Guardian link.

The BBC pro-Israeli? Is the Pope Jewish?

Martin Walker of United Press International had an interesting article in The Times a few days ago, beginning:

Despite a catalogue of examples to the contrary, the governors insist there is bias against the Palestinians

THE OFFICIAL REPORT for the governors of the BBC on its coverage of the Palestine-Israeli conflict found predictably that there was “was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias” but then went on to list a series of measurements by which the BBC could be said to be biased in favour of Israel.

This produced mocking guffaws in my own newsroom, where some of the BBC’s greatest hits – or perhaps misses – remain fresh in the memory. There was the hagiographic send-off for Yassir Arafat by a BBC reporter with tears in her eyes and that half-hour profile of Arafat in 2002 which called him a “hero” and “an icon” and concluded that the corrupt old brute was “the stuff of legends”.

There was Orla Guerin’s unforgettably inventive spin on the story of a Palestinian child being deployed as a suicide bomber, which most journalists saw as a sickening example of child abuse in the pursuit of terrorism. Guerin had it as “Israel’s cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes”.

The rest of it is worth reading, though I’m not sure I’d go along with his conclusion entirely!

For the last couple of days I’ve been following the BBC’s court reports

about an Old Bailey trial. So far there have been two reports, Men ‘stored 600kg bomb material’ covering Monday and ‘Terror cell bugged’ court hears covering Tuesday (there hasn’t been a report for Wednesday yet).

Both of these reports concern what is described in one as “a British terror cell” and in the other as “an alleged British terror cell”. Leaving aside the issue of whether the accused are British or just allegedly British (or do the Beeboids mean allegedly terrorists?), what I can’t figure out, from the BBC’s reports, is what was motivating these (allegedly) British alleged terrorists to behave in the manner alleged.

The only terror group mentioned is in the context of the gang’s “600kg of a fertiliser the IRA once used”, but I haven’t heard any news of Gerry Adams claiming that Messrs. Mahmood, Akbar, Khyam, Mahmood, Amin, Garcia (also known as Rahman Adam) and Hussain are victims of a British securocrat conspiracy.

So, I’m at a loss. Do you think they could be militant plumbers, like that chap back in December?

On another matter, Adloyada asks us to say: Egypt.

Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:


Please use this thread, and this thread alone, for off-topic comments, preferably BBC related. Please keep comments on other threads on the topic of that particular post. N.B. this is not an invitation for off-topic comments – the idea is to maintain order and clarity. Thank you.