Author Archives: Hugh

‘Call me biased and I’ll sue’?

I posted the other day about DB’s attempts to comment on Justin Webb’s blog. If you remember, Webb mentioned his comment in a post last Saturday, but it had been referred to the moderators, which made it a bit tricky for readers to know what he was on about. Anyway, as a further demonstration of their ineptitude, it seems the blog moderators have now reinstated the comment (it’s number 6), but only after emailing DB to inform him it was removed for being “defamatory”. This is, well… interesting from a legal perspective, but more so in the context of the Beeb’s accountability (which they’re dead keen on). Don’t forget the Beeb says one of the benefits of its blogs is that they help boost accountability to the audience. But not, it seems, if you want to take them to task for failing to meet their Charter commitments regarding impartiality – or in fact even if you want to remind them to do so.

Rumbling on

The headlines today are, well, challenging for the Beeb:

• My grandfather is distraught…now sack these sickos, says the Sun
• Brown turns up heat on Ross, at the Mail
• Brown demands action from BBC over lewd stars, says the Telegraph
• Clamour grows for BBC to act over radio insults, says the Times

And that’s just those that lead with it on their front page.

Much of the ire is, understandably, being directed at Ross and Brand, but for my money Iain Dale has it right here, where he points out that since it was pre-recorded much of the responsibility must lie with producer, editor and station controller. Sky also have a good interview with former DJ Roger Gale, arguing against making a scapegoat of out of a junior staff member. As he puts it, It’s the people at the top that set the trend, not those low down the food chain.

This Guardian piece also has some interesting background that helps explain why this could be be good news for those that want to see reform at the Beeb:

Unfortunately for the BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson, the furore has coincided with the endgame in a debate about the future of public service broadcasting post-2012. Ofcom will deliver its conclusions in January.

Critics said the BBC’s slow response and the confusing reviews now in motion showed the weakness of its regulatory system, which was overhauled after the Hutton inquiry, and its compliance regime, supposed to have been tightened after last year’s fakery rows and phone-in scandals.

Who knows, it could even lead to suggestions that the BBC actually monitor compliance with other charter commitments, such as to impartiality.

UPDATE: Brand and Ross have been suspended – and after three days the Beeb has managed to find Mark Thompson. The number of complaints has now topped 18,000. Even the Guardian’s Michael White suggests the Beeb tends to be a little slow to admit its mistakes.

UPDATE 2: Brand has quit.

UPDATE 3: Sorry, but just one final thought on this: the Beeb are making much of the fact that Radio 1 listeners don’t see what the fuss is about – it’s a generational thing, innit – the logic being that if enough people think it’s funny then it’s okay to ring up someone to inform them that you’ve f***ed their granddaughter. And then broadcast the results against their wishes. I think I understand the principle the Beeb is trying to develop, but I’m a little unsure of how it’s meant to be applied: is it only former cast members of Fawlty Towers we can do it with, or any license fee payer? And is it just granddaughters, or are they allowed to ring me to inform me that one of their staff members has f****ed by daughter – provided, of course, that the youth audience chortle?

Definitely not a good week for the Beeb…

Thanks to George R in the comments for pointing out that criticism of the Beeb’s bloggers – particularly Webb – is finding a wider audience.

[S]urely it’s time the organisation tried to control its bloggers who are becoming more and more outspoken. As a publicly-funded broadcaster, the BBC is supposed to maintain an attitude of political impartiality, but no longer, when it comes to the blogs available on the corporation’s website, reads the Standard’s Diary column.

It goes on to reference a couple of the recent blog entries that have been highlighted here. And it’s none too flattering about Peston, either.

And another thing…

Anyone know why the Beeb’s website has outsourced part of its US election coverage to Newsweek? The latest piece (following others such as these) is – well, just what you’d expect from a left-leaning news weekly – a predictable pre-emptive strike on any floating voters who dare choose McCain. Here’s the writer’s conclusion, imagining the horror of a McCain victory:

Democrats are despairing over the results, fearing they might never view their country in the same light again. Even many Republicans are subdued at the news of McCain’s victory.

Having expected him to lose, they know the GOP has now completed a sorry transition from the party of Lincoln to the party of cynicism. McCain, they’re reasoning, might prove a fine president, but it shouldn’t have happened like this…

… It probably won’t. Millions of people in the rest of the world assume that Barack Obama cannot be elected because he is black. They assume that the original sin of American history – enshrined in our Constitution – cannot be transcended.

I go into next week’s election with a different assumption – that the common sense and decency of the American people will prove the sceptics wrong.

If you’re wondering why it doesn’t work

Steve Hewlett’s piece in The Guardian offers an interesting insight into accountability at the BBC. The discussion is about the proposals for top-slicing the license fee, but the point is more widely applicable:

Senior Ofcom executives have privately expressed surprise at the lack of obvious separation between the BBC Trust and the BBC management on these questions… The Trust, meanwhile, continues to maintain that it represents licence fee payers.

Hewlett’s conclusion (and he has worked for the Beeb) is interesting: Yes, the Trust is required to demonstrate independence, and to represent the interests of licence fee payers by holding BBC management to account. But the Trust is, constitutionally, the BBC – so once you engage in bigger questions about the role, funding or even the very existence of the corporation, the Trust, quite properly, speaks as the BBC and not as a separate or independent regulator of it.

If you’re wondering who actually represents your interests regarding the BBC, then, the answer would seem to be, no one.

In case you missed them…

Guido has an amusing piece up on a surprising episode of Spooks. Shockingly, it goes some way towards reflecting reality – not a fundamentalist Christian terrorist or Mossad conspiracy in sight. As he says, it’s all a terrible disappointment: This is the BBC, we expect to be force fed left-wing platitudes and propaganda, not given a patriotic tear jerker.

Don’t get too excited, though. At the Three Line Whip, Iain Martin points us to this piece by Michael Gove, chastising the Beeb for sucking up to the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm.