A few days ago, parts of the public sector chose to strike. The Daily Mail suggests that the public sector strike was not as successful as anticipated whilst some of the BBC’s early web news headlines implied a “mass” turnout. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction ? I am sure the Daily Mail has a bias in its coverage but so has our allegedly impartial State Broadcaster surely?

On Wednesday Owen Jones made a rather surprising claim in the Guardian (Jones never lets a bandwagon go by without jumping aboard)…that the BBC was pro-Israeli:

‘Israel under renewed Hamas attack’, says the BBC. More balance is needed

The macabre truth is that Israeli life is deemed by the western media to be worth more than a Palestinian life – this is the hierarchy of death at work

The media coverage hardly reflects the reality: a military superpower armed with F-15 fighter jets, AH-64 Apache helicopters, Delilah missiles, IAI Heron-1 drones and Jericho II missiles (and nuclear bombs, for that matter), versus what David Cameron describes as a “prison camp” firing almost entirely ineffective missiles. Twenty-seven Palestinians are reported to have died in Gaza – and, mercifully, no Israelis have been killed by Hamas rockets – and yet the BBC opts for the Orwellian “Israel under renewed Hamas attack”.

The BBC is a public broadcaster, duty-bound to provide balanced reports that accurately reflect the reality on the ground. It is failing to do so, and it is up to licence payers – to whom it is accountable – to demand that it does.

Incredible that Jones manages to ignore every other headline from the BBC or their continuous reports of Israeli bombardments of Gaza killing ‘Palestinians’…and oh yes…The Palestinians may have fired off a few ricketty homemade rockets into the deserts of Israel where absolutely no one was hurt.

So BBC…tell us who all those ‘Palestinians’ were…just how many were Hamas terrorists?

Why is it that it is always ‘Palestinian medics’ who the BBC report as the source of casualty figures…why not the true source…Hamas propagandists who control everything the media does and sees in Gaza?  The BBC won’t use ‘terrorist’ but will use ‘medic’…adopting Hamas’ own preferred narrative.

Later in the day the BBC’s Kevin Connolly came on to the Sheila Fogarty show (51 mins 35 sec) to talk about events in Gaza….he told us that essentially Israel is to blame for the Hamas rocket firing…a response to Israel’s extensive search for the three kidnapped teenagers.

Connolly goes on to say that Hamas’ only weapon against Israel (and her aggressive, violent attacks on Gaza?) is these rockets…the subtext to that is that Israel is the aggressor and Hamas is almost defenceless against that aggression….which Connolly actually says later in the piece as he describes the bombing of a Hamas house which Hamas used as a propaganda opportunity….demonstrating Connolly thought the power of Israel against which Hamas is defenceless….which again puts the blame for the violence squarely in Israel’s court.

Connolly talks of the power of images in such a war and how they alter perceptions…Fogarty agrees that images have a huge impact on how we see situations….and tells us that it shows how important it is that journalists are there to bring us the truth about those images.  Had to laugh about that considering the BBC’s past record on photos from the conflict.

Connolly today put that down in print.…but made a much more rounded effort in describing the motivations of both sides:

Gaza-Israel conflict: What can Israel and Hamas gain?

Note that he changes the words…whereas he said rockets were Hamas’ only ‘weapon’ in the radio report here he replaces ‘weapon’ with ‘tool’:

The only tool Hamas had at its disposal to respond to the round-up was rocket fire from Gaza – and those arrests were reason enough for that bombardment to intensify.

That changes the perception of Hamas…from being aggressive, even in what it claims is its defence, to a more technical, neutral term that removes that violent subtext.

Connolly still downplays the effectiveness of Palestinian rockets:

Lots of the rockets in Gaza are workshop weapons.

What he doesn’t mention are the thousands of highly effective missiles imported from Iran.

Connolly does at least admit that Hamas may be using civilians as human shields and a propaganda weapon, or is that propaganda tool?…

Hamas’s military leaders might be calculating that the sight of Palestinian civilians suffering under terrifying aerial bombardment will force the Palestinian Authority to show much greater solidarity and prompt Arab governments to show more support.

Hamas might reason that there were few advantages in keeping the peace whereas once hostilities have started it can demand concessions for agreeing to end them.

Connolly goes on to admit perceptions can be manipulated by Hamas….

Israel might argue that it’s trying to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas is trying to cause them. But television pictures of civilian dead in Gaza – especially children – will help shape perceptions of Israel round the world.

And he alludes to the possible terrors of Israeli civilians under rocket bombardment, but doesn’t go into detail…..

To the outside world the Gaza rockets may seem ineffective – partly because many are homemade and partly because they’re hopelessly overmatched by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defence system.

But Israeli civilians judge the rockets by the intent behind them and not by their military effectiveness. They are grimly familiar with the ritual of running for shelter with their children when they hear a 15-second warning. They expect their government to put a stop to it.

Connolly should perhaps give more time to reporting the effects of the missiles on Israelis:

In May 2007, a significant increase in rocket attacks from Gaza prompted the temporary evacuation of thousands of residents from Sderot.^[157] According to the United Nations, 40 percent of the city’s residents left in the last two weeks of May.^[158] During the summer of 2007, 3,000 of the city’s 22,000 residents (comprising mostly the city’s key upper and middle class residents)^{[citation needed]} left for other areas, out of rocket range.

During the 2008–2009 conflict, a large section of the residents of Ashkelon, a southern coastal city put in range of Grad-type rockets since the beginning of the conflict, fled the city for the relative safety of central and northern Israel.^[159] On January 10–11, according to Israeli media, 40 percent of the residents fled the city, despite calls by the Mayor to stay.^[160]

In February 2009, the BBC reported that 3,000 of Sderot’s 24,000 residents had “upped and left.”^[1]

A few quibbles with his web reportbut it was  generally fairly balanced, his radio report seeming more inclined to play up the ‘defencelessness’ of Hamas against the military might of Israel…..ignoring the fact that all the bombing would stop if Hamas stopped rocketing or otherwise attacking Israel and agreed a permanent ceasefire.

And Owen Jones…he is of course just a professional contrarian who has to ‘protest’ every ‘right-on’ cause to maintain his leftwing credentials and keep the paychecks rolling in in exchange for his not so unique brand of leftwing demagogy.

Overdue but the floor is YOURS. Any views on the Hamas British Broadcasting Corporation and its BIAS?

Robert Peston hints that the BBC Trust should and might be split….its power to regulate the BBC removed:

Here are a couple of mildly interesting tidbits about my own shop, the BBC.

First (and there is nothing terribly revelatory about this) Lord Coe is a virtual shoo-in to be Lord Patten’s successor as chairman of the BBC Trust.

Of course his appointment is not 100%, because there is a formal and slightly cumbersome appointments process.

That process includes interviewing and vetting by a Department of Culture, Media and Sports appointments committee, a recommendation of a preferred candidate by government – after all the “appointable” candidates have been interrogated by the culture secretary, Sajid Javid – then pre-appointment scrutiny by MPs on the DCMS select committee and then formal appointment.

Phew.

But for the government, which for this sort of thing really means the prime minister and chancellor, Lord Coe is the outstanding candidate.

So presumably they will find a way to get him over these many hurdles.

Why do they rate him so highly?

Well they know him well (George Osborne and Coe once shared an office, I think), and they regard him as an impressive leader, with a remarkable record of success off the track (leading London’s Olympics bid, chairing the organising committee for the games, and so on).

One senior government source complained that among the chattering classes Lord Coe is widely and snootily under-rated “as that bloke who won some gold medals”.

Oh, and he is a Tory, which is de rigueur (other candidates take note).

Also Lord Coe is reckoned to be broadly positive about the BBC, which matters to Cameron and Osborne because – unlike perhaps the majority of Tory MPs – they are supporters of and believers in the BBC.

Which is not to say they are blindly uncritical.

But they place value on how the BBC wins important friends for Britain overseas – the role it plays in reinforcing the country’s “soft power” – and what they would see as its largely standard-raising role in the ecology of UK news, arts and media businesses.

That does not mean the review of the BBC’s charter – which the government said when advertising for the post of Trust chairman will now not start till after the general election – would be easy for the BBC, if the Tories form the next government.

The BBC would doubtless face challenges on the scope of what it does and could not expect any increase in the licence fee out of line with austerity in the rest of the public sector.

But it does suggest the charter review would not be about dismantling the BBC; it would not be a choice between life and death.

That said, the review is likely to be rather more existentially challenging to the BBC Trust itself, the body that has the often uncomfortable task of reconciling sometimes conflicting responsibilities – those of regulator, representative of licence-fee payers (who for these purposes can be seen as the owners) and occasional human shield when the Director General lands in a spot of bother.

As I understand it, Osborne and Cameron have never quite understood why the regulation of the BBC could not be done in a cleaner and more ostensibly impartial way by Ofcom.

If the Trust’s regulatory functions were removed, it would resemble something like the old governing board or even possibly a public company board, concentrating on oversight of senior executive appointments, money, risk and efficiency. There would be clarity that its ultimate duty of care would be to licence-fee payers.

With these more focussed duties, the BBC Trust chairman could step into the fray and shield the DG from heat in a crisis, without that compromising the chairman’s perceived impartiality as regulator (a constant tension under the existing system).

All of which adds up to my second tidbit, which is that there may have been a misinterpretation of the fact that the advert for the Trust chair job says he or she will serve a four-year term.

This was seen as somehow evidence that radical reform of the Trust is off the agenda.

That, I am reliably told, is wrong: if the BBC is not dismantled, the Trust may be.

Capitalists can obviously go up stairs.

Top Gear, Doctor Who and Strictly Come Dancing face being privatised under ‘competition revolution’ at the BBC

Top BBC shows like Doctor Who, Top Gear and Strictly Come Dancing face being privatised under new cost-cutting plans at the corporation.

Hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of TV programmes currently produced by the BBC will no longer be protected from outside competition under reforms announced by director general Tony Hall today.

In return, Lord Hall wants the BBC’s in-house production company to be free to make shows directly for other broadcasters, particularly in America, in a bid to generate millions of pounds.

Here is a taste of things to come with an early tender for the Dr Who franchise:

Israel launched a terror alert as BBC journo assumed to be Hamas terrorist…how could that ever happen?

Patten’s hardly out the door when:

BBC’s Nicky Campbell launches scathing attack on Lord Patten over female broadcasters debate

Campbell launched a blistering attack on the BBC Trust Chairman, who has stepped down following major heart surgery.

“He’s just so ignorant,” Campbell told Radio Times. “It drives us mad at 5 Live because we’ve got some of the greatest female broadcasters in the country and he only listens to Radio 4 and 3.”

Campbell added: “If I was Chairman of the BBC, I would have made it my task to find out what was on the BBC, wouldn’t you?”

“Though in a way it’s quite good that this man at the heart of the British Establishment, a life in ermine, doesn’t really know about 5 Live because we’re a little bit of a cuckoo in the nest at the BBC.

Good to know that the man in charge of editorial standards and complaints didn’t actually know what was going on at the corporation.

John Lloyd being ridiculous:

The writer and TV producer John Lloyd has said it “makes his blood run cold” to look back on a comedy sketch from 1980 that shows young children being abducted and put in a BBC van bound for a children’s TV show hosted by Rolf Harris.

He told The Independent: “It is extraordinary how spooky it is, it’s almost prophetic.

“It makes the blood run cold to watch it now thinking about what he had done.”

Interesting to see what the BBC has been doing with some money it receives from the EU: (H/T  Bishop Hill)

Funding revolution it seems.  All interesting countries to be ‘developing’ the Media in….Iran and Syria especially.

It is interesting how the BBC frames the debate on immigration.  The Migration Advisory Committee has released a report into the impact of new entrants to the EU in regard to immigration to the UK.

The BBC’s first thought is for the immigrants:

Low-skilled, vulnerable workers are at risk of exploitation because of lax labour checks, a report has warned.

But that is the whole point of importing this labour….it’s cheap and undercuts British workers who would expect a decent wage.  But that is an argument the BBC refuses to acknowledge.

The report itself states:

Demand for migrant labour is strongly influenced by institutions and public policies not directly related to immigration. These include, for example, labour market regulation, investment in education and training, and pay levels in some publicly funded low wage jobs. The trade-offs between immigration levels and greater or lower investment in these areas is worthy of fuller discussion.

In other words immigrants get the jobs because government and employers can’t be bothered to invest in British labour.

The BBC goes on:

The MAC report found that, nationally, such migrants had “not had a major impact” on pay, jobs, crime or public services and the wider UK economy over the last 20 years.

I think you copuld dipute all those findings…..the prisons are packed with immigrants and public services are under massive pressure….as the report in fact states and even the BBC alludes to:

But it warned that – at a local level – in areas where migrants in low-skilled jobs were concentrated, authorities had been left “struggling to cope”.

But the BBC doesn’t bother to expand on that as it did with the ‘positives’.  The report tells us that:

There needs to be greater recognition of, and support for, the local impact of immigration. The non-UK born population of England and Wales grew by 2.9 million between 2001 and 2011. Three quarters of this rise was in just a quarter of local authorities. Although we show that, nationally, the economic impact of immigration on GDP per head, productivity and prices is very modest, the economic and social impact on particular local authorities is much stronger.  This includes pressure on education and health services and on the housing market and potential problems around cohesion, integration and wellbeing

Serious problems no?

Who benefits from immigration?

• Benefits owners of capital
• The biggest gains go to the migrants themselves.
• May complement UK-born skilled workers and some unskilled local workers, enabling them to specialise in more highly paid jobs.
• Migrants are more mobile and flexible than UK-borne.  Prepared to change location, live at the workplace and do shift work. This helps grease the wheels of our flexible labour market.

The costs of immigration:

• Causes overall population to rise and the composition of many local area populations to alter rapidly. This may have implications for cohesion and wellbeing but such a possibility needs further investigation.
• Congestion –pressure on health (e.g. maternity services), education (e.g. churning during school year) and transport services.
• Impact on housing market: puts pressure on private rented market; locally problems with houses of multiple occupation; modestly reduces the probability of a native getting social housing –but the main problem here is not more migrants, rather a smaller stock of social housing.
• Small negative impact on the wages of the low paid. This raises issues around compliance and enforcement of e.g. the national minimum wage. Inspection regimes are insufficiently robust and penalties too feeble. An employer can expect a visit from HMRC once every 250 years and a prosecution once in a million years

Note the BBC uses the phrase ‘”not had a major impact” on pay’  whilst the report states that there is a negative, if small impact on wages…a subtle but important difference in emphasis and meaning……’not had a major impact on pay’ is the BBC trying to dodge the issue.

What the report doesn’t tell us is anything of all those immigrants working in the Black market under the radar for even less money but still using the services provided by the State.

Can we trust the MAC?  It tells us it relied on desk based research plus some contacts with local authorities and ‘corporate partners’ whatever they are.

It also said they had advise from one Tommaso Frattini...the same Tommaso Frattini who we looked at here along with his work mate Prof Christian Dustmann who advised Labour on its immigration policy….also connected to the BBC’s Mark Easton…..can we expect Frattini to be entirely impartial when he works for the pro-immigration Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration?  No.

The BBC, Still Selling Us A Lie On Immigration