Category Archives: BBC bias

Quite a few people have picked up on Grant  Shapps comments about spreading the Licence Fund around a bit more.

A good portion is already doled out to Channel Four, but of course that is merely the BBC’s inbred cousin with fewer inhibitions and a disturbing tendency for showing off in the rudest way possible.

Hardly a balance considering together they pretty well dominate political broadcasting in this country.

It didn’t take long before the BBC struck back in its report…11 lines in and they came up with this:

A BBC spokesman said transparency and freedom from political pressure were key to the BBC’s future.

Clearly trying to paint this purely as ‘political interference’  rather than a measured and appropriate scrutiny of the BBC when it has shown itself to be out of control over the last year.  The BBC weren’t so keen on ‘freedom from political pressures‘ when it jumped aboard the Leveson band wagon and joined in the highly political attempts to stop Murdoch buying up BSkyB.

The trouble with that position is that the BBC plays politics itself, it inserts itself into the political arena not merely reporting but attempting to pressurise politicians to change policies by painting them in as bad a light as possible as often as possible…it is almost a political party in its own right….even admitting as much during Thatcher’s era when it positioned itself as the ‘official opposition’ because Labour were so dire.

At the very least the BBC has become the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party when it comes to undermining welfare reforms…the ‘bedroom tax’, or knocking any economic success…the ‘wrong sort’, questioning employment rates …a ‘puzzle’, or attacking ‘rotten’ free schools.

Last week we had a minor classic of an example of the BBC trying to influence events and policies as Mishal Husain (Husband, Meekal Hashmi…an ‘active Lib Dem’)  was interviewing William Hague who was talking about peace talks on Syria in Geneva next month.

Husain seemed intent on a particular point…getting Iran into the peace talks……

She asks:  What about Iran where there are positive signs as far as the leadership (?) are concerned?  Is that the key? [to the peace talks]

Hague says:  If Iran could play a more constructive role it would be helpful…and if it accepted the same criteria for the negotiations as all other parties did……

Husain goes on:  So are you inviting the Iranians to Geneva then…it would be the obvious thing to do if you’re serious about bringing them into the fold and using their influence.’

Hague’s answer was essentially ‘no’...unless Iran entered into negotiations starting from that common basis, which they haven’t so far agreed to.

However the BBC news bulletins straight away began reporting that Iran was likely to be included in the talks.

Husain tweets:

Mishal HusainVerified account ‏@MishalHusainBBC  Iran could be invited to next month’s Geneva talks on Syria @WilliamJHague #r4today

And yet that wasn’t what Hague said…he came into the interview with no such intentions and you could tell from his answers that he had no intention of inviting Iran if at all possible.

This is the BBC making up news as it goes along, creating stories that it then headlines….this ‘Iran to be invited to peace talks’ was a story purely created by the BBC.

Maybe it was Husain, first week in the new job, trying to make a splash.

What was also of interest was this from Husain:

‘…the pressure has been taken off Assad, he’s very comfortable…more comfortable than ever before since this conflict began’

Well yes….he’s pretty much safe now from military action to topple him by the US et al.

But why?

Essentially because Miliband ducked the military option:

MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.

The US said it would “continue to consult” with the UK, “one of our closest allies and friends”.

France said the UK’s vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.

Russia – which has close ties with the Assad government – welcomed Britain’s rejection of a military strike.

Will the BBC be asking Miliband to explain how he has allowed Assad to stay in place and reinforced both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the region?

Not so far.

UK GDP figures for Q3 are due later this morning and it seems they will be positive, further underlining UK economic recovery. This is bad news for labour and bad news for the BBC. I caught an item on the Today programme this morning where the idea was being floated that ALTHOUGH growth did seem to be happening, it’s the wrong sort of growth apparently. I wonder do the BBC listen to British Rail? Anyway, watch what happens as we go through the day and see how long before the BBC trots out the “cost of living” meme being retailed by Miliband and co. Now that Plan B is dead an buried, the Labour party and it’s broadcasting arm are out to ensure that welcome economic news is pricked by all kinds of inane accusations about “cost of living” trials and tribulations.

You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the collective mindmelt the BBC finds itself in as its former hero, Obama, is accused by Merkel and Hollande of outrageous invasion of privacy via telephone spying. Can you imagine the BBC anger had this revelation came out has Bush been President? But it’s President Narcissus in the White House so the BBC has to be nuanced and so it tries to keep Obama and the NSA well apart, even though the buck clearly stops on his desk. In a sense this is a non-story since nations have spied on each other throughout history, but the BBC likes to take a pro-European position on most issues but this one is a tad tricky for them.

Folks, I am reminded that the Common’s Select Committee on CMS announced on 22 October that it is to hold an enquiry into the future of the BBC. The deadline for written submission is 6 December. Anyone seeking to make a submission should note that they have until the 6th December to address the future of the BBC.

Here we go with a new and on-time Open Thread. Off you go…!

In his first tweet in over a year BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott seems to think that a parody article about Sarah Palin at the Daily Currant is real:

Sarah Palin is reported as claiming that Jesus Celebrated Easter, telling his apostles how to "convert homosexuals". http://t.co/5UmjiePasB

— Robert Pigott (@PigottRobert) October 24, 2013

He’s in good moronic company – Piers Morgan fell for it too (and then pretended he knew all along it was fake).

It’s not the first time a BBC journalist has been duped by a bit of lame satire that fits newsroom groupthink prejudice about US conservatives. BBC Brazil had to apologise when its lefty US correspondent Lucas Mendes wrote an article about a Texan GOP senator without realising the original information was a parody.

And in the all-too-likely event Pigott claims he knew the Palin article was a parody, why choose this as the topic of his first tweet since September 2012?

Sorry this is a tad later but off you go…

Will in the comments notes this from the Telegraph:

Anyone heard of ‘Ovo Energy’?

Probably not.

Which raises the question why would the BBC give them a nice little spot on its UK News page and ‘report’ their comments without challenge?

In this post I noted that energy minister, Ed Davey, had said:

‘Rising gas prices have been the cause of rising energy bills at the moment.’

Thoughtful in the comments linked to a BBC ‘report’ saying:

Wholesale energy prices ‘not going up’, says Ovo Energy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24606614

Stephen Fitzpatrick, MD and founder of Ovo Energy, said he had not seen wholesale prices rise for about two years.

“If they’re buying more expensive gas, more expensive electricity, in a large part we think this is because they’re selling it to themselves”.

The BBC’s write up is short and based purely on what ‘Ovo’ said.

However in the actual interview the BBC interviewer stated that ‘independent sources say that wholesale prices have gone up 8%.’

Question….Why is that counter point not in the write up?

Ofgem…the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets…so presumably they know what they are talking about, said this:

Facts about wholesale costs

• Wholesale costs are the biggest component of the average bill, as shown in the pie chart above.
• Over the last ten years, wholesale electricity costs have risen by around 140 per cent and gas costs by 240 per cent.
• In the last year, wholesale costs have risen by around £10 to £610 of an average annual dual fuel household bill.
• The wholesale price of gas for use this winter is 8 per cent higher than the price of gas for use last winter.
• The wholesale price of electricity for use this winter is 13 per cent higher than the price of electricity for use last winter.

Gas 8% higher than last year.

Electricity 13% higher than last year.

And yet the BBC allow Ovo to claim there has been no rise in 2 years.

Which is odd really because a quick perusal of their own website tells us this:

Now I don’t know about you but as I read that it tells me that wholesale prices for both gas and electricity have gone up in the last twelve months.

So when Stephen Fitzpatrick, MD and founder of Ovo Energy, said he had not seen wholesale prices rise for about two years he was lying.

Perhaps he forgot his company’s little boast:

‘We try our best to be open and honest with our customers, so we thought you may be interested to see what the prices actually are on the wholesale market.’

The cost of gas has risen by 240 per cent over the last ten years, according to Ofgem, acting as the main driver of rising energy bills.

This graph shows that in 2011 prices were under 60 and are now nearer 70 pence per therm:

So just why did the BBC, despite knowing wholesale prices have gone up allow him to get away with that and give his company a prime spot on their website?

As the company claims it is ‘greener’ than most, using more renewable energy, is it possible that the BBC were giving it a little nudge in the Public’s consciousness?…maybe the BBC pension plan has invested in this little company…who knows.

It certainly fits in with the BBC’s own agenda…helping out the ‘little guy’ against Big Business and it can’t hurt that Ovo is just that little bit greener.

This from the Energy and Climate Change Committee might also help judge why prices have risen…..

The main driver behind energy price rises has been wholesale gas and electricity costs, but
network charges, energy and climate change policies, and company costs and profits also
contribute. In future, DECC estimates that its energy and climate change policies will add 33% to the average electricity price paid by UK households in 2020, in addition to any potential wholesale price rises.

DECC suggested that the main drivers of recent increases are: wholesale energy costs,
estimated to have contributed at least 60% of the increase in household energy bills between 2010-2012; network costs, supplier operating costs and profit margins, estimated to have contributed around 25% of the increase; and the costs of energy and climate change policies, estimated to have contributed around 15% of the increase.11 Energy supply companies argued that the majority of the costs which had contributed to energy price rises are outside their control.

In its recent report, Estimated impacts of energy and climate change policies on energy
prices and bills bills, DECC reported that the average gas prices paid by UK households in 2012/13 were 5% higher due to Government energy efficiency policies such as the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) (see table 10 10). They claimed that the estimated impact of  policies on household gas prices was expected to remain broadly unchanged to 2020.

The average electricity price paid by UK households in 2012/13 were 17% higher due to Government energy efficiency policies and the added cost of  supporting renewable energy.

In the future, DECC estimated that the impact of these policies on the electricity price could increase to 33% in 2020 (in addition 20 to any potential wholesale price rises).

Bit of a sea change at the BBC…at least in parts.

There must have been an official memo come down from on high that demanded a more honest and open exploration of the issues surrounding immigration.

The BBC has had a few looks at David Goodhart’s book ‘The British Dream’, we have had a programme from Victoria Derbyshire that didn’t seek to hide the true reasons for many immigrants coming to the UK specifically, and now Stephanie Flanders has kicked over the traces and really undermined the long cherished shibboleths of the pro-immigration lobby.

Undoubtedly hearts and minds in the BBC won’t change no matter what directives they receive from the bosses…and so the question is can this open and honest approach filter through to the shop floor and not just be limited to specific programmes?….if presenters still label those who want to control and limit immigration as ‘racist’ and allow guests such as Diane Abbot to come on shouting ‘xenophobia’ then the effect of any official BBC approach is negated.

Start The Week  had on Paul Collier who has written a book, ‘Exodus’,  examining the effects of immigration, not just on Britain but on the countries from which the immigrants come, and neither country seems to benefit long term from mass immigration.

The points he makes are all ones that have been obvious for a long time now and which have been made again and again by those who were critical of mass, uncontrolled immigration….it is essentially a massive experiment which has failed…..and one which politicians, with the help of a compliant Media (The BBC), have forced upon the British population regardless of their concerns and beliefs.

Some of the major points raised by Paul Collier:

1.  The least integrated an immigrant community is with the host nation the more immigrants it attracts…because they realise they will feel ‘at home’ ….getting all the benefits of the civilised, wealthy host nation whilst not having to integrate and compromise on language, culture or religion…in other words you get a mini-Pakistan or mini-Somalia.

2. It is not just an economic issue as the pro-immigration lobby try to claim….for a start the economic benefits are disputed, and are at best minimally beneficial…and any such benefit is short term and trivial.

It is the long term effects that are important, the effects on society itself…..too much diversity is dangerous….it lowers trust, there’s a lack of co-operation between groups, and no mutual regard….as well as other costs such as overcrowding, crime, housing, access to schools and the NHS.

And the result is conflict.

3.  As more and more immigrants enter the country it is turned upside down and the things that made the country attractive to the immigrants are lost…..eventually the economy breaks down as well as the social fabric as the shared sense of nation and mutual regard are broken down.

4. If you have open borders you can’t have a welfare state.

5.  Using net migration figures is a politician’s, and the BBC’s, favourite and misleading con trick….a net migration figure of zero means only that the same number of people have left a nation as entered…the sum total of the population might still be the same…but the identity of the population could completely have altered.

6.  A sense of Nation is the glue that holds it all together.

7.  Students and asylum seekers should go back to their homelands as soon as their studies or the conflict they escaped from is over…to help rebuild their own country.

8.  It is usually the more educated and wealthier who escape from conflicts…and therefore this drains a country of the innovative and clever people it needs to rebuild.

9.  The politicians have been deliberately failing to address the obvious problems and are completely out of touch with the Public’s concerns.

As said above it is all very well for the BBC to do the occasional programme like this one that examines and admits the most difficult problems about immigration but will there be a follow up to see if these ‘truths’ are reflected in reporting or in the way that presenters deal with the subject on their own programmes?

If not is it just a tick box exercise designed to say ‘Look we’ve done X amount of programmes on immigration…therefore we’re balanced and impartial’?

If the culture, the hearts and minds, the overall Institutional pro-immigration stance, remains unchanged, that wouldn’t be true.