Category Archives: Uncategorized

After the Beeb’s efforts to keep the Osborne story going for as long as possible, it seems fitting that the accusations of bias against it don’t seem to dying off quickly, despite the protests by both Steve Mawhinney and Nick Robinson.

The integrity of the BBC is coming under question for the way it has treated the case of the Russian billionaire and his British contacts. Hundreds of viewers are complaining of unbalanced reporting — and with good reason, begins The Sun’s leader on it today, while the Mail records that Robert Peston has been inundated with complaints over his ‘biased’ coverage of Mr Osborne’s dealings with Mr Deripaska. More than 100 viewers have accused him of ‘twisting’ facts and questioned why the corporation’s business editor should be reporting on the story.

Even the Telegraph’s chief leader writer has been prompted to comment on his blog (The BBC defends its hounding of George Osborne). He’s not convinced by Mawhinney’s explanation either:

[T]he idea of the Shadow Chancellor committing a crime is really big potatoes and would warrant the lashings of coverage devoted to it by the BBC. Just one problem. Soliciting a donation is not a crime, or a wrong-doing if it comes to that… A call to the Electoral Commission would have ascertained that. Why didn’t the BBC make that call? Perhaps they did – and that’s even more worrying.

All that, and it’s Friday, with the weekend ahead! Have a good one.

The Beeb’s editor of political news, Steve Mawhinney, has posted on the Editor’s Blog to defend the coverage of Osborne. There has, as he puts it, been a particular accusation from some complainants [read “almost all”] that we did too much on the allegations against George Osborne and not enough on those against Lord Mandelson.

You won’t be surprised by what follows, which sticks closely to the Editors Blog template: “There have been some suggestions that the BBC [insert criticism or straw man here]. I disagree because [insert excuse here (optional)].”

What is remarkable, though, is how weak this excuse is, resting as it does on two entirely false propositions: First, that there was a specific allegation of wrongdoing – indeed possible law-breaking against Osborne. That’s not true. It was pretty clear from the get go that whatever his other failings, Osborne had not broken the law.

Also, as Casisus notes, he seems to invent an entirely new allegation – that Osborne talked about ways to secretly channel that donation to the party. At their worst the allegations never suggested this. It seems extraordinary that the Beeb’s political editor defends the corporation against accusations of over-egging the Osborne story by going further than any in doing the same thing himself. Needless to say, from the comments it doesn’t look like he’s winning many people over.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

A few of the other blogs have also picked up on the Beeb’s treatment of Osborne:

Iain Dale points out that Osborne hasn’t actually broken any rules, and wonders why the BBC Business Editor is taking such an interest in what looks like a politics story.

Guido thinks he has the answer to that.

And Melanie Phillips at the Spectator really seems to have had enough.

Happy reading!

UPDATE: As a JBH in the comments points out, Stephen Glover also has a piece in the Mail today questioning the Beeb’s coverage, and The Sun also picks up on the complaints about bias.

Is the loathing of Bush’s Republicans so firmly established in the minds of all right thinking people that the BBC, as with global warming, has abandoned even the pretence of impartiality? Here’s Peter Marshall’s Newsnight blog following in the steps of Justin Webband the rest in this review of Oliver Stone’s film ‘W’:

Indeed Stone’s Bush is remarkably similar to the “hollow man” I identified in the 1999 election campaign, a characterisation which so annoyed the then Texas governor that for a while he refused to speak to the BBC. He is a man with a drink problem who’d failed in various ventures, reached 40, found God and resolved to join the family business: running the country. At the time it was gratifying for one’s critique to be noticed by the candidate – and also rather worrying. If he were to be so distracted by a foreign correspondent’s personal analysis, how would he cope with the slings, arrows and barbs that inevitably befall any inhabitant of the White House? Well now we know. He can’t take criticism and, in a politician, criticism is part of the climate

And here he is on Condi Rice:

But my favourite character is Condi Rice (Thandie Newton). Somehow she plays her as a cyborg, ultra-loyal to W because that’s how she has been programmed. She has no doubts, no opinions and her only emotions revolve around serving her mentor. It rings true.

It’s worth reminding ourselves, again, that the Beeb’s guidelines on impartialityapply just as much to blogs as elsewhere. In particular: News and Current Affairs staff should not:

• advocate support for a particular political party
• express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
• advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate

Of course, the BBC’s commitment to impartiality is so fundamental that it doesn’t actually bother monitoring it, but even so how hard can it be to see this piece has no place in its output?

To be honest, I don’t think the the BBC should be publishing opinion pieces, but since it does, do they all have to be so crashingly predictable? Here’s the review they’ve decided to run on the Jewel of Medina, the fictional account of Muhammad’s child bride that’s caused a stir. Based on your knowledge of the BBC see if you can guess whether it’s supportive before clicking through.

If the BBC did want a piece on this that would fulfill its charter obligations, was this blogger really the obvious choice? Apart from the naked partisanship, here’s a sample of the level of intellectual honesty on show: ...parts of the media who wanted to stir things up said Muslims wanted it banned. So, in order to find out what the (manufactured) fuss was about, I found myself spending 12 dreary hours reading this cringe-worthy melodramatic prose.

The fuss hasn’t been entirely “manufactured”, though, has it?

And here she is on the thorny subject of Aisha’s age (nine): I lost count of the references to “child bride”. Even till relatively modern times, marriage for women in their early teens was completely natural and common in parts of the world, including Europe.

If the Beeb is so sure of the knuckle-dragging tendencies of its audience that the only way it thinks it can safely cover issues like this is to quite so comprehensively patronise its Muslim and non-Muslim audience it really shouldn’t bother. I wish it hadn’t.

I see the BBC lead story is that hip hop and rap fan Colin Powell has endorsed The One. Quelle surprise! Now whilst I accept this is news to those who do not follow these matters closely, I wonder why Justin Webb gets the opportunity in the same item to eulogise as to how “re-assuring” this endorsement will be for “many” American voters. Webb also uses it to further attack Sarah Palin, citing “rumbles of discontent” within republican ranks at her selection by McCain.The BBC chooses to use RINO Colin Powell’s quote about Obama being a “transformational” President without ever quite defining exactly what will be transformed. I guess that will wait until AFTER they get their man in power and the socialisation of America can then proceed apace.

If you check out the sidebar of linked stories also note the care of language being selected “Bitter Blow” to McCain, “Calm Obama” and “more bad news for McCain”. The BBC, like so much of the liberal media, has abandoned ALL pretence of impartiality as concerns the US election and is blatantly cheering on Obama. The difference is, we are forced to pay for the BBC’s obamania and THAT is what is most objectionable. We need “transformational” politics her in the UK as well, starting with the abolition of the license tax.

James Forsyth has a good post over at the Specator’s Coffee House. Here’s the opening:

If Coffee Housers missed it, I’d thoroughly recommend watching Kirsty Wark’s interview of George Osborne on Newsnight. It could easily be mistaken for a parody of BBC bias. Wark starts off by suggesting that the Tory governments of the 1980s are to blame for the current crisis; even Gordon Brown hasn’t attempted to claim this…

Wark, of course, has some formwhen it comes to accusations of pro-Labour bias.

“Holocaust denier gets MP backing“

This is such a dishonest headline, sticking to literal truth while implying that Chris Huhne (in deploring an arrest in Britain, under EU law, for an offence which is not illegal in this country) is somehow ‘backing’ the (IMHO) eccentric view that the Shoah is “a lie”. Mr Tobin is being extradited to Germany for what he has written on his Australian website.

I’ll let Ross say it :

What part of free speech don’t they understand ?

Obviously if he backed a Holocaust denier then he would be unfit for office, but of course that is not what he has done, he has simply made it clear that he regards free speech as being for everyone even if you disagree with them.

Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.