Category Archives: Uncategorized

(from Blithering Bunny)

Watching BBC 2’s Kilroy: Behind the Tan. In an act of questionable judgement, Kilroy, it seems, has been letting a camera crew follow him around for a long time. The producer, who was constantly asking him questions, clearly sounded unsympathetic. So why did Kilroy do it? Surely he knew that it was a hatchet job in the making?

And hatchet job it was, although everyone involved did their best to look like an idiot.

Kilroy said that Afghans were Arabs, in public. The producer or commentator said “It’s not the sort of mistake a politican can afford to make”. But of course they can, if they’re a BBC-approved Labour politican. It wouldn’t even be reported. It’s just the sort of mistake someone on the right cannot make.

The producer also seemed to think there was something hypocritical in Kilroy claiming that he wanted more openness in politics because he prevented the camera crew from filming some UKIP strategy meetings. Maybe, but it’s not internal strategy meetings that the public want access to, is it?

It seems to be another example of the BBC trying to discredit Euroskepticism by focusing on the silly personalities of some Euroskeptics. I don’t deny that it’s legitimate for the BBC to run shows that focus on political personalities – it’s good to see these people up close, and it’s partly their fault if they look foolish (for whatever sins go on in the editing room, they provided the material). But how about a serious look at the EU for a change?

(from Blithering Bunny)

Some praise for the Beeb for a change. The show Dragon’s Den is one of the best TV shows in years. If you haven’t seen it, people who have ideas for businesses get 5-10 minutes to pitch their idea to five very rich business people, to try to convince them to invest in their ideas, which range from new inventions to disposable carboard furniture to couches that hang from ceilings to machines that sell umbrellas.

What’s so good about this? Well, it provides riveting reality TV without involving a situation that is too artifical. Moreover, it really gets across some of the realities of business. Not the day-to-day mechanics of running a business, but the realities of what’s required for an investment to be rational, and how to persuade people with money to invest in your business.

Some people have nice ideas but no idea of how they’re going to make money from it, yet they expect other people to pour a lot of money into their company (if they even have a company, which often they don’t) for a tiny percentage of it in return. Some people have already been successful in convincing the “dragons” (as they’re called) to part with some loot.

This is all good, because it gives those viewers who’ve never had much to do with business and investment a more realistic view of it, and humanizes the whole thing. I expect a few stereotypes to be gradually adjusted as a result of this show.

Actually, the BBC has been pretty good on this front recently, running a number of shows which look behind the scenes of real businesses. Sometimes these shows involve having a discreet laugh at the mad posh people who run country homes, but at least we’re seeing some real, actual companies at work, instead of disgruntled left-wing beardy writers’ fantasies about business.

P.S. Seeing as we’re going easy on the Beeb today, let’s bash Channel 4 instead. They just had a show on entitled “What Tony Blair Can Learn from the Iron Lady”, presented by Iron Lady’s daughter Carol Thatcher. I couldn’t believe Ch 4 were giving anyone half an hour to praise Maggie. But, as it turned out, the second half of the show was all about how Blair was wrong to invade Iraq, and ended up being just an excuse for various old Tories to criticize Blair over this, so business as usual for Ch 4 really.

One old Tory was quoted as saying what a disaster Iraq was, and how Blair would be judged badly by history. No doubt he was filmed saying this before last weekend’s elections. He looks pretty silly now – but then so does most of Ch 4.

(from Blithering Bunny)

Last night Newsnight interviewed José Manuel Barroso. I was out and missed it – but it can be seen on the BBC2 Newsnight website. (The streaming video worked fine on my 1Mbit connection – a bit jerky and fuzzy, but really, this spells the end of conventional TV).

The first segment, presented by reporter Paul Mason, was actually not too bad. It was very shallow, of course, given its too-short time slot, and it had a ridiculous re-construction of what an EU “President” might say in his inauguration speech. But it was reasonably objective. And then Paxman interviewed Barroso. And it was astonishing. Barroso was being attacked by Paxman from the right.

Paxman claimed that the EU was failing to meet its ambitious growth targets because there was too much regulation. Barroso wouldn’t commit to cutting much regulation. In fact, he was very vague in general. There was too much red tape, he conceded, but what was needed was “better regulation”, not less. Barroso’s claim to be more pro-enterprise was falling apart. As Richard North argued yesterday, the supposed “unashamed economic liberal” is no such thing. So, well-done Paxman.

P.S. You had to laugh… The first segment introduced the British economist behind an EC report into how the EU could better achieve what is called the Lisbon Target (ie. matching the US), and it was Will Hutton. Yes, Mr Third Way himself, who conceded that the EU was not doing too well on the economic front. He seemed to be saying that the EC needed more power to enforce its targets. Well, he’s recently conceded that he got a lot wrong in his earlier work, and he said “I won’t make the same mistakes next time – just some new ones”. He’s already started on them by the looks of this.

And then Hutton’s killer line: “This could be the first serious failure the European Union has had since its foundation”. So there’s never been a serious failure in the EU before? Not the common fisheries policy? Not the common agricultural policy? Not the thousands of small businesses crushed by absurd regulations? Not the hiring of Will Hutton? If it wasn’t for the BBC and The Guardian continuing to take him seriously, Hutton would already be on the scrapheap of history.

(Thanks to reader David Burbage for the tip-off about last night’s show).

(from Blithering Bunny)

BBC News 24 covered Kilroy’s launch of his new party Veritas today (which blogger Jonathan Lockhart seems to be involved in). Some people have suggested previously that the BBC would give Kilroy a lot of publicity in order to split the hard right/anti-EU vote (and also so that Kilroy would make himself look foolish with his extreme comments).

But it may have backfired. Kilroy raised a lot of “populist” concerns about immigration while managing not to put his foot in his mouth for a change. I suppose few BBC News 24 viewers will be attracted, but perhaps Kilroy’s comments may open up the debate. Then again, the BBC is probably right in thinking this will split the anti-EU vote.

(I don’t mean this to be an endorsement of Kilroy. Whether he says things that I agree with or disagree with, I still think he’s a massive egotist. His website address, I note, is “voteforkilroy“. Perhaps this is not his idea, but it maintains the impression that it’s the Kilroy party).

(from Blithering Bunny)

Earlier tonight there was a new Aussie sketch show on Paramount called “Skithouse”. One sketch featured a man who was interested in buying a car from another man. The buyer’s method was to fire questions at the seller about his life until he slipped up – without thinking, he revealed that the car was a lemon that was costing him a fortune to keep on the road.

This came back to me later on as I watched Kirsty Wark on Newsnight. She was firing questions at Hazel Blears on the fact that the government has suddenly released one of the terrorist detainees, an Egyptian man named “C”. Blears played a straight bat. Wark, as arrogant as ever, just kept firing in the same question in slightly different ways, and calling it all a shambles. Blears just kept giving the same answer.

It seemed to me that Wark was simply hoping that if she asked enough questions fast enough, Blears would slip up. That’s all there was to it. Sooner or later, Blears would accidentally say “and of course the whole thing is a bloody shambles, but…” and the Skithouse technique would prove triumphant.

Or else that Blears would lose her rag. This seemed entirely possible. How could anyone have refrained from saying “I’ve answered the question, you freakin’ hag. What part of it don’t you understand?” Guess that’s the hardest part of being a polly. Not saying “How do you feel about the cost of the Scottish Parliament, Krusty?”

The whole Wark performance was extremely hypocritical. Wark was now taking the “How do we know this man isn’t dangerous?” line, like the BBC have ever cared about that, but really, all she was concerned with was making the government look bad. Fine. Probably the whole thing is a shambles. A few such questions were fair enough, but the arrogance of Wark was breathtaking. Why don’t all politicans just refuse to have anything to do with Newsnight? Freeze the bastards out, and leave them with just Galloway to talk to.

Wark was firing in so many questions in such a shambolic way that she ended up asking whether C had a right to know whether he was under surveillance or not. I don’t think she had any idea how ridiculous this question was. I’m no cheerleader for the security state, but expecting MI5 to inform targets that they’re under surveillance is, er, not really going to work, is it?

And now there’s yet another global warming scare story on. Ho hum. Which will come first? The day global warming causes some terrible disaster, or the day the BBC actually informs us about the workings of the EU?

. Nicholas Vance rightly points out the BBC’s awful double standards in its presentation of, for want of a better word, TERRORISM.

This contrast in particular is striking:

‘I’ve finally determined how the BBC defines the word “terrorist.” A “terrorist” is someone who kills a Briton, whether civilian or military. …

Watching John Simpson on Sunday’s Panorama attempt to clarify Iraqi government claims about civilian deaths caused by “terrorists” by interjecting the phrase “i.e., insurgents” was deeply offensive.’

To which I can only add- absolutely.

(from Blithering Bunny)

The Campaign for a Euroskeptic TV Series

It’s time Euroskeptics united to demand that the BBC provide them with a series – or at least a one-hour show – where they can put forward their view with sufficient time. And I don’t mean on BBC News 24, I mean on BBC1 or at least BBC2.

It can’t be denied that this is a hugely important issue, and as the BBC is the national broadcaster, it only seems fair that it gives this issue a fair and detailed hearing – the usual two-minute debates are simply inadequate.

Of course, in the interests of balance, Europhiles should also get their own series, or show. (Maybe we’ll finally get an attempt at an argument for why the EU is a good thing, although I’m not holding my breath).

We also need to demand that we don’t get palmed off with some dubious official spokesman. What is required is people like Richard North and Christopher Booker, who know the issues well and have gathered much grass-roots support over the years.

Let me know in comments whether you support this demand.

(from Blithering Bunny)

This excellent leader column from The Telegraph sums it all up really:

Compare yesterday’s reports with those by the same commentators during South Africa’s first democratic election. Then, too, there were many technical problems: electors who were not properly registered, voter intimidation, long queues. But these things were set in their proper context, as the backdrop against which the moving drama of people casting their first ballots was being played out. No one suggested that the clashes between IFP and ANC supporters in Zululand undermined the whole process. No one argued that the backlash by a handful of black homeland chieftains and Boer irreconcilables made South Africa unfit for democracy.

Looking to hang their doubts on something specific, the cynics focus on the ejection of the Sunni Arabs from their traditionally dominant position, and the prospect of a permanent Shia majority. There is plainly some truth in this analysis. A combination of sulkiness and intimidation has led to large-scale abstentions among those who prospered most under the old regime: Saddam’s townsmen in Tikrit, for example, seem largely to have stayed at home. Meanwhile, the Shias, sensing that they may be the masters now, have flocked to the polls in huge numbers. None of this, though, is an argument against conducting a ballot. To return to our earlier parallel, no one contended that the likelihood of a permanent ANC majority – or, to make the analogy more precise, a permanent black majority – invalidated the concept of South African democracy. No one wrote sympathetic pieces about the plight of the Afrikaners as they lost their hegemony.

(from Blithering Bunny)

Another example of the subtle bias at BBC News 24. In a report on the Balfour Beatty/Railtrack trial, the reporter made sure to get this comment from the prosecutors into the report:

Mr Lissack also told the court the crash was a “catastrophe” which marked the beginning of the end of wholly privatised railways in Britain.

This wasn’t particularly germane to the charge, but because it came after the reporter’s making sure that the prosecution’s claim that the rail network was riddled with dangerous faults had been quoted, the impression created was that only a fool would allow “commercial interests” to look after the railways.

Will the BBC ever provide anything like this news from The Times:

Total subsidies are now running at £5 billion a year compared with about £1 billion in real terms under British Rail. The taxpayer’s contribution to the average ticket has risen from 25 per cent five years ago to 55 per cent today.

P.S. I’m watching the BBC News 24 talking to Carla Lane, the former writer of pretentious sitcoms, and now an animal rights campaigner, about the proposed new laws to stop animal rights protestors. The reporter said to her that “This is fair enough, surely?”, and seemed genuinely surprised when Carla – looking pretty mad, it has to be said, and speaking a bit like Ozzy Osbourne – disagreed. Scientists only have a right to be protected from violence, not anything else, such as continual harrassment in their daily life, she said. (There was then a good response from a scientist.)

(Not a bias issue, really, just interesting).

Others have posted about use and abuse of casualty statistics on last night’s Panorama programme. It is odd that the BBC should reportedly promise not to broadcast what they then nevertheless did. The body of the programme was in keeping: emphatically-presented bad news for the coalition, about all the many obstacles to the coalition’s finding an exit strategy

‘to let them withdraw from Iraq in reasonably good order with at least some of their war aims intact’

It all made an unlikely prelude to John Simpson’s closing remarks. Any viewer who turned off before the end would have concluded that the BBC thought coalition failure likely, or even inevitable. John, it would seem, thinks otherwise:

However it would be wrong to conclude from all this that the process is bound to fail. In fact, I think it is bound to succeed. It’s just a pity that it has been so badly botched by so many people along the way.”

John has more insight than some in the BBC and this may represent his exit strategy for them from the situation in which their coverage of the last two years has placed them. If, a few years hence, Iraq has not subsided into chaos or a brutal regime like Saddam’s, they could still claim that the process of moving from Saddam to the present was so badly botched by so many people that it nevertheless fully merited all the hostile coverage it got.

This strategy could allow the BBC to withdraw from the Iraq issue in reasonably good order with at least some of its aims intact. It will face some difficulties, not least because it has been, and will probably continue to be, so badly botched by so many in the BBC along the way. However it would be wrong to conclude from this that the process is bound to fail. In fact, within the BBC itself at least, I fear it is bound to succeed. Less so with me, however. The Iraq war would be unique in military history if it had no foul-ups. But I shall rely on sources other than the BBC to tell me what they were.

[All quotations noted from memory after the programme.]