I've been away again and unable to post but a couple of things last weekend I wanted to post: a few examples of the BBC appearing to become more blatant in their political bias. The "least" obvious first: the image left was the first thing that caught my eye, it appeared on several online pages (maybe it still does). Now, they are just images aren't they? One of each party leader...but do I need to point out the subliminal message? Then last weekend I nearly spat out my coffee when I read such world-moving news that Dr. Who backs Gordon Brown. Great, that's his opinion but reading the article you find no news, no entertainment..."I think David Cameron is a terrifying prospect," and other snippets of pure political propaganda; does anyone think for a nanosecond a Conservative supporting actor would be allowed to get his opinions published in such a manner? I noted it and also saw it picked up by Labourlist and from Biased BBC, many more examples on that BBBC blog.Also last weekend there was widespread coverage in print, online and TV of the soon-to-be-released memoirs of Peter Watt, ex-general secretary of the Labour party: "Inside Out: My Story of Betrayal and Cowardice at the Heart of New Labour." Coverage on the BBC website?...it's HERE but it may take you a while to find it.
Then we have "Is David Cameron too much of a toff to be Prime Minister?", programme and complaint picked up by Iain Dale.
Then we have the staged response on Question Time last Thursday - I know I shouldn't watch but it's like a scab: you keep picking at it, or a hole where a tooth was, the tongue keeps digging into the gap despite the pain - anyway, it had the usual effect of getting me shouting at the hotel room TV; someone who was clearly not born in 1990 saying that whatever Brown is like Cameron would be worse to a very loud cheer from several "audience" at the back, there was no such cheer for any other statement of answer, clearly contrived...as was the poor microphone placement for at least two non-leftie replies from the audience (they clearly forged their Labour membership to be able to get into the audience). OK, so I should be grateful that Hain was slaughtered (and rightly so...but he was allowed to go on and on!) but only because he was defending Blair and the decision to invade Iraq.
And finally from yesterday: the BBC invited Damian McBride ("the disgraced spin-doctor who resigned from Downing Street") to address staff in a private briefing alongside Charles Clarke (Labour MP) and Nick Robinson "to discuss whether Labour could beat the Conservatives in the general election". The article in The Times also states that "Mr McBride, who is still in regular contact with Downing Street officials...". So, clearly he hasn't been as ostracized as we were led to believe; why am I not surprised by this or the fact that the BBC are having such a briefing.
3 comments:
Many have picked up on that BBC film as featured on The One Show...It's also interesting what he says about the person doing the report.
I saw it when it was broadcast but at the time was not paying attention...
A lot of people say there's no bias; a lot say they're bias both ways (depending on your viewpoint); the BBC itself says it gets equal complaints from left and right so they feel they must be correct in their placement - the equal complaints thing is something I do not believe.
Online the number of times I've picked out "innocent" bias (by innocent I mean nothing drastic but just leaving the key point until the end of an article or a completely misleading headline etc...OK for partisan tabloids but NOT for "national tax" public braodcasting) is in the hundreds but when it all seems one way it belies the "innocent" aspect.
The BBC has the same problem when reporting about climate change. the same thing happens on ITV's news supplied by ITN so they are not alone.
You have to listen for the subtle way some correspondents write their scripts, one word can make all the difference.
Post a Comment