Post by Teddy Bear on Apr 6, 2012 19:47:40 GMT
Just to prove it's not what the existing government does, or doesn't do, whatever they do the BBC will find a way to undermine it.
I won't treat you to a Good Friday sermon but I do have a story about an avenging angel and BBC hypocrisy
By Tom Utley
How many listeners, I wonder, were as baffled as I was by one of the main items on yesterday morning’s Today programme on BBC Radio 4, which went on to lead the nine o’clock news?
Clearly, the show’s producers believed they had stumbled on a shocking case of ministerial wrongdoing. But whichever way I looked at it, the only surprising thing they appeared to have uncovered was that a minister had done the job he’s paid for — and done it quickly, cheaply and well, for a change.
Indeed, I believe this was an absolutely classic example of the BBC’s semi-conscious bias — a textbook illustration of the way in which it moulds its reporting to fit its own world view, while only half-realising that it is saying anything controversial. But I’ll let you be the judge of that.
For those who missed it, the item began with a woman reporter telling us that back in February, an unnamed Downing Street source had been quoted as saying that Health Secretary Andrew Lansley should be ‘taken out and shot’ for his handling of the NHS reforms.
‘It was quickly contradicted by No 10,’ she intoned (balance, you see), ‘but this was a very low point for the Secretary of State for Health.’
Then, in a voice laden with accusation and ironic intent, she added: ‘Two weeks later, the headlines were much better.’
What had brought about this transformation, tut-tutted Today’s Sanchia Berg, was Mr Lansley’s response to a newspaper investigation that found doctors in specialist clinics (I’ll tell you which type in a moment) were systematically breaking the law on an epic scale.
First, he wrote an article warning health professionals that they were ‘not above the law’ (how dare he, eh?). Then he asked the official regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), to conduct snap investigations of 300 of these clinics over three days.
Sure enough, the regulator found that 50 were in criminal breach of their statutory duty to their patients. The police are investigating and several doctors have been referred to the General Medical Council for possible disciplinary action.
Are you shocked, yet, by Mr Lansley’s behaviour? Nor me. But now we reach the nub of the BBC’s charge against him.
Through a Freedom of Information request, Ms Berg tells us — and I wonder who tipped off Today to ask — the Corporation has obtained a letter from the chairwoman of the CQC to the finance director of the Department of Health.
In it, Dame Jo Williams complains that the Secretary of State’s urgent request for the investigation of the clinics meant nearly 600 planned inspections of care homes and hospitals would have to be ‘forgone’ (by which she must surely have meant postponed).
The request had had a ‘considerable impact’ on the regulator’s capacity to deliver its targets, she says. Furthermore, it cost an estimated £1 million (which the Health Department says Mr Lansley would have given her, if only she’d asked).
In case listeners were too thick to see what the BBC was driving at, Today’s producers helpfully wheeled on the Shadow Health Secretary to make the point for them.
Andy Burnham duly accused Mr Lansley of wasting money and disrupting the CQC’s work of safeguarding the vulnerable. And all for the sake of ‘chasing headlines’ to redeem his reputation after the disaster of the NHS reforms.
So far, so strange. A newspaper uncovers widespread criminality in health clinics. The minister responsible requests an immediate investigation, which takes only three days and costs a mere £1 million — less than one ten-millionth of the Health Department’s £105 billion budget.
The scandal is stamped out, the guilty face punishment . . . and instead of patting the Health Secretary on the back, the BBC swoops down on him like an avenging angel, flaming with wrath.
Traumatic
Indeed, the tone is set from the very opening words of the report, with that spurious reminder that someone had said the poor fellow should be taken out and shot. In my trade, this kind of reporting is known as a ‘hatchet job’. The question is: why is Auntie so angry with Mr Lansley?
I reckon I know exactly why. For unless I’m much mistaken, the one and only reason why the BBC went for Mr Lansley’s throat and thought it worth leading its news bulletins with the story is that the criminal behaviour on which he clamped down with such swiftness and efficiency was taking place in abortion clinics. And as we all know, the free availability of abortions is a central tenet of progressive thought, and therefore of the BBC.
The law states clearly that before a termination can take place, a consent form must be signed by the pregnant woman’s supervising consultant and a second professional, who has either seen her or studied her case history. This is partly so that no woman should go through what can be a traumatic procedure without first having discussed it with somebody qualified, who knows about her.
The Press investigation found, and the CQC confirmed, that in many clinics, doctors who knew nothing about the patient were leaving stacks of pre-signed forms for others to fill in her details. In other words, they were offering abortion on demand, which is banned by law.
Elsewhere, clinics were said to be conducting abortions only because a woman who was carrying a girl wanted a boy, or vice versa. Whether you agree with Parliament or not, this is also banned.
At this point, let me offer a solemn assurance. Even though this is Good Friday, I’m not about to treat you to a sermon on the evils of abortion. Long experience has taught me there’s no point in trying to change anyone’s mind on the subject.
The pros and the antis (and, yes, I’m an anti) just shout at each other across an unbridgeable divide, with my side proclaiming that a foetus is a human life and the other maintaining, with equal passion, that it’s a woman’s right to choose. We’ll just have to agree to differ.
But surely, surely, we can all agree that it is because our publicly funded broadcaster believes abortion is a fundamental feminist right that it chose to lambast Mr Lansley for enforcing the law.
Consider. If the newspapers or the BBC had uncovered evidence of any other systematic criminality in health clinics — particularly private ones, as some of these were — does anyone think it would have attacked the Health Secretary for requesting a prompt investigation?
Does anyone believe that the Beeb, which bewails every cut and lauds every increase in government spending, would have made such a fuss about any other three-day clampdown costing less than one ten-millionth of the NHS budget?
And is it remotely conceivable that, on any other matter, it would have expressed such sympathy for the grotesquely incompetent CQC — whose appalling record over upholding standards of care for the elderly and vulnerable the BBC, to its credit, has done so much to report?
Final question. Last year, BBC TV’s Panorama exposed the scandalous ill-treatment of patients at the Winterbourne View private hospital, which had been missed by the CQC. Does anyone remember Auntie accusing ministers of ‘chasing headlines’ when they moved swiftly to close down the rotten place?
Thought not.
By Tom Utley
How many listeners, I wonder, were as baffled as I was by one of the main items on yesterday morning’s Today programme on BBC Radio 4, which went on to lead the nine o’clock news?
Clearly, the show’s producers believed they had stumbled on a shocking case of ministerial wrongdoing. But whichever way I looked at it, the only surprising thing they appeared to have uncovered was that a minister had done the job he’s paid for — and done it quickly, cheaply and well, for a change.
Indeed, I believe this was an absolutely classic example of the BBC’s semi-conscious bias — a textbook illustration of the way in which it moulds its reporting to fit its own world view, while only half-realising that it is saying anything controversial. But I’ll let you be the judge of that.
For those who missed it, the item began with a woman reporter telling us that back in February, an unnamed Downing Street source had been quoted as saying that Health Secretary Andrew Lansley should be ‘taken out and shot’ for his handling of the NHS reforms.
‘It was quickly contradicted by No 10,’ she intoned (balance, you see), ‘but this was a very low point for the Secretary of State for Health.’
Then, in a voice laden with accusation and ironic intent, she added: ‘Two weeks later, the headlines were much better.’
What had brought about this transformation, tut-tutted Today’s Sanchia Berg, was Mr Lansley’s response to a newspaper investigation that found doctors in specialist clinics (I’ll tell you which type in a moment) were systematically breaking the law on an epic scale.
First, he wrote an article warning health professionals that they were ‘not above the law’ (how dare he, eh?). Then he asked the official regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), to conduct snap investigations of 300 of these clinics over three days.
Sure enough, the regulator found that 50 were in criminal breach of their statutory duty to their patients. The police are investigating and several doctors have been referred to the General Medical Council for possible disciplinary action.
Are you shocked, yet, by Mr Lansley’s behaviour? Nor me. But now we reach the nub of the BBC’s charge against him.
Through a Freedom of Information request, Ms Berg tells us — and I wonder who tipped off Today to ask — the Corporation has obtained a letter from the chairwoman of the CQC to the finance director of the Department of Health.
In it, Dame Jo Williams complains that the Secretary of State’s urgent request for the investigation of the clinics meant nearly 600 planned inspections of care homes and hospitals would have to be ‘forgone’ (by which she must surely have meant postponed).
The request had had a ‘considerable impact’ on the regulator’s capacity to deliver its targets, she says. Furthermore, it cost an estimated £1 million (which the Health Department says Mr Lansley would have given her, if only she’d asked).
In case listeners were too thick to see what the BBC was driving at, Today’s producers helpfully wheeled on the Shadow Health Secretary to make the point for them.
Andy Burnham duly accused Mr Lansley of wasting money and disrupting the CQC’s work of safeguarding the vulnerable. And all for the sake of ‘chasing headlines’ to redeem his reputation after the disaster of the NHS reforms.
So far, so strange. A newspaper uncovers widespread criminality in health clinics. The minister responsible requests an immediate investigation, which takes only three days and costs a mere £1 million — less than one ten-millionth of the Health Department’s £105 billion budget.
The scandal is stamped out, the guilty face punishment . . . and instead of patting the Health Secretary on the back, the BBC swoops down on him like an avenging angel, flaming with wrath.
Traumatic
Indeed, the tone is set from the very opening words of the report, with that spurious reminder that someone had said the poor fellow should be taken out and shot. In my trade, this kind of reporting is known as a ‘hatchet job’. The question is: why is Auntie so angry with Mr Lansley?
I reckon I know exactly why. For unless I’m much mistaken, the one and only reason why the BBC went for Mr Lansley’s throat and thought it worth leading its news bulletins with the story is that the criminal behaviour on which he clamped down with such swiftness and efficiency was taking place in abortion clinics. And as we all know, the free availability of abortions is a central tenet of progressive thought, and therefore of the BBC.
The law states clearly that before a termination can take place, a consent form must be signed by the pregnant woman’s supervising consultant and a second professional, who has either seen her or studied her case history. This is partly so that no woman should go through what can be a traumatic procedure without first having discussed it with somebody qualified, who knows about her.
The Press investigation found, and the CQC confirmed, that in many clinics, doctors who knew nothing about the patient were leaving stacks of pre-signed forms for others to fill in her details. In other words, they were offering abortion on demand, which is banned by law.
Elsewhere, clinics were said to be conducting abortions only because a woman who was carrying a girl wanted a boy, or vice versa. Whether you agree with Parliament or not, this is also banned.
At this point, let me offer a solemn assurance. Even though this is Good Friday, I’m not about to treat you to a sermon on the evils of abortion. Long experience has taught me there’s no point in trying to change anyone’s mind on the subject.
The pros and the antis (and, yes, I’m an anti) just shout at each other across an unbridgeable divide, with my side proclaiming that a foetus is a human life and the other maintaining, with equal passion, that it’s a woman’s right to choose. We’ll just have to agree to differ.
But surely, surely, we can all agree that it is because our publicly funded broadcaster believes abortion is a fundamental feminist right that it chose to lambast Mr Lansley for enforcing the law.
Consider. If the newspapers or the BBC had uncovered evidence of any other systematic criminality in health clinics — particularly private ones, as some of these were — does anyone think it would have attacked the Health Secretary for requesting a prompt investigation?
Does anyone believe that the Beeb, which bewails every cut and lauds every increase in government spending, would have made such a fuss about any other three-day clampdown costing less than one ten-millionth of the NHS budget?
And is it remotely conceivable that, on any other matter, it would have expressed such sympathy for the grotesquely incompetent CQC — whose appalling record over upholding standards of care for the elderly and vulnerable the BBC, to its credit, has done so much to report?
Final question. Last year, BBC TV’s Panorama exposed the scandalous ill-treatment of patients at the Winterbourne View private hospital, which had been missed by the CQC. Does anyone remember Auntie accusing ministers of ‘chasing headlines’ when they moved swiftly to close down the rotten place?
Thought not.