BBC's Director Admits 'Massive' Left Bias

[Teddy Bear]

In case you're wondering after reading the topic headline whether I feel that I won't have to maintain this site any more because of its Director General's acknowledgement of MASSIVE left leaning bias within the corporation and assurances that this was being addressed then my response is FLYING PIGS. If I was a pimply faced adolescent I might be entertaining such thoughts and feeling victorious, but I've seen the BBC working too long to consider that possibility for a second.

My real feeling is like that of Jim Carrie in his role as Ace Ventura saying "REALLLLY"

Bear in mind the BBC has been denying bias on a continual basis. Now they suddenly admit to it, which means they have been consciously LYING all this time. Should we really believe that they have suddenly realised the error of their ways and are going to turn over a new leaf???
NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

If you're wondering why he should admit to it, it's simply the fact that discussions are due to begin over the licence fee very shortly, and the Conservatives remembering how they were dealt with throughout the Thatcher years will want to be preventing a future occurrence. So they are putting Thompson between a a rock and a hard place to where he has no choice but to admit it, and claim that 'things will now change'.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that this is so. It's just so much more spin from a company that doesn't know how to do anything else.

Here is a breakdown of where the BBC advertise for jobs for the last 3 years. Can you believe that they would spend over 3 quarters of their national media budget in left wing newspapers if they were really addressing the bias they now claim has existed on a MASSIVE scale (hat-tip Biased BBC Blogspot and Billy Blofeld for gathering this information)


DECEIVING is what they do, and all they've done now is confirmed it.

Yes, BBC was biased: Director General Mark Thompson admits a 'massive' lean to Left

By Paul Revoir
Last updated at 9:43 AM on 2nd September 2010

BBC Director General Mark Thompson has admitted the corporation was guilty of a 'massive' Left-wing bias in the past.

The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government.

But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'.

He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation.

His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.

The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.

That report criticised the BBC for coming late to several important stories including euroscepticism and immigration, which it described as 'off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone'.

Speaking of the time when he joined the BBC, Mr Thompson told the magazine: 'In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979] there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the Left.

'The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

'Now it is a completely different generation.

'There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC.'

He told the New Statesman: 'The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can't be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat.'

Mr Thompson also connected his religious faith as a Catholic with working at the corporation.

He said people joined the BBC because it is an organisation moved by a sense of values.

He added: 'I do think the BBC is very much - sometimes frankly, almost frighteningly so - a values driven organisation.'

'People's sense of what's right and wrong, and their sense of justice, are incredible parts of what motivates people to join.

'I'm part of that. For me, that's connected with my religious faith but the key thing is: you don't have to be Catholic.'

Mr Thompson described relations between the BBC and the recently ousted Labour government in its last few years as 'quite tetchy'.

But he said he was optimistic about a good settlement in forthcoming licence fee discussions with the Coalition.

He denied the organisation was one of 'glorious freeloading' but conceded: 'We had our moments in the past'.

The interview came after Mr Thompson gave the prestigious MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival last month where he said millionaire stars face the axe or having their salaries slashed.

Yesterday it also emerged the BBC is facing the threat of strikes after thousands of journalists, technicians and other staff voted massively in favour of industrial action in a row over pensions.

Members of the National Union of Journalists and the technicians' union Bectu backed walkouts by more than 9-1 in protest at 'punitive' changes to the staff pension scheme.

Unions held back from naming strike dates so that talks can be held over the next two weeks in the hope of resolving the dispute.

[vandamme]

Beaten to posting this very topic! ;D

I would not say you do not have to discontinue this site but maybe change this forum section to simply "Is Biassed"!

Indeed they are deceiving and I believe your analysis to be correct.
In the BBC's mindset, by admitting they are bias absolves them of being biassed. So they can say "yes we are biassed, but not overly because we admit it!" does not cut it!

This site will continue until it has dried up of reports, this can ONLY BE DONE when the BBC are not biassed, or even better not funded by taxpayers money!

Keep up the good work Teddy!

[Teddy Bear]

Cheers Van - Always good to see your contributions too

One can say that the BBC are either Biassed - or Headsuptheirassed

[Teddy Bear]

Keep trying to post this comment on the Mail website, but for some reason the moderators are not letting it through.

First off, Thompson has just admitted to lying all these years since hitherto the BBC had been denying accusations of bias, using every mealy mouthed excuse to justify their propaganda.

He continues the lie by claiming that this bias USED TO exist, but has now been balanced by more 'right wing' viewpoints. Logically, if he admits to a previous left-wing autocracy, that never even acknowledged their own bias, why would they have admitted those with differing viewpoints into the position of power?

To the BBC eyes, we must be really taken in with his 'admission'. His 'honesty' has convinced us that they've really changed. Well I've been monitoring BBC output for years now and have yet to see any change in their biased output, and there's too many consistently blatant examples to be excused.

With the upcoming discussions on renewing the licence fee, clearly the Conservative government aware of the BBC anti-Thatcher years, want the BBC to make 'right' noises, however empty.

[vandamme]

I think comments are only filtered during working hours.

[Teddy Bear]

They actually eventually posted it at 21.32, then pulled it an hour or so later. I received an email from them to say they had received complaints about it, and would review it again. I could only imagine that all the pro-BBC types felt it was too close to the mark. Anyway they reinstated it again at 23.21 so for the time being - all is well

[vandamme]

"Leaked" Memo

Is the 'biased' BBC now trying to cosy up to the Coalition? Corporation boss lets slip notes for meeting at No 10

The BBC was caught in a political row last night after its boss Mark Thompson was apparently attempting to cosy up to the Government following complaints over Left-wing bias.

The corporation's director general was photographed arriving at No 10 clutching a memo insisting the BBC is ready to put its coverage of public spending cuts into 'context'.

The move will prompt claims that the broadcaster is trying to curry favour with an increasingly hostile Coalition Government to preserve its generous licence fee funding.

Labour leadership contender Ed Miliband said Mr Thompson appeared to be offering to 'showcase' Government proposals for spending cuts in the middle of delicate negotiations over the future of the levy.

The Daily Mail understands Mr Thompson was hauled int o Downing Street for showdown talks with David Cameron's strategy chief Steve Hilton amid increasing Government displeasure over the BBC's coverage of the forthcoming spending review.

The Tories and the Liberal Democrats have become concerned that BBC reports rarely mention the reason for budget reductions - the £15billion deficit left behind by the Labour government.

A Government source said: 'Coverage of spending cuts always seems to take the most negative slant possible and never sets out the context of why they are necessary or of how the mess we have been left to clear up is not of our making.'

As he arrived at No 10 yesterday, Mr Thompson was pictured with a memo from his head of news Helen Boaden clearly on view.

It revealed she had met Mr Cameron's press chief Andy Coulson for lunch, at which he had expressed 'concern' about the impartiality of a forthcoming BBC 'season' on the spending review.

The memo promised to make viewers aware of the 'whys and wherefores', adding: 'I said that's what we always try to do.'

Miss Boaden went on to defend coverage of cuts over the summer – including claims that the poorest would be hardest hit and the possibility, now ruled out, of free school milk being axed.
Enlarge Dossier: Expressed 'concern' about the impartiality of a forthcoming BBC 'season' on the spending review but promised to make viewers aware of the 'whys and wherefores'

Dossier: Expressed 'concern' about the impartiality of a forthcoming BBC 'season' on the spending review but promised to make viewers aware of the 'whys and wherefores'

She said the BBC had been 'driven by news lines'. The document went on to list plans for various output, including Newsnight, the Today programme and Five Live, and suggest an interview with Chancellor George Osborne.

A BBC source said Mr Thompson had discussed upcoming coverage and which ministers might appear on various shows to explain the cuts.


More...

* £1m Paxman could face 20% cut in BBC's salary squeeze

The source insisted the director general was 'not embarrassed' to have unwittingly revealed the content of his meeting.

As part of an apparently concerted charm offensive by the BBC, earlier this week Mr Thompson admitted the corporation had in the past been guilty of 'massive' Left-wing bias but said it was now a 'broader church'.

The BBC governing body is also thought to be preparing to postpone a planned rise in the licence fee by 2 per cent next April, from £145.50 to £148.50, to fend off deeper cuts being imposed by the Government.

Mr Miliband said: 'The BBC must remain a fully independent organisation without bias. It is deeply worrying that when he was summoned to Downing Street, the director general of the BBC had a list of programme ideas which appeared to showcase Tory economic policies of savage, indiscriminate cuts.
Ragout


'David Cameron must stop his bully boy tactics and threats to withdraw the licence fee now, before they undermine the status of the BBC as a valued and trusted institution.'

Labour MP Michael Dugher said: 'The political independence of the BBC should be absolutely sacrosanct and it is very odd that the director general is going into Downing Street for this kind of meeting. The BBC is within its rights to publicise the cuts to public spending in whatever way it sees fit.'

Last night, a Downing Street source responded: 'For the Labour Party to attempt to suggest that we somehow are trying to bully or control the BBC is a bit rich considering their track record.'

The BBC said it had regular meetings with parties of all sides. A spokesman said: 'The director general has made it repeatedly clear that the impartiality and independence of the BBC is paramount.

'In the meeting today, the director general, in his role as editor-in-chief, discussed the possible participation of a number of members of the Government in the BBC's coverage of the spending review this autumn.'

The beeb is willing to change tact to help themselves, where is a copy of there charter when you need it!?

[Teddy Bear]

Hey Van - this time you beat me to it

The source insisted the director general was 'not embarrassed' to have unwittingly revealed the content of his meeting.
Of course not - it was part of his plan. This way any 'positive' news about Conservative policies will be diluted with the thought that 'this is what the BBC has to say to stay in business'. I wonder how long it will be before the Conservatives realize that they haven't done themselves any favours, and what they should have done is simply cut the cord on the Beeb altogether.

Perhaps in the long term it will be seen that the BBC are simply 'bought' and there's really no point in keeping them afloat - let's hope.

[Teddy Bear]

Either Peter Hitchens at the Daily Mail has read the comment I left on the title article of this topic and agrees with it, or else, and more likely, he has come to similar conclusions.

It must be true. The BBC's own boss says it's biased

By Peter Hitchens
Last updated at 6:40 PM on 4th September 2010

For about 20 years, I and a few others have been pointing out that the BBC is biased to the Left, morally, culturally and politically.

I have made this case patiently, with evidence, not crudely. And I have been met with unending scornful denial.

This vital truth, that the most important cultural and media organisation in Britain, which shapes the views of millions on every subject, is tilted against the conservative cause in every field of human endeavour, has been for years the most obvious fact in the country – but also the one most utterly denied.

Well, now we have double-proof that the BBC is biased and knows it is. And also of how that bias has helped to shape British politics.

First, from the Director-General himself, Mark Thompson, we have the admission that, when he joined the Corporation 30 years ago, there was a ‘massive bias to the Left’.

I love that ‘was’, as if all those Eighties Leftists have stopped being what they were, and stopped hiring people like themselves.

Also there’s the absurd claim that the Corporation now has ‘an honourable tradition’ of journalists of the Right working for it.

Really? Perhaps they are strong among the makers of children’s programmes in Gaelic.

The BBC remains reliably pro-EU, pro-PC, anti-Israel, in favour of the sexual revolution, soft on drugs, fanatical about man-made climate change. It has partly cured itself of its crude anti-Americanism, and Mr Thompson’s confession is plainly a sign of a wider recognition that things have not been right, in both senses of the word.

Two of its own prominent journalists, Jonathan Charles (on the EU) and Roger Harrabin (on global warming), last week broadcast extraordinary programmes on Radio 4. In one, Mr Charles actually said of the launch of the euro in 1999: ‘Even now I can remember the great air of excitement. It did seem like the start of a new era .  .  . for a few brief days I suppose I and everyone else suspended their scepticism and all got caught up in that euphoria.’ I suppose he did.

And Mr Harrabin mused, faintly hilariously: ‘I’ve never considered myself a climate-change sceptic.’ No, nor has anyone else. But he conceded: ‘I’ve always had questions that weren’t fully settled, particularly about our ability to model future climate given our poor knowledge of some elements of the current climate system.’

But now we have the latest evidence, from Mr Thompson’s briefing notes, that the BBC has for a long time been co-operating closely with David Cameron, who disembowelled the Tory Party to make it acceptable to the BBC’s militant cultural revolutionaries. I first pointed this out long before the Election, when the BBC refused to disclose details of a meeting Mr Thompson

had then with Mr Cameron. Around the same time, BBC coverage of the Tories switched from an unending stream of high-pressure slime to cautious approval, gradually warming into endorsement.

The key to this is which of the two was and is the senior partner at these meetings. You will get a better picture of modern Britain if you grasp that it is the BBC which, as the medieval Church once did, gives or withholds its blessing to the leaders it approves of. Lean to the Left, or face frozen disapproval, consistently unfair coverage, misrepresentation and actual exclusion from the national debate.

This is a real, dangerous scandal threatening our future. Yet it merits less space in the media than a fuss about cricket.

[Teddy Bear]

As I correctly predicted here, it didn't take long for the BBC to get accused of sucking up to the Conservatives after Thompson ('accidentally' ) let it be known what he was going to see Cameron about.

BBC bosses drop giant scissors spending cuts logo
BBC bosses have been accused of bowing to pressure from the Conservatives after dropping a giant scissors logo from a season of programmes about Government spending cuts.

By Heidi Blake

The decision coincides with a series of meetings with senior Conservatives about the broadcaster's coverage of the Coalition's economic policies.

The forthcoming series of programmes, which starts this week, will examine the implications of the Government’s spending review and each programme was to be marked with an onscreen logo of a giant pair of scissors.

The decision to scrap the motif has angered some staff who believe bosses have compromised the BBC’s impartiality by bowing to political pressure.

Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, visited Downing Street last Thursday for a meeting with David Cameron’s strategy chief Steve Hilton about the “spending review season”.

Mr Hilton is understood to have urged Mr Thompson not to present the spending cuts in an unfavourable light and to emphasise that Labour would have been forced to make similar savings had the party remained in power.

Helen Boaden, director of BBC news, took the decision to cut the logo after a meeting with Mark Byford, the deputy director general and head of journalism.

Miss Boaden had lunched with Andy Coulson, Mr Cameron’s press chief, earlier the same day.

Senior Conservative Cabinet ministers are privately furious at the perceived bias of the BBC when reporting the Coalition’s public spending plans.

But the decision to scrap the logo is likely to fuel allegations that the BBC is seeking to "cosy up" to Mr Cameron in an attempt to avoid the swingeing cuts facing the rest of the public sector.

Martin Bell, the former broadcaster and independent MP, raised concerns over the implications for the BBC’s impartiality after details of Mr Thompson’s meeting with Mr Hilton emerged.

He said: "If the result of this is a more government-friendly BBC than they otherwise would have been, then in my view that would be selling the crown jewels of the corporation."

The BBC denied that the decision to scrap the logo was connected with Mr Thompson's visit to Downing Street. A spokeswoman said: "It is categorically untrue that the decision about the scissors logo was made after to the Director General's visit to Downing Street. The decision was entirely unconnected with the meeting."

[beness]

I don't think the BBC are bought as such. It's more a meeting of minds that have the funding(public tax) and voice (broadcast media) to espouse their views.

[Teddy Bear]

I would say the BBC are 'bought' in the sense that they will follow their agenda in what they perceive as their own best interests, which as we see favours Labour, EU, AGW, Islam, Multicultural, Secular, to name but a few.

Naturally the Tory's, by currently controlling future funding for the BBC, were trying to get the BBC to run things more in their favour than is usual, and using the upcoming licence fee review as the stick/carrot. The BBC response was to let it be known that this was happening, presumably with the idea that now any big cut in their funding, or change in usual propaganda would be seen by the public as their unwillingness to be coerced by the Tories.

If the Tories had any real gumption they would cut the BBC loose.

[Teddy Bear]

The article by Peter Hitchens shown above has attracted 248 comments thus far, including those by yours truly. I'm going to post them here for posterity as it shows the different mindsets expressing opinions on the subject, and how those whose perspective matches the BBC's justify the left wing bias.

The very fact that an organisation that is supposed to be fair and balanced has admitted to being biased makes it corrupt. How can any sane being justify this corruption and think it could possibly be a good thing?

Page 1

PHitchens tends to use the terms Left and Right too broadly, esp. when it comes to economic issues.
The article entitled "Accounting for the Eustonians" by one Tim Wilkinson (just Google it) is worth tracking down and reading. It provides a reasonable assesment of the good and bad aspects of Peter Hitchens's use of 'left wing' and 'right wing'.

Posted by: William Henderson | 05 September 2010 at 03:08 PM

The BBC has become nothing more than a left wing quango driven by a political agenda. Cut its ability to make propaganda. Leave it to make good entertainment - yes - but slash its ability to be nothing more than a safe job for Guardian drop outs.

Posted by: simon | 05 September 2010 at 03:07 PM

Mr Hitchens

I can accept that from a small-c conservative standpoint the BBC may be seen as biased. It can certainly, in some of its programming output, appear to fall in line with prevailing 'grubby orthodoxies' as you once referred to them as on issues such as climate change and multiculturalism.

But, and it is a big but, the same corporation that can churn out twee stuff about carbon footprints on Breakfast TV or Newsnight, is also that which makes a show like Top Gear. So just as one show might be tilting its coverage to the conventional wisdom that climate change is happening and maybe we should do something about it, another is unashamedly telling us to leap into our cars as often as possible and writhe them around the countryside for no other good reason than some Toad-of-Toad-Hall obsession with speed, whilst cheerfully hanging the environmental consequences in the process. I can imagine that a committed Green would be as dismayed by Clarkson and his mates and the oxygen of publicity the BBC give to them as you are with supposed lefties in the news department.

But I suppose therein lies my point: all channels have an audience to attract and are not going to get very far if they broadcast programmes that are seen as being too out of step with the public mood. This is why TV is essentially so derivative and by extension anodyne. For instance, on an issue dear to your heart, every TV station has accepted the conventional wisdom on sexual morality to the extent that virtually all dramas on any of the channels give sympathetic, non-judgemental hearings to characters involved in teenage sex, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, gay sex, transexual sex and the like. To therefore single out the BBC as the only bastion of liberal thought on the airwaves is unfair.

And, going back to the green debate, I can remember some sort of Green Week series of reports on Sky News a year or so ago the kind of which would have had the Ani-Beeb lobby jumping up and down had they eminated from Television Centre in Shepherd's Bush. But Murdoch is no fool; he knows that, for better or worse, a lot of people are worried about the environment so a series on Sky News about how we can all be a little more environmentally friendly will go down well with viewers, advertisers etc.

Also, if anyone on this blog can show me how ITN News at Ten is demonstrably different to the BBC equivalent, or indeed similar broadcasts on SKY, then I would be keen to read their views. If they can't, and I have to say I think it is difficult, then they should at least then be consistent and say that all broadcasters, for the reasons outlined above, are as biased as each other.
Posted by: John Blance | 05 September 2010 at 02:59 PM

Red Rag, 'out and out Tory'? I'm going to assume you're new to this 'blog: Peter Hitchens is a traditional conservative who opposes the Conservative Party because he views it as now being left-wing. Also, while it's true that those media agencies you've named are biased, they do admit their bias, which the BBC for the longest time never did, and, unlike the BBC, they are not publicly funded.

The problem with Tony Blair is that he is so presentational that, if he is 'weird' (I'm assuming Peter Hitchens means psychologically abnormal), we'll never truly be sure about it. I put his weird posture down to his nervousness. He has always been noticeably nervous, and yet simultaneously he is an engaging orator, which surely partly explains his rise to power. Add to this the fact that Blair played a major part in concocting the 'New Labour project' (as it is often sinisterly termed), and we have a compelling explanation. As for being chosen for Sedgefield constituency, as I understand it, his father-in-law pulled a few strings.

Posted by: D Potter | 05 September 2010 at 02:39 PM

I could not bring myself to watch the Marr/Blair interview. Blair's very face makes me nauseated, however,I could not escape the clips, glad I am not the only one to think his sitting position with strategically placed tie was strange, and as for the excerpt of the night John Smth died, words fail me.

Posted by: margaret davidson | 05 September 2010 at 02:37 PM

My Friends,
I'm sorry, but as an environmentalist and a progressive, maybe the neocons are correct in accusing us of using the climate change issue for political slandering.If this CO2 issue is a mistake of science, they can accuse us of anything for a long long time. Read This:
“A consortium of national scientific academies has scolded the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for down-playing uncertainties about global warming, failing to point out when its claims of catastrophe were based on weak evidence and misrepresenting some findings as peer-reviewed by scientists, when they weren’t.

The findings of the InterAcademy Council investigation also criticized IPCC management, recommending the organization adopt a conflict-of-interest policy. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has advised energy and financial companies potentially affected by policies stemming from IPCC findings. He says proceeds go to an energy think tank he heads and to charity.

The criticisms outlined this week by Princeton University professor Harold Shapiro, who chaired the investigation, essentially told the IPCC to stop lobbying governments to combat global warming and restrict its role to explaining science.

We have voiced similar complaints for years with IPCC reports, the fifth of which is due in 2014. Each successive report ratcheted up catastrophic predictions even as temperatures stopped increasing, despite soaring greenhouse gas emissions that the IPCC claims overheat the planet.”

We need to back off of this CO2 mistake before it becomes our Iraq War of WMD-like lies and fear mongering. If we don't shy away from this soon, it could keep us out of power for decades. I'm embarrassed to have scared my kids for so long. You?

Posted by: mememine69 | 05 September 2010 at 02:00 PM

It is always much better for a media base to just admit whether they are left, centre or right. This way people know what they are tuning into. Instead of pretending that you don't have an agenda when you clearly do.

It would be like Mr Hitchens pretending to be a liberal while broadcasting the views that he has.

I commend the BBC for their honesty on this issue though. And I don't think everything that they broadcast is necessarily bad. Having Peter on some of their programmes shows that they are maybe trying - while they may all be cringing on the inside while he is on.

Posted by: mjv | 05 September 2010 at 01:38 PM

What is the objective of Mr Hitchen's analysis of BBC bias ?

Does he think that by writing about bias, the BBC will be shamed into altering the 'left/progressive' perspective it has maintained for all these years ?
Surly not, no-one could think that transformation would occur.

So what is the point ?

My experience is that people who are politically aware all know that the BBC is biased. It is not difficult to work out. It is actually rather hard to ignore. In fact is is practically impossible to ignore the BBC's bias.
Without the will to take any action whatsoever, it seems superfluous to write again and again about the same issue.
Whilst choosing to actually FUND with the BBC with YOUR OWN MONEY.

Let's look at it from the other angle. Why would the BBC chose to cease broadcasting politically & culturally biased programmes and 'news' ?
Would they stop because they have been repeatedly exposed as biased ?
We know the answer is 'no'.
Might they alter their agenda because they tire of the inflated salaries, generous pensions and job security ?
Seems unlikely.
Would they be forced to stop acting in such a blatantly political manner if people stopped FUNDING them with THEIR OWN MONEY ?

Who's fault is it if people chose to fund the very same organisation that they complain about ?
If we do not act like free men then we cannot complain when we are treated like cattle.

That's the way I see it.

Posted by: John Richardson | 05 September 2010 at 01:17 PM

High every one I'm back.
The proviso being that I apologise for the slight I made on Peter Hitchens, way back in the spring, regarding the polices of the BNP and his polices being stolen by him from the BNP, and used as his own . For this I do rightly apologise without condition . It was the action of an angry mind . And it is withdrawn .
For this damascus convertion I must thank Bob son of bob . He made me realise the error of my way. a taunt.. so thank you Bob. I suspect others here will not thank you so readily.
But these armchair warriors need some one to attack. Why not me . who's only wish is the safety of our kids, in this crime infested dump, once called Great Britain.
I feel for you Peter Hitchens ,as a journalist you must trawl through the annointed ones auto biography. I prefer to give it a miss. relying on you and other to tell us all the bits you find of interest . I love that predestination bit. It expains almost everthing the new messiah did. Unfortunately Prophets are not taken to seriously in their own country. Usually in times long gone they ended up executed for their beliefs at that time.
Today we only have the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague. But one cannot hold their breath in anticipation. Condem have no such plans.
So in future I must direct my ire towards those that deserve it. attack the message rather than the messenger.
Posted by: mikebarnes | 05 September 2010 at 11:53 AM

No, what is commical Red Rag' is that you are unable to differentiate between a publicly funded service, the BBC, and privately funded enterprises - The Telegraph, The Times, Sky News etc. It should be in the BBC's very nature to be un-biased as it's charter proclaims it must but as Mr. Hitchens states, it clearly isn't.

If you have any doubt about the left-wing bias in the corporation I suggest you red Robin Aitken's 'Can We Trust The BBC?'

Posted by: Anthony James Armstrong | 05 September 2010 at 11:52 AM

So right about the BBC (and the cricket reference), will Question Time have you on again knowing you will ram it down their throats I wonder?. Can't be bothered reading about mass murderers until I hear they are arrested and dealt with.

Posted by: alan | 05 September 2010 at 11:01 AM

Blair writes in his novel about how the west must prosecute the war on terror and that the west's ideology will transcend and be victorious over the forces of Islam.
So the man wholly responsible for the inward mass immigration of millions of Muslims into Britain, who have irrevocably changed the face of Britain forever is still advocating; impractical and preposterous foreign adventures in Afghanistan and a 'War on Terror'.

One could draw on a historically parallel analogy: Churchill whilst battling against the Nazi terror, did not see fit to invite SS panzer divisions to billet in the Capital of Britain during WWII - that would be viewed as a treason and a gross folly - would it not?

What is the difference?
Blair is not only a fool, he is also a betrayer and purblind to his British Islamic 'legacy'.

Posted by: Edward. | 05 September 2010 at 10:41 AM

Hmmm . . but 30 years ago the collective Leftablishment denial of BBC bias was equally as vociferous at it is now. There are 0 comment on here at the moment - I wonder how many equally vehement 'denials' will be posted up HERE. The lies and manipulation never stop with these people, as it is ALL ulterior motive and everything is a ‘means to an end.’ Which is why they hopelessly outmanoeuvre any honest opposition who really just need to get on with their own quiet and dutiful lives.

Time for Orwell again - can anyone here locate that terrific passage of his where he compares the Left unfavourably with the Mediaeval Catholic Church? He stated that whereas the Medieval Church was only concerned with everybody obeying the outward manifestations of the faith (as the excellently played Abbot in the Michael Praed ‘Robin Hood’ pointed out to an overzealous Guy of Gisbourne ‘as long as they go to Mass, get their children baptised in the Church, who cares what they do . .’) the Left want to get inside your head and control how you think. (Remember, Orwell wrote this, and he got shot fighting for the Republicans in Spain)

The BBC will always and forever support the Statist ambitions of the EU, Big Government, cradle to grave welfare – and there are very few independent thinkers in the viewing public, rendered generationally less intelligent by decades of socially engineered statist edcucation, who can now conceive that any other way of organising the social order is possible or desirable. There is no NEED to defend against left wing bias as it is no longer recognised as such. (as the early Genesis lyric put it ‘And so with Gods and Men the sheep remain inside their pen, though many times they’ve seen the way to leave’)

And the youth, as ever, are fed with plenty of fake rebellion that politically can only ever express itself in quasi-left terms.

So Mark Thompson now knows that the time is ripe to admit what thirty years ago his kind were furiously denying all along, confident in the knowledge that leftablishment thought patterns (getting into your mind and controlling how you think) are so deeply embedded that the current bias will not even be perceived as such as it is now rigid cultural ‘received wisdom’ and like the taste of water in your mouth.

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 05 September 2010 at 10:31 AM

Thank you, Peter Hitchens, for once again highlighting the horrible suffering inflicted, directly or indirectly, on the Iraqi people as a result of the unnecessary, counter-productive and illegal war of aggression waged by Blair and Bush.

Most critics of the war seem to concentrate on how much it cost, how badly the troops were equipped, how many of "our boys" have lost their lives, how a plan for the country's future was lacking and so on. The rape of the Iraqi people is usually ignored. The destabilization of the ME too.

Blair (and Bush too if possible) should be arrested and charged with war crimes. That might discourage political leaders from committing similar crimes in future.

Posted by: D. Bunker | 05 September 2010 at 08:25 AM

Peter, you ask for an explanation for Tony Blairs meteoric rise to the Labour party leadership. I would suggest you look no further than the attendance list for the 1993 Bilderberg meeting held in Athens. Many people attending this annual hush-hush conference go on to bigger and better things.

Posted by: Paul Hartley | 05 September 2010 at 06:54 AM

It's not often that I agree with Peter, and i'm more sympatheitc to his brother's views, but the BBC has persistently demonstrated a leftist, liberal bias, and two cases come to the fore;

The first is the decision to have BNP Nick Griffin on Question Time, but on the BBC's terms, with as multicultural an audience as they could find, asking stupid questions and making sarcastic remarks, while Television centre was surounded by people who oppose free speech, because such expression offends their 'left-liberal reactionary' (there is such a thing) sensibility.

The more sinsiter and less ostentatious display was a piece about Nazi memoriabilia on the One Show, which is the most tedious attempt at 'normalising' the political attitudes of the BBC i've seen in a while.

In this segment, the reporter tries to put forth the idea that artefacts of Nazism are so offensive, that collecting them should be banned, or criminalised. The argument goes that so many people are offended by the iconography of the third reich that perhaps we'd be better off just banning the sale of it, in whatever context, and for whatever reason. When the reporter put this argument to a holocaust survivor, she simply laughed this off for what it was; a condescending approach to look out for the ordinary people and send the whole market underground. After this attempt to condemn people's appreciation for an important part of history failed to gain support through the report, Adrian Chiles took the party line and tried to normalise this view of banning artefacts because they might offend people (even though the Jewish woman interviewed had scoffed at the idea), hoping to get sympathy from the studio guest, Terry Gilliam.

Gilliam looked incredulous, before wisely suggesting that making such things taboo gives them power, while opening them up for deconstruction and satire undermines that power.

That was the day when the paternalist, liberal bias of the BBC crystallised itself in my mind.. that, and an excellent rebuke from Ian Hislop on Have I Got News For You that shut the other panelists up, after some self-congratulatory snorting about the impartiality of the Express.
Posted by: Tom | 05 September 2010 at 02:38 AM

All the lib/con movement seem to be interested in is how they can make the books balance without having to deal with all those wonderful,upright persons
who caused the problems in the first placeOnce again the poor will have to pay for the rich and be threatened at every turn of the screw with jail or worse while those people who were supposed to be leading a good example are probably away with the fairies.
I agreed with you about the BBC,it has reported only that which is in it's leanings to for many years now and has had an agenda to crucify one sex whilst giving free rein to the other.It is not even so much what they report,it is what they leave out.
Nothing will change,that's a certainty,either in politics or the BBC,in politics a few weeks ago the proposal was put for the accused and accuser in rape trials not to be named,a few sharp words from the ladies in the house and boom,it's all forgotten,us men know our place,thats for sure.
Is it not inevitable that Israel will have to bomb Iran,if thewest is right about the latters nuclear capability.The only good point is that, at least Israel have mossad
who will give them greater and better information ,they fortunately do not have to
rely on the USA for that.

Posted by: michael savell | 04 September 2010 at 11:38 PM

Like Ronald Reagan, Blair conned his way into office.

Posted by: Wesley Crosland | 04 September 2010 at 11:26 PM

I'd question the analysis of the BBC's 'bias' - there's a very vague allegation of leftie bias in being pro-EU, pro-PC, pro-climate change and such

This is hard to pin down as bias - on climate change for example, all political parties and all (I think) western governments accept the theory, and while Harrabin may have 'excessive' views there is little space for the counter argument in the mainstream media, you cannot expect the BBC to be totally neutral on such an issue, they have raised the counter argument a few times, which is more than one can say for their bias towards evolution

I'm not sure how to answer the pro-PC allegation, that's all in the eye of the beholder, they accept PC nonsense like virtually all big businesses do, simply not being anti-PC does not preclude a political stance

On Israel - there's as many accusations of being pro-Israel as there are the other way, both have evidence and generally I find both sides react to anything negative towards them as being inherently biased against them, I've yet to see both sides refer to anyone's view as balanced, personally I think if they can nark off both sides then they must be doing something right

Sexual revolution...or simply reflective of society and not adhering to an outdated set of right-wings beliefs? As for drugs - that is one area I see the BBC as being biased, albeit they usually have the weight of evidence on their side, I don't see it as left or right though, seeing as both parties are ridiculously prohibitionist for fear of a tabloid backlash and I know a large amount of right-wingers who are also pro-drugs, no doubt they aren't properly right wing in the author's eyes, because he seems to make the rules on the political spectrum, maybe he should take it up with prominent right-wing bloggers that are also liberal on drugs

But my main point would be, when looking outside social or cultural areas some may or may not regard as 'left', regarding actual politics was the BBC biased towards Gordon Brown, the most left wing PM since Wilson? No, or at least I, as a vehement hater of Brown, did not spot it as I did in left-wing rags. Is it now pro-Ed Balls? Milliband, D, seems to get the most attention - and as the author notes, it likes Cameron (who conveniently can be written off as too far left) therefore how far left is the bias, and is it merely that it isn't quite right-wing enough for some?

Posted by: Tarquin | 04 September 2010 at 10:37 PM

Regarding BBC Bias, you're spot on in your assessment Peter, and I saw the exact same logic to reach those conclusions when I first read Thompson's 'revelation'. He lied when he denied it all these years, he lies when he says they've done something about it. He's clearly having to 'own up' to appease the Conservatives in advance of the licence fee discussions coming up. It was no 'accident' that his agenda with Cameron was shown for photographers, he wants it known that any pro-Tory statements the BBC makes are induced by force.

If Cameron has any sense, he'll cut the BBC loose and sell them off, they won't be doing him any favours whatever slant they pursue.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 04 September 2010 at 08:41 PM

Of course the BBC recruit from universities where the liberal left world view is deemed to be the only view that the intelligent and well educated would or should subscribe to.

The Conservatives, it seems, have to show that they have seen the errors of their Thatcherite past in order to gain the state broadcaster's favour. Mark Thompson's admission is only a small concession - almost a bargaining chip. Currently the BBC is still giving Labour politicians far more coverage than a party in opposition should merit and much of this is soft and uncritical.

Posted by: KG | 04 September 2010 at 08:35 PM

An example of BBC bias:
A Tory councillor defects to the Labour party because of spending cuts. This is mentioned on both BBC TV and radio news reports. Over the last few months several Tory councillors have defected to UKIP because of loss of our national independence. These cases were totally ignored by the BBC.

Posted by: kenomeat | 04 September 2010 at 08:32 PM

So you say the BBC is bias. Unlike The Mail, The Express, The Sun, The News of the World, The Telegraph, The Times,Sky news, The Star, The Evening Standard, News International....do I need to go on.

To complain as an out and out Tory about media bias.

Absolutely comical.

Posted by: Red Rag | 04 September 2010 at 08:12 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 2

William Henderson that is an interesting essay and it makes some good points. Personally I couldn't tell you exactly what Peter's economic opinions are myself as I have mostly only read his blogs at the moment. He doesn't seem like a Thatcherite though but more like an old-fashioned protectionist.

Anyway the essay though ironically makes a similar mistake to that which is accuses Peter of. It makes mistakes about economic and social positions. In fact they are not inseparable. The problem is that both the neoliberalism and corporate-capitalism of a Thatcher or Milton Friedman and traditional social democracy(not to mention socialism.) are both anti-traditional. They both have little respect for traditional values, beliefs and social associations and in fact break them down. They are what G.K Chesterton long ago called Hudge and Gudge, slightly nuanced versions of the same thing. A really rightwing or at least traditional and conservative economic system must be something like that aimed at by Chesterton and Belloc "Distributism", implied in Catholic teaching and drawn up by Ruskin, by Cobbett, by Tom Paine in his Agrarian justice(despite the sophistry of most of his other political, religious and social views.) and by De Bonald. Only such a system based on property owning families, on small businesses and small farms and guilds, or at least something more like it, could properly compliment a traditional spiritual, social and cultural structure. Even nationalist protectionism is of little value if it doesn't feed into such a system, if it only protects a centralised, nationalised and collectivised economy which would be as barren as Thatcherism or Social democracy for traditional conservatism(it would indeed be a nationalised hybrid of said systems.)

I can think of nothing that would so improve Peter's already illuminating social commentary than a more overt, ChesterBelloc vein. It would make it even more holistically a traditional critique of the current political and social situation.

Posted by: Wessexman | 06 September 2010 at 05:23 AM

Sam Vega. I'm doing a politics and history BA at the moment. I can attest that I my uni, particularly in the politics department there is plenty of leftwing or liberal bias. It isn't perhaps rigidly Marxist stuff or anything like that, in fact I have not met people who were rigidly Marxist or even rigidly post-modernist or anything like that, but there is still very much a liberal and socially liberal bias in the air. I recently did a course on American politics that seemed to have a major component of America bashing, particularly bashing from a liberal position.

However there isn't really much in terms of brainwashing because, at least where I go to uni in Sydney Australia, the students are ripe fodder for liberalism anyway. Those who are not fully leftist or Green are still unconsciously sympathetic to social liberalism. This constantly reminds me of the depth of the culture wars.

The likes of Fox News may salivate over a few issues but the culture is deep, it needs to be thought at every level from the most basic levels of culture, society and social associations to higher culture itself(where are the great conservative artists? Where are our Eliots, Yeats, Johnson's and Swift of today? Let alone our Dante's and Shakespeares!).

Posted by: Wessexman | 06 September 2010 at 05:09 AM

Notwithstanding your regular commentaries on the network's Brisbane station, the ABC has a similarly entrenched bias. But while leftist commentators regularly deny this, all of the senior Australian Labor [sic] Party staffers I'm friendly with privately relish the fact.

Posted by: Duc de Blangis | 06 September 2010 at 02:59 AM

The left feels entitled to lie to those who don't agree with them or support them because they are certain they are correct and have nothing but contempt for those who don't agree with them and stand in their way. Their lies range from claiming that they are unbiased to naming a totalitarian government that murders millions of its own citizens a "People's Republic". Lying is what the do, and some people apparently never learn.

When someone asks, so what's wrong with the left or Marxism or communism, the answer is that they all require people to behave a certain way to achieve their agenda and when reasoning and reasonable persuasion don't work, they readily shift to lying, coercion, and even murder to achieve their goals. It happens every time it's tried. Leftist thinking inevitably leads to thuggish behavior.
Posted by: John | 06 September 2010 at 02:43 AM

The BBC's even using such unlikely vehicles as Radio 2's 'Friday Night is Music Night' to spread leftist propaganda now. In a recent episode the announcer spoke about one of Sibelius's compositions being inspired by nationalism, adding waspishly: "Before nationalism became a dirty word." As if this were the generally accepted view.

Posted by: Man in the street. | 06 September 2010 at 01:15 AM

Mike,

Good on you for apologising.

Posted by: Freeman | 05 September 2010 at 11:48 PM

John Richardson,if your complaint is that Peter ought to be advocating putting the BBC and the licence fee onto the same bonfire as Cameron and his unconservatives then let me hasten to agree with you.But I'd respectfully suggest that like it or lump it isn't much of a choice,not least because the latter option here will result in a criminal record.

In common with,I'm sure,very many people I neither want to receive nor pay for any BBC programming.But exactly what 'choice' in this matter does anyone have.Receive no TV channels whatsoever (it might be home internet access next) or end up in prison.

More baffling and depressing still is just how that no-account PR man rose much faster and even less legitimately than Blair Mark I,who at least spent longer in shadow cabinet filling more senior opposite number positions before becoming PM in waiting.The newer model only had five minutes at education in Michael Howard's lame duck post 2005 general election line up.

How delightful that Mike Barnes has tucked into enough humble pie to rejoin the ranks of the posting readers.Especially when he hit the groung gaffing and caused me to hit the floor laughing.Or was "High every one I'm back" a description of his joyous mental state brought about by this development,and not yet another "fopah" on the Prof's part?

Posted by: Scott Ross | 05 September 2010 at 11:25 PM

mikebarnes,

It's good to see you back on here.

I hope that Harry Rose (who is obviously an intelligent person) takes a leaf out of your book. Come on, Rose, be a good sport, own up and apologise to Hitchens and come back to cross swords with us 'trad-con dinosaurs (or should that be dragons?)

Posted by: Richard Matthew Stewart (formerly known as Richard Matthews) | 05 September 2010 at 10:02 PM

Three observations on Blair:

In many instances Blair's view of what occurred differs from those of everybody else even in trivial situations such as how many headers he had with Keegan;

You might appeal for anybody who was opposed by barrister Blair if those who paid for him are so shy;

There seems to be little detailed information on the so-called WMDs and none about what extra precautions the military took to protect the troops, if no extra precautions were taken it rather suggests that the military (and others) knew there were no WMDs.

Posted by: Saul Gresham | 05 September 2010 at 09:54 PM

ewwwwwwwww stop looking at his crotch!

Posted by: t | 05 September 2010 at 09:41 PM

Mr Hitchens,

I am puzzled by your reference to Blair's admitting that being Prime Minister was the first and only job in government he ever had. You say that there's "a fascinating story to be told one day" about this, but that this isn't the day.

Labour had been out of power for 15 years when Blair became leader of the party, and 18 years when he became PM. Were there any plausible alternatives to him who had had meaningful government experience? I can't remember, but it seems unlikely.

Posted by: Thucydides | 05 September 2010 at 07:00 PM

Welcome back Mike Barnes. Now we just need to get Harry Rose reinstated to keep the political spectrum in balance. It will also stop him creating colourful new characters who are even more bizarre than his real persona (lucket bell just HAS to be one).

I feel that the BBC simply reflects the nation's Zeitgeist, rather than the Weltanschauung (to borrow a Demetriou copyrighted word) of Hitchens and his hordes (hordes is probably an exagerration, they are not even a groundswell. Perhaps flock would be better.Like cheesy wallpaper). The BBC is biased, but biased in a good way (puts on tin hat).

Mr Hitchens appears to be entranced by Mr Blair's crotch. As an expert on body language, I can confirm that Mr Blair is 'displaying' for Mr Marr, but the tie shows that he is not in a position to fully mate with him. I believe that the tie may be part of the 'contraceptive equipment' that Cherie forgot to take to Balmoral.


Posted by: Scaramouche | 05 September 2010 at 06:51 PM

The BBC will remain left wing whilst it is funded by an enforced statist tax.

Peter Hitchens has said (something like) he supports the BBC because it broadcasts some 'highbrow' programs, which he doesn't think the free market would provide. So he's happy for poor people to subsidise programs generally watched by wealthier people, who could afford to subscribe to such a channel.

Obviously he's happy to endure the left wing bias so long as they're providing the 'less popular' programs he enjoys - but then I don't think Peter Hitchens has ever really believed in the free market, has he.

The BBC should be scrapped or offered on a subscription only 'opt-in' basis.
Or, as Mr Hitchens would say, let them have a 'flag day' and see how much they raise.

Posted by: Mike Everett | 05 September 2010 at 05:53 PM

Red Rag, not to sure how often you have visited this blog in the last few months, but given that Mr Hitchens has consistently asked people not to vote Tory. I think accusations of him being an 'out and out Tory' are somewhat misplaced. No doubt all the news organisations you mention display a certain political bias (although The Sun, The News of the World, The Times and Sky News are all part of the same organisation, News International) but very few have been consistent over the last decade or so. News International, for example, supported the Labour Party for all three of its election victories under Mr Blair.

Despite all this, the real point of this debate is not bias itself but undeclared bias. I remember a couple of years ago Liberals getting very hot under the collar about the news channel Fox News and lampooning it’s claims to be ‘fair and balanced’ when anybody who watched even five minutes of its courage could discern that it was fervently right wing. I believe the very same could be said of the BBC except its bias is of the left. Ironically, when pushed on the issue, many Liberals don’t seem to have a problem with this because they feel that the BBC is ‘right’ and Fox News is ‘wrong’.

As somebody interested in History, I have read many times that the sources a Historian should beware most are those that claim to be impartial. Such sources tend not to give us the ‘truth’ but rather only the received opinion and collective wisdom of the day. Indeed, I bear this mind whenever I watch the ‘impartial’ BBC.
Posted by: Robert | 05 September 2010 at 05:43 PM

A fine piece of intellectual snobbery from Sam Vega. His/her attitude is loaded with the usual contempt for ordinary people and their presumed 'small minded' views. His/her comments about common-sensical saloon bar opinions and intellectual darwinism betray a belief that liberal left views are inherently superior and will inevitably triumph over all others. This is pretty much the attitude I referred to in my first comment (ie. liberal/left = educated/cosmopolitan; conservative = ignorant/parochial).

To assume that the educational establishment cannot be steered to the left by those who have the will and influence to do so is just naive (has Sam Vega never heard of Antonio Gramsci?). It does not require anything so crude as the imposition of a left wing orthodoxy . The American writer and activist David Horowitz has done a great deal of work to expose how the left are striving to achieve major power and influence over higher education in the United States and how, in some institutions, they have managed to freeze out non-leftwingers.

Thatcher and Powell attended University in a very different era and are rather silly examples to choose. I am sure that there are people with strong views of their own who will not be easily influenced. However, for a majority of students university represent their entry to the adult world (a rite of passage if you will). To say that they would not be influenced by that environment is as naive as assuming that people are so independently minded that advertising could have no influence on their choices.

Posted by: KG | 05 September 2010 at 05:41 PM

Luckett Bell

"Their husbands... brought round to sweet reasoning by their better halves."

The question that struck me, as I finished your interesting take on that fortress of propaganda that is transmitted under the banner of The Archers, was whether Mr bell has yet been brought round to your view?

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 05 September 2010 at 05:39 PM

mikebarnes

I knew mikebarnes, and you're no mikebarnes... please stop playing sb's.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 05 September 2010 at 05:25 PM

Tarquin | 05 September 2010 at 03:26 PM

'There are none so blind as those that will not see"

I know I'm answering in a patronising way, but that's how I get when I feel somebody is purposefully being 'obtuse', rather than genuinely 'confused'.

So even you understand it Tarquin, for the first part the BBC has NEVER admitted to this bias previously. Every time anyone would complain of this bias, showing clear examples, the BBC would justify their coverage and continue. Now Thompson has admitted there was a MASSIVE left bias, and he was aware of it 30 years ago, which means that the BBC have been LYING all this time by denying it.

To the second part, since there was a MASSIVE left bias, this means that those in the employ of the BBC had a MASSIVE left bias, and were prepared to lie to justify continuing their propaganda and knowingly break the terms of their charter. So why will these unethical 'types' hire others with a different mindset since they're not concerned about even admitting, let alone balancing, their output?

Either you're an ostrich or have an agenda here not to get it.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 05 September 2010 at 05:22 PM

the bbc bias,of course it is.the sickening thing is that i have to fund this left wing propaganda show.how much longer do we have to subsidise these arrogont parasites that look at normal working class people with complete contempt.

Posted by: david graham | 05 September 2010 at 04:33 PM

I strongly recommend 'Can We Trust The BBC', written by Robin Aitken and published in 2007. He is a former BBC reporter and journalist who worked for 25 years within the organisation and operated at many different levels, from local radio to the mainstream 'Today' programme.

In the book he focuses upon a wide variety of issues - the economy, war, Europe, Ireland etc. He also provides, sometimes from personal experiences derived from personal familiarity, accurate profiles of many of the BBC's prominent figures.

But the profile he provides of Polly Toynbee perhaps best sums up, for me, what the BBC and the modern media as a whole has degenerated into over the past 20-30 years.

"Toynbee, in particular, has made her mark as a commentator; her op-ed pieces in the Guardian, penetrating, provocative and polemical, are always worth reading. She is the standard bearer for a particular kind of left-wing politics: aggressively feminist, militantly atheistic, conspicuously compassionate towards favoured victim groups, she gives voice to an important constituency within the broader left. If the Jana Bennett philosophy was genuinely designed to protect BBC impartiality how could Toynbee ever have become the BBC's Social Affairs editor?"

Sums up the BBC quite perfectly.

Posted by: Peter Charnley | 05 September 2010 at 04:22 PM

Even if the rubbish about BBC bias were true, isn't it a speck in the eye compared to the rabid right wing bias 85% of the press?

Posted by: David Cheshire | 05 September 2010 at 04:15 PM

Actually - isn't that headline something that Mr Hitchens would himself denounce - i.e an untruth

Thompson has not said 'it is biased' he has said it was biased, rather a different meaning, we've seen what happens if one were to misquote the great Hitchens in such a way

Posted by: Tarquin | 05 September 2010 at 03:26 PM

Thankyou, Mr. Hitchens, nail on the head as usual.
"The Archers" floats around my home every week as I am married to a long-term enthusiast for the programme.
Far from being "a daily story of country folk" it is unremitting leftist, feminist PC propaganda. Virtually all the women characters are portrayed as being wise, tolerant, liberal and forward-looking. Their husbands (or "partners") are conversely reactionary, obscurantist and stick-in-the-mud - but only mildly so, as they are inevitably ultimately brought round to sweet reason by their better halves.
For evidence of this assertion, follow the current story-line about a particularly loathsome (long-term loathsome, before the current line) female character who has decided to swell the single-mother statistics by conceiving, giving birth to and raising an IVF baby without benefit of father. Almost all the women characters coo glutinously over her decision. Even the disapproving menfolk who surround her only argue the practical problems of what she is doing; that there is a moral dimension to the question is never so much as mentioned.
And what is the Vicar of Ambridge doing during all this? Well, he is too busy minding the susceptibilities of his Hindu wife (in deepest Borsetshire!!!) to engage with matters of faith or morality amongst his flock - although I suspect that even if he did so it would only be to break cover as part of the modernist wing of the C of E.
One small programme, but highly significant, I think.

Posted by: Luckett Bell | 05 September 2010 at 03:23 PM

Red Rag: - "Unlike The Mail, The Express, The Sun, The News of the World, The Telegraph, The Times,Sky news, The Star, The Evening Standard, News International"

So which of the above are funded by TAX?!!

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 05 September 2010 at 03:19 PM

KG's reference to

"universities where the liberal left world view is deemed to be the only view that the intelligent and well educated would or should subscribe to"

makes me wonder whether KG has actually attended one, or whether lack of first hand experience has led to them being fertile grounds for the workings of a paranoid imagination. Margaret Thatcher, Nich Griffin, and Enoch Powell all seemed remarkably untainted by University life, after all. If KG considers these to be liberal pinkoes, then this probably says more about his/her position than universities.

But if s/he is right, KG might also consider why it is that universities impose such a left-wing orthodoxy. One would have assumed that there are sufficient right-wing people of intelligence able to get to university. Or once they get there, is there some further shadowy organisation which prevents such students from thriving and becoming lecturers and dons?

One possible explanation is that views which are welcomed as common-sensical in the pages of the Mail on Sunday or the local saloon bar are unable to withstand the critical pressures of academia. A form of intellectual Darwinism, perhaps?

Posted by: Sam Vega | 05 September 2010 at 03:09 PM

William Henderson that is an interesting essay and it makes some good points. Personally I couldn't tell you exactly what Peter's economic opinions are myself as I have mostly only read his blogs at the moment. He doesn't seem like a Thatcherite though but more like an old-fashioned protectionist.

Anyway the essay though ironically makes a similar mistake to that which is accuses Peter of. It makes mistakes about economic and social positions. In fact they are not inseparable. The problem is that both the neoliberalism and corporate-capitalism of a Thatcher or Milton Friedman and traditional social democracy(not to mention socialism.) are both anti-traditional. They both have little respect for traditional values, beliefs and social associations and in fact break them down. They are what G.K Chesterton long ago called Hudge and Gudge, slightly nuanced versions of the same thing. A really rightwing or at least traditional and conservative economic system must be something like that aimed at by Chesterton and Belloc "Distributism", implied in Catholic teaching and drawn up by Ruskin, by Cobbett, by Tom Paine in his Agrarian justice(despite the sophistry of most of his other political, religious and social views.) and by De Bonald. Only such a system based on property owning families, on small businesses and small farms and guilds, or at least something more like it, could properly compliment a traditional spiritual, social and cultural structure. Even nationalist protectionism is of little value if it doesn't feed into such a system, if it only protects a centralised, nationalised and collectivised economy which would be as barren as Thatcherism or Social democracy for traditional conservatism(it would indeed be a nationalised hybrid of said systems.)

I can think of nothing that would so improve Peter's already illuminating social commentary than a more overt, ChesterBelloc vein. It would make it even more holistically a traditional critique of the current political and social situation.

Posted by: Wessexman | 06 September 2010 at 05:23 AM

Sam Vega. I'm doing a politics and history BA at the moment. I can attest that I my uni, particularly in the politics department there is plenty of leftwing or liberal bias. It isn't perhaps rigidly Marxist stuff or anything like that, in fact I have not met people who were rigidly Marxist or even rigidly post-modernist or anything like that, but there is still very much a liberal and socially liberal bias in the air. I recently did a course on American politics that seemed to have a major component of America bashing, particularly bashing from a liberal position.

However there isn't really much in terms of brainwashing because, at least where I go to uni in Sydney Australia, the students are ripe fodder for liberalism anyway. Those who are not fully leftist or Green are still unconsciously sympathetic to social liberalism. This constantly reminds me of the depth of the culture wars.

The likes of Fox News may salivate over a few issues but the culture is deep, it needs to be thought at every level from the most basic levels of culture, society and social associations to higher culture itself(where are the great conservative artists? Where are our Eliots, Yeats, Johnson's and Swift of today? Let alone our Dante's and Shakespeares!).

Posted by: Wessexman | 06 September 2010 at 05:09 AM

Notwithstanding your regular commentaries on the network's Brisbane station, the ABC has a similarly entrenched bias. But while leftist commentators regularly deny this, all of the senior Australian Labor [sic] Party staffers I'm friendly with privately relish the fact.

Posted by: Duc de Blangis | 06 September 2010 at 02:59 AM

The left feels entitled to lie to those who don't agree with them or support them because they are certain they are correct and have nothing but contempt for those who don't agree with them and stand in their way. Their lies range from claiming that they are unbiased to naming a totalitarian government that murders millions of its own citizens a "People's Republic". Lying is what the do, and some people apparently never learn.

When someone asks, so what's wrong with the left or Marxism or communism, the answer is that they all require people to behave a certain way to achieve their agenda and when reasoning and reasonable persuasion don't work, they readily shift to lying, coercion, and even murder to achieve their goals. It happens every time it's tried. Leftist thinking inevitably leads to thuggish behavior.
Posted by: John | 06 September 2010 at 02:43 AM

The BBC's even using such unlikely vehicles as Radio 2's 'Friday Night is Music Night' to spread leftist propaganda now. In a recent episode the announcer spoke about one of Sibelius's compositions being inspired by nationalism, adding waspishly: "Before nationalism became a dirty word." As if this were the generally accepted view.

Posted by: Man in the street. | 06 September 2010 at 01:15 AM

Mike,

Good on you for apologising.

Posted by: Freeman | 05 September 2010 at 11:48 PM

John Richardson,if your complaint is that Peter ought to be advocating putting the BBC and the licence fee onto the same bonfire as Cameron and his unconservatives then let me hasten to agree with you.But I'd respectfully suggest that like it or lump it isn't much of a choice,not least because the latter option here will result in a criminal record.

In common with,I'm sure,very many people I neither want to receive nor pay for any BBC programming.But exactly what 'choice' in this matter does anyone have.Receive no TV channels whatsoever (it might be home internet access next) or end up in prison.

More baffling and depressing still is just how that no-account PR man rose much faster and even less legitimately than Blair Mark I,who at least spent longer in shadow cabinet filling more senior opposite number positions before becoming PM in waiting.The newer model only had five minutes at education in Michael Howard's lame duck post 2005 general election line up.

How delightful that Mike Barnes has tucked into enough humble pie to rejoin the ranks of the posting readers.Especially when he hit the groung gaffing and caused me to hit the floor laughing.Or was "High every one I'm back" a description of his joyous mental state brought about by this development,and not yet another "fopah" on the Prof's part?

Posted by: Scott Ross | 05 September 2010 at 11:25 PM

mikebarnes,

It's good to see you back on here.

I hope that Harry Rose (who is obviously an intelligent person) takes a leaf out of your book. Come on, Rose, be a good sport, own up and apologise to Hitchens and come back to cross swords with us 'trad-con dinosaurs (or should that be dragons?)

Posted by: Richard Matthew Stewart (formerly known as Richard Matthews) | 05 September 2010 at 10:02 PM

Three observations on Blair:

In many instances Blair's view of what occurred differs from those of everybody else even in trivial situations such as how many headers he had with Keegan;

You might appeal for anybody who was opposed by barrister Blair if those who paid for him are so shy;

There seems to be little detailed information on the so-called WMDs and none about what extra precautions the military took to protect the troops, if no extra precautions were taken it rather suggests that the military (and others) knew there were no WMDs.

Posted by: Saul Gresham | 05 September 2010 at 09:54 PM

ewwwwwwwww stop looking at his crotch!

Posted by: t | 05 September 2010 at 09:41 PM

Mr Hitchens,

I am puzzled by your reference to Blair's admitting that being Prime Minister was the first and only job in government he ever had. You say that there's "a fascinating story to be told one day" about this, but that this isn't the day.

Labour had been out of power for 15 years when Blair became leader of the party, and 18 years when he became PM. Were there any plausible alternatives to him who had had meaningful government experience? I can't remember, but it seems unlikely.

Posted by: Thucydides | 05 September 2010 at 07:00 PM

Welcome back Mike Barnes. Now we just need to get Harry Rose reinstated to keep the political spectrum in balance. It will also stop him creating colourful new characters who are even more bizarre than his real persona (lucket bell just HAS to be one).

I feel that the BBC simply reflects the nation's Zeitgeist, rather than the Weltanschauung (to borrow a Demetriou copyrighted word) of Hitchens and his hordes (hordes is probably an exagerration, they are not even a groundswell. Perhaps flock would be better.Like cheesy wallpaper). The BBC is biased, but biased in a good way (puts on tin hat).

Mr Hitchens appears to be entranced by Mr Blair's crotch. As an expert on body language, I can confirm that Mr Blair is 'displaying' for Mr Marr, but the tie shows that he is not in a position to fully mate with him. I believe that the tie may be part of the 'contraceptive equipment' that Cherie forgot to take to Balmoral.


Posted by: Scaramouche | 05 September 2010 at 06:51 PM

The BBC will remain left wing whilst it is funded by an enforced statist tax.

Peter Hitchens has said (something like) he supports the BBC because it broadcasts some 'highbrow' programs, which he doesn't think the free market would provide. So he's happy for poor people to subsidise programs generally watched by wealthier people, who could afford to subscribe to such a channel.

Obviously he's happy to endure the left wing bias so long as they're providing the 'less popular' programs he enjoys - but then I don't think Peter Hitchens has ever really believed in the free market, has he.

The BBC should be scrapped or offered on a subscription only 'opt-in' basis.
Or, as Mr Hitchens would say, let them have a 'flag day' and see how much they raise.

Posted by: Mike Everett | 05 September 2010 at 05:53 PM

Red Rag, not to sure how often you have visited this blog in the last few months, but given that Mr Hitchens has consistently asked people not to vote Tory. I think accusations of him being an 'out and out Tory' are somewhat misplaced. No doubt all the news organisations you mention display a certain political bias (although The Sun, The News of the World, The Times and Sky News are all part of the same organisation, News International) but very few have been consistent over the last decade or so. News International, for example, supported the Labour Party for all three of its election victories under Mr Blair.

Despite all this, the real point of this debate is not bias itself but undeclared bias. I remember a couple of years ago Liberals getting very hot under the collar about the news channel Fox News and lampooning it’s claims to be ‘fair and balanced’ when anybody who watched even five minutes of its courage could discern that it was fervently right wing. I believe the very same could be said of the BBC except its bias is of the left. Ironically, when pushed on the issue, many Liberals don’t seem to have a problem with this because they feel that the BBC is ‘right’ and Fox News is ‘wrong’.

As somebody interested in History, I have read many times that the sources a Historian should beware most are those that claim to be impartial. Such sources tend not to give us the ‘truth’ but rather only the received opinion and collective wisdom of the day. Indeed, I bear this mind whenever I watch the ‘impartial’ BBC.
Posted by: Robert | 05 September 2010 at 05:43 PM

A fine piece of intellectual snobbery from Sam Vega. His/her attitude is loaded with the usual contempt for ordinary people and their presumed 'small minded' views. His/her comments about common-sensical saloon bar opinions and intellectual darwinism betray a belief that liberal left views are inherently superior and will inevitably triumph over all others. This is pretty much the attitude I referred to in my first comment (ie. liberal/left = educated/cosmopolitan; conservative = ignorant/parochial).

To assume that the educational establishment cannot be steered to the left by those who have the will and influence to do so is just naive (has Sam Vega never heard of Antonio Gramsci?). It does not require anything so crude as the imposition of a left wing orthodoxy . The American writer and activist David Horowitz has done a great deal of work to expose how the left are striving to achieve major power and influence over higher education in the United States and how, in some institutions, they have managed to freeze out non-leftwingers.

Thatcher and Powell attended University in a very different era and are rather silly examples to choose. I am sure that there are people with strong views of their own who will not be easily influenced. However, for a majority of students university represent their entry to the adult world (a rite of passage if you will). To say that they would not be influenced by that environment is as naive as assuming that people are so independently minded that advertising could have no influence on their choices.

Posted by: KG | 05 September 2010 at 05:41 PM

Luckett Bell

"Their husbands... brought round to sweet reasoning by their better halves."

The question that struck me, as I finished your interesting take on that fortress of propaganda that is transmitted under the banner of The Archers, was whether Mr bell has yet been brought round to your view?

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 05 September 2010 at 05:39 PM

mikebarnes

I knew mikebarnes, and you're no mikebarnes... please stop playing sb's.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 05 September 2010 at 05:25 PM

Tarquin | 05 September 2010 at 03:26 PM

'There are none so blind as those that will not see"

I know I'm answering in a patronising way, but that's how I get when I feel somebody is purposefully being 'obtuse', rather than genuinely 'confused'.

So even you understand it Tarquin, for the first part the BBC has NEVER admitted to this bias previously. Every time anyone would complain of this bias, showing clear examples, the BBC would justify their coverage and continue. Now Thompson has admitted there was a MASSIVE left bias, and he was aware of it 30 years ago, which means that the BBC have been LYING all this time by denying it.

To the second part, since there was a MASSIVE left bias, this means that those in the employ of the BBC had a MASSIVE left bias, and were prepared to lie to justify continuing their propaganda and knowingly break the terms of their charter. So why will these unethical 'types' hire others with a different mindset since they're not concerned about even admitting, let alone balancing, their output?

Either you're an ostrich or have an agenda here not to get it.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 05 September 2010 at 05:22 PM

the bbc bias,of course it is.the sickening thing is that i have to fund this left wing propaganda show.how much longer do we have to subsidise these arrogont parasites that look at normal working class people with complete contempt.

Posted by: david graham | 05 September 2010 at 04:33 PM

I strongly recommend 'Can We Trust The BBC', written by Robin Aitken and published in 2007. He is a former BBC reporter and journalist who worked for 25 years within the organisation and operated at many different levels, from local radio to the mainstream 'Today' programme.

In the book he focuses upon a wide variety of issues - the economy, war, Europe, Ireland etc. He also provides, sometimes from personal experiences derived from personal familiarity, accurate profiles of many of the BBC's prominent figures.

But the profile he provides of Polly Toynbee perhaps best sums up, for me, what the BBC and the modern media as a whole has degenerated into over the past 20-30 years.

"Toynbee, in particular, has made her mark as a commentator; her op-ed pieces in the Guardian, penetrating, provocative and polemical, are always worth reading. She is the standard bearer for a particular kind of left-wing politics: aggressively feminist, militantly atheistic, conspicuously compassionate towards favoured victim groups, she gives voice to an important constituency within the broader left. If the Jana Bennett philosophy was genuinely designed to protect BBC impartiality how could Toynbee ever have become the BBC's Social Affairs editor?"

Sums up the BBC quite perfectly.

Posted by: Peter Charnley | 05 September 2010 at 04:22 PM

Even if the rubbish about BBC bias were true, isn't it a speck in the eye compared to the rabid right wing bias 85% of the press?

Posted by: David Cheshire | 05 September 2010 at 04:15 PM

Actually - isn't that headline something that Mr Hitchens would himself denounce - i.e an untruth

Thompson has not said 'it is biased' he has said it was biased, rather a different meaning, we've seen what happens if one were to misquote the great Hitchens in such a way

Posted by: Tarquin | 05 September 2010 at 03:26 PM

Thankyou, Mr. Hitchens, nail on the head as usual.
"The Archers" floats around my home every week as I am married to a long-term enthusiast for the programme.
Far from being "a daily story of country folk" it is unremitting leftist, feminist PC propaganda. Virtually all the women characters are portrayed as being wise, tolerant, liberal and forward-looking. Their husbands (or "partners") are conversely reactionary, obscurantist and stick-in-the-mud - but only mildly so, as they are inevitably ultimately brought round to sweet reason by their better halves.
For evidence of this assertion, follow the current story-line about a particularly loathsome (long-term loathsome, before the current line) female character who has decided to swell the single-mother statistics by conceiving, giving birth to and raising an IVF baby without benefit of father. Almost all the women characters coo glutinously over her decision. Even the disapproving menfolk who surround her only argue the practical problems of what she is doing; that there is a moral dimension to the question is never so much as mentioned.
And what is the Vicar of Ambridge doing during all this? Well, he is too busy minding the susceptibilities of his Hindu wife (in deepest Borsetshire!!!) to engage with matters of faith or morality amongst his flock - although I suspect that even if he did so it would only be to break cover as part of the modernist wing of the C of E.
One small programme, but highly significant, I think.

Posted by: Luckett Bell | 05 September 2010 at 03:23 PM

Red Rag: - "Unlike The Mail, The Express, The Sun, The News of the World, The Telegraph, The Times,Sky news, The Star, The Evening Standard, News International"

So which of the above are funded by TAX?!!

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 05 September 2010 at 03:19 PM

KG's reference to

"universities where the liberal left world view is deemed to be the only view that the intelligent and well educated would or should subscribe to"

makes me wonder whether KG has actually attended one, or whether lack of first hand experience has led to them being fertile grounds for the workings of a paranoid imagination. Margaret Thatcher, Nich Griffin, and Enoch Powell all seemed remarkably untainted by University life, after all. If KG considers these to be liberal pinkoes, then this probably says more about his/her position than universities.

But if s/he is right, KG might also consider why it is that universities impose such a left-wing orthodoxy. One would have assumed that there are sufficient right-wing people of intelligence able to get to university. Or once they get there, is there some further shadowy organisation which prevents such students from thriving and becoming lecturers and dons?

One possible explanation is that views which are welcomed as common-sensical in the pages of the Mail on Sunday or the local saloon bar are unable to withstand the critical pressures of academia. A form of intellectual Darwinism, perhaps?

Posted by: Sam Vega | 05 September 2010 at 03:09 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 3

Teddy Bear

I perfectly understand you are talking about the past, but you have taken a snippet of information revealed about what an insider thought about an organisation thirty years ago as proof of guilt now

But do keep up with the insults and shouting

Posted by: Tarquin | 06 September 2010 at 08:49 PM

KG accuses me of intellectual snobbery, which given the acuity of his/her grasp and the cogency of his/her ideas, is one of the finer compliments I have been paid lately.
My point about intellectual darwinism cannot betray my belief, as it was offered as a possibility, rather than made as an assertion. And there is in my posting no contempt for ordinary people whatsoever; merely a caustic attitude towards unreasoned ideas crudely expressed. This would be the case even if the proponents of such ideas were so extraordinary as to have never set foot into their local saloon bar.

Ah, Gramsci. He often crops up here, doesn't he, along with the Frankfurt School. Did he ever explain why the educational establishment conversely could not be steered to the *right* by those with the will and influence to do so? I would have thought that this is precisely what the sons and daughters of those common-sensical types would have done, once they had recovered from the shock of their "rite of passage" that KG refers to. If you see a modern university governing body at work, they usually seem to be a bunch of tough-minded old buzzards who have a vigorous commitment to entrepreneurial economics and a keen grasp of all that is happening on their patch. Why don't they do something to prevent this despoliation of conservative ideas? Perhaps it is only ever a one-way process towards liberalism and leftism: "Gramsci's ratchet", if you like. If so (and noting carefully the conditional here will save time and energy!) then it all looks a bit like evolution.
As for why this might be the case, Kant's essay "Idea for a cosmopolitan history with a universal purpose" is a good place to start, and gives sound reasons for the equation of "left/liberal" and "educated/cosmopolitan" which KG seems to feel uneasy with. If KG can be bothered to plough through Gramsci, this would be a doddle in comparison. In fact, in my local saloon bar they speak of little else.

Posted by: Sam Vega | 06 September 2010 at 08:00 PM

Consider the following in relation to Thompson's claim that now the BBC has a more balanced viewpoint :
" Yesterday The Express had a letter that gave information about how much money the BBC spent on job advertisements for the different newspapers in 2004: In The Guardian, the BBC spent a massive £231,944; in The Telegraph, £32,535; in The Times only £6,159. yet The Telegraph has by far the largest circulation of the three quality dailies, with The Times some way behind and The Guardian a poor third. Don't even ask about The Express because the BBC doesn't advertise at all there."

And as we all know, The Guardian is just where any organisation that was seeking more right-wing journalists would advertise.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 06 September 2010 at 07:49 PM

Whatever next?
Maybe we'll be allowed the read the report we paid Malcolm Balen to prepare!

Posted by: Bob | 06 September 2010 at 07:35 PM

Did anyone else notice that the flag in the background of the picture of Anthony Blair is missing the Cross of Saint Patrick (in other words it is the pre-1801 flag)? The only explanation I can think of is that it was flown for commemorative reasons. Either that or the IRA has been at work :-D

Posted by: Irish Unionist | 06 September 2010 at 07:23 PM

(John Blance | 05 September 2010 at 02:59 PM)

The 'difference' you don't seem to understand between the BBC and Sky, ITN, etc. is that the British public who watch TV are forced to pay for the BBC under penalty of a large fine or prison if they don't. Since to give value to this tax payer the BBC is required by its charter to be fair, balanced and impartial, it therefore should be scrupulous and exert every effort to do so. That's if it was a moral organisation.

Precisely because it is expected that the BBC should be fair, balanced and impartial, the weight of its coverage has a far greater influence. The same as you would expect greater responsibility and honesty from the Police, than you would a private security company.

So if the BBC can knowingly contravene its charter by knowingly pursuing its own agenda, why would you trust ANYTHING it has to say - now or in the future.

The fact that it will pretend to be 'green' for no other reason than to brainwash its viewers that it is a concerned and caring organisation, while profiting from such programmes as Top Gear, is not because this is their way of providing balance, it just shows how much of a hypocrite they are, and there's plenty more examples to highlight it if you need them.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 06 September 2010 at 07:03 PM

The BBC should be neither a liberal nor conservative voice, per se, Mullholland. Its programming might possibly ought to contain both, however, but in terms of its news reportage and what not I would be against its promoting any particular political viewpoint. It seems to me absurd to deny that it currently has a left-leaning bias, as Joshua Wooderson seems to be doing. This bias is palpable. Or maybe it isn’t, since, incredibly, I’ve heard some left-wingers describe the BBC as ‘right-wing’, but then these are the sorts of leftists who regard any mild mention of restrictions on immigration as being to the right of Attila the Hun.

Still, I prefer the BBC more or less as it is, though sans the political bias, its predilection for reality-based garbage and its mad reluctance to have at least one film a night on either BBC 1 or BBC 2. Not everybody wants to watch some Z-list celebrity trying to ballroom dance. That crap shouldn’t be the highlight of a Saturday evening. It’s scandalous. I want to watch a film, or some of the old gems that lie in the archives collecting dust. Why, oh why, for instance, won’t they re-show the adaptation of Tressell’s magnificent novel that they made in the ‘60s? Or why won’t they again show 1974’s ‘The Pallisers’? What accounts for this? Do they think that young people like me won’t be interested? Well, not every young person is brain-dead.

As for the ‘astrology’, I don’t give a damn if it does reflect public opinion. Though Lord help us if it does. It should be thrown in the bin forthwith. The same goes for ‘homeopathy’, too. Shelling out cash on this sort of stuff is insane when we consider how people have to fight for drugs on the NHS.

Posted by: Wesley Crosland | 06 September 2010 at 06:08 PM

michael savell

"... so many complaints made by male activists."

I'm mildly surprised that there are such things as 'male acitivists', and that someone is totting up the number of complaints made by such people. As one who has never felt sufficiently vulnerable to express any fears that men are now playing second fiddle to women, or, indeed, ever felt that being first fiddle should depend on the sex of the player, I am now somewhat ashamed that members of my own sex now appear to be acting like whingeing Jessies.

And if this 'knife block advert' which so offends you is on TV, which channel should I switch to so as to avoid it?

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 06 September 2010 at 05:40 PM

Tarquin, maybe you're just plain thick. I addressed the fact that he was referring to BBC bias in a previous time. The point is THAT THEY NEVER ADMITTED IT ALL THESE YEARS. In other words, they've been lying. Do you get it???

I also made other points which you haven't even attempted to refute, so either you know you're out of your depth, or you're not even that clever, or like I said, you have an agenda. Either way, it's good that you understand the implication of 'belittling' as that is what YOU were doing to Peter Hitchens in your original post.
( tarquin | 06 September 2010 at 01:32 PM)

What goes around - comes around.
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 06 September 2010 at 05:09 PM

Joshua Wooderson:-
"As some people have pointed out, the BBC is probably no more liberally inclined than most large businesses. On ethical matters, too, it largely reflects public opinion."

Utterly wrong - particularly your ridiculous statement concerning the BBC and public opinion. I rarely watch TV anymore. I simply became sick and tired of hearing news reporters making statements in a 'matter of fact, no questions asked' manner such as '....the UK is progressing towards a multi-cultural society' etc. Gordon Brown didn't get that feedback from the public did he (after which he was caught, unawares, fuming in the back of his limousine)!

Joshua Wooderson stated beliefs about non-left wing operators within the media:-
"(....Mr. Hitchens, who is, I think, somewhat of a lone voice in the world of journalism)."

Again - quite simply wrong.
Posted by: Peter Charnley | 06 September 2010 at 03:51 PM

On BBC Three's 'First Time Voters' Question Time' a few months ago, I called for the privatisation of the BBC, and I stick by this. No matter how hard the BBC tries, its programming will always reflect the biases of both those who produce and those who feature in its programmes. There would be nothing wrong with this, except that the BBC is publicly funded and claims to be neutral, an ideal it could never fulfil.

Joshua Woodersen makes some good points. Large corporations are 'conservative' only in so far as they want low taxes where such arrangements will benefit them. In most other aspects, they are pretty left-wing: pro-EU, pro - public spending (just look at their reactions to proposed cuts in London transport), pro - equality legislation (which Jonah Goldberg in 'Liberal Fascism' attributes to the tendency of such legislation to make smaller businesses uncompetitive). As for the point about astrology, I doubt many people actually 'believe' in it: many enjoy it, certainly, perhaps partly because being a Leo or whatever gives one a sense of identity in a post-patriotic, post-Christian Britain.

Posted by: D Potter | 06 September 2010 at 03:35 PM

Luckett Bell,Your example is copied by all the soaps where women portray
strong characters and the men are there in a supporting cast,unless of course there is a murder or suchlike.Similarly advertisements do the same,you would imagine that the women all have the brains of an Einstein while the men are barely capable of breaking wind.These portrayals have been the reason for so
many complaints by male activists.The knife block was probably one of the worst.It portrayed mens bodies with knives sticking out of them.Just watch the adverts and imagine that the sexes were shown in the opposite light to how they really are portrayed,the womens movement would be down on the station before the advert was over.

Posted by: michael savell | 06 September 2010 at 02:01 PM

Teddy Bear

He admitted there was bias - most notably in the 80s, but we are talking about today, not the Thatcher years, the left was far, far more apparent back then

Whether that's forgiveable or not is up to the individual, but personally I see your belittling comments because I don't happen to agree with you, nor your exaggeration, as the mark of good argument

If I am an ostrich, you're a dog with a very small bone

Posted by: tarquin | 06 September 2010 at 01:32 PM

Thank you those that welcomed me back . that is apart from Al from Norfolk He knew me, well actually he didn't. All that fence sitting has befuddled you sir .If you did know me you would love me. In a manly way of course. This blog and one of the moderators have been in touch via E Mails and would verify.
Thank you again to Scarmouche, but i feel we must lock horns immediately. I believe the BBC is the vanguard or militant leftism .the first that was totally infiltrated by the long march through the institutions. Therefore the enemy of all right thinking people .That is right as in opposition to wrong rather than right verses left.
Someone wrote on this blog that what N Griffin said on Question Time, Peter Hitchens would mostly agree with . But what was omitted was that no other politician, or Question time Guest was ever treated that way. The Leftish bias was evident in bucket loads
, Whereas Sinn Fienne IRA, a marxist organisation found themselves reported whole heartedly during the Thatcher Regimes, total ban on air time towards them.
Strange but true . The bullet does trump the ballot, if the protaganists are of a similar bent . Well done the BeeB.

Posted by: mikebarnes | 06 September 2010 at 01:26 PM

Wessexman - many thanks for this. I very much agree with you on this and think that PH is one of the very very few edging in this direction who writes for the mainstream media. Hope you don't mind - I've reproduced your comments at Tim Wilkinson's site, in case he cares to respond. Many thanks.
btw - I suggest you try reading the work of Aurel Kolna if you doing politics - right up your street. Thanks again.

Posted by: William Henderson | 06 September 2010 at 01:17 PM

I am beginning to think that the BBC simply cannot be a conservative organization whilst it must compete with commercial, sponsored broadcasters. The chase for ratings, an inherently unconservative thing, simply compels the BBC to adopt liberal-left views, attract viewers with edgy programming, and therefore employ the sors of people who like watching such filth. How can the BBC be expected to behave conservatively whilst it must compete with those broadcasters whose only aim is the ratings chase?

This mistake was, however, made in the early 1950s, and I don't think any government will dare to renege on it. The best we can hope for is that the BBC stops chasing ratings in favour of quality programming. It is, at least, still explicitly Christian and monarchist.

Posted by: Kyle Mulholland | 06 September 2010 at 12:29 PM

I should bliming well hope the public broadcasting corporation of Britain is pro-Royal family!

Who says the BBC has to bow to public opinion because it is publically owned? I'd say it exists to inform and to broadcast worthwhile programming, not necessarily to simply cater to the masses but I suppose in our democratic and proletarian age such is an unpopular opinion.

It is perfectly true the BBC is not more socially liberal than other outlets, even in a way much more than the likes of the Daily Mail or Telegraph who hardly consistently push a thoroughgoing social conservatism.

One of the problems is traditionalists and conservatives. I don't think we producing the cultural achievements we once did, say in the age of T.S. Eliot or Dr.Johnson or Dean.Swift let alone Shakespeare or Dante. At no level of culture, popular, middle and high, are we ringing through with art that is both deep, moral and spiritual(in a way appropriate for medium and audience.) and yet artistically strong. It probably is not possible, or a good idea, to make a good conservative soap opera but it should be possible to both continue traditional mediums and utilise some of the newer ones to produce truly conservative works.

Posted by: Wessexman | 06 September 2010 at 12:21 PM

Mr Wooderson,

""Similarly, I get annoyed whenever some moronic hippyish woman reads out horoscopes on the radio, peddling this superstitious nonsense on licence fee payers' money, but I can accept that many people believe in astrology""

I too find the reading of superstitious drivel like horoscopes on BBC radio annoying, but I wouldn't suggest that many people do actually believe in astrology.

Many indeed *say* they believe in it, but I think that if they were actually pressed in a serious environment to confirm whether they believe the movement of the planets of the solar system based on a 2nd Century pattern, has an effect on someone's life on Earth depending on what month they were born, they would concede that - no they do not.

It's one of those things we've all grown up with since we were born, and therefore just accept it's existence in public life, even pretending to "believe" it, when in fact under examination, it is clear to all that it is superstitious nonsense. People like Derren Brown have exposed the language manipulation behind hocus pocus like this.

It always makes me chuckle about how some people deride certain superstitions on one hand, and then accept alternative superstitions on the other. A great example is Scientology - most people won't hesitate to criticise this religion as non-sensical madness, and laugh at Tom Cruise and others for falling for it. But why exactly is astrology any less non-sensical? Well - it's because we didn't grow up with Scientology being a common superstition in our culture. It's generally unintentional hypocrisy - I just wish people would evaluate their own beliefs in this respect properly, particularly when they think certain superstitions deserve some sort of public funding.

I still find myself walking over 3 drains, because of the old myth of that bringing bad luck, and having got into the habit in childhood. Many times I have bumped into the person walking next to me as I quickly move off it on the 3rd drain - a habit that's hard to shake, despite me knowing perfectly well that walking over 3 drains means diddly squat.

Regards,

Mr Un.

Posted by: Mr Un | 06 September 2010 at 11:35 AM

mikebarnes

Apologies, it appears I was wrong and it is, indeed, your good self!

Your post just seemed just seemed... different in style, is the best I can put it.
Welcome back to a fellow oldie, if you don't mind that description.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 06 September 2010 at 11:13 AM

"John Richardson,if your complaint is that Peter ought to be advocating putting the BBC and the licence fee onto the same bonfire as Cameron and his unconservatives then let me hasten to agree with you."

Hello Mr Ross & thanks for the response.
You know, mine is not really a complaint as such. Instead a weary observation.
I have explained the obvious (as I see it) here before. That was one of the many previous times that Mr Hitchens chose to have a bleating whine about a situation he helps to create by CHOSING to pay for it with HIS OWN MONEY.
I have before made the point, Mr Ross, that the relevant legislation is explicitly designed to prevent us being treated like slaves. My point being that the legislation clearly explains that no one is allowed to enter a house for the purpose of establishing whether any else possesses a TV.
This is not a weird provision included for no reason. It keeps them honest; but only if we play our part.
We act like men and not cattle.
We listen to the lies, see the perversion, recoil from the values and say, "I will not PAY for this with MY OWN MONEY ."
That's what men do. Hardly revolutionary. No one else in the world pays the State broadcaster like this after all.
Cowards and the cattle say,"Oh look now, it ain't right ya-know, they ought to be ashamed".
Or perhaps even, "That's absolutely disgusting, I can write about it, but obviously I will PAY for it with MY OWN MONEY."
On and on for years without blushing.
So, an observation not really a complaint.
I think we might be on the same page Mr Ross.
It all depends upon self respect in my opinion.
Are we men or not ?
The question of legality is a complex one isn't it ?
After all, you will be aware what people get away with, without going to jail, in our country these days?
I'm 40, I know one bloke older than me who has NEVER paid the BBC a penny (lived in the same house for 15+years).
The Fee was never collected from...er...certain groups. Living in the East End in recent years I'm not sure I ever met a 'new comer' who knew what a the Licence Fee even was.
Honest.
When does respect for the Law drain away into moral cowardice ?
As it happens I have not owned a TV for a few years now; even better for my health than giving up smoking !

You know Mr Ross, of all the arguments that cowards employ for funding the BBC; I have never yet hear one say, "I look at the TV because it entertains and informs me!"
Never heard them say that.
They also NEVER admit,
"Oh ?
Stop watching TV ?
Oh I could never even try that !
No. TV is too important to me".

Regards.
(ps I wonder if it's Cameron who has 'us' on the bonfire.)

Posted by: John Richardson | 06 September 2010 at 11:11 AM

I studied at Oxford University for a number of years, and feel I can shed some light on Mr Hitchens' claims about the left-wing bias in higher education, updated to 2008, when I finished my studies there.
Firstly, many academics identify with the left, much of this is to do with fashion and book sales, but in a more persistent form it is derived from the somewhat uncritical acceptance of the ideas of the Frankfurt School, especially Habermas. Marx's ideas were given new life, and re-sanitised under labels such as 'the public sphere'. The most important rebuttal to Marxism, by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, has made significantly less impact in the UK than in America, where he received a number of prestigious awards, despite the fact that he was based for the most part in Oxford.
Secondly, the left has significant pragmatic appeal to a political class which has had to redefine itself in a post-colonial Britain. The demographics of universities like Oxford has not changed, they are still largely attended by the children of the elite, but with them still heavily reliant upon tax-payers money, they have to appeal instead to egalitarian notions of openness and fairness. This is a tactic which the elite has increasingly mastered, and its most able practitioners, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, ensure the survival of pseudo-egalitarian politics which fails to tackle underlying political and social issues. As many readers of this blog know, only a move to the right, and a politics of duties rather than rights, can form the basis of a truly fairer politics.
Although Oxford has not dumbed down intellectually and remains a rigorous and enabling institution, the decision to expand higher education has given greater currency to the uncritical ideas of the left, ensuring a future generation of jobless graduates who will readily accept further leftist ideas, as an antidote to problems actually incubated by the left.


Posted by: Stephen B | 06 September 2010 at 10:02 AM

Norfolk Al

I used the expression "sweet reason" with my tongue solidly in my cheek.

Posted by: Luckett Bell | 06 September 2010 at 09:56 AM

I would expect this newspaper and its columnists to find the BBC 'left wing' - I'll be far more worried the day they're completely content with its output. What they never mention when they moan about supposed BBC bias is its pro-big business bias, its anti-trades union bias (displayed for all to see in the recent BA/Unite dispute), its pro-royal family bias and its pro- southern, middle class bias. Independent academic research (Communications Research Centre at Loughborough University, Glasgow University Media Group Study) concluded that it is pro-Israel. According to John Pilger, Geoge Galloway, Mehdi Hassan and Johann Hari it is biased to the right. It gets attacked from both sides and this is possibly a good sign.

Posted by: Mick | 06 September 2010 at 09:35 AM

As some people have pointed out, the BBC is probably no more liberally inclined than most large businesses. On ethical matters, too, it largely reflects public opinion. This is a source of annoyance for me, too. I would like to see, for instance, more coverage of animal rights issues, but I accept that it's not going to happen, because the public just isn't interested. Similarly, I get annoyed whenever some moronic hippyish woman reads out horoscopes on the radio, peddling this superstitious nonsense on licence fee payers' money, but I can accept that many people believe in astrology, so the BBC's programming should reflect that.

In other words, the BBC's bias is, to an extent, justified by public opinion. Also, some liberal bias is perhaps inevitable, as journalists tend to be more liberally inclined (of course, with the exception of people like Mr. Hitchens, who is, I think, somewhat of a lone voice in the world of journalism).

Posted by: Joshua Wooderson | 06 September 2010 at 09:06 AM

I think this point is worth stressing even more forcefully.

We will not have a traditionalist revival unless we revive the English yeoman class, unless we revive small businesses and small businesses that are not would-be yuppies struggling to get on in a corporate dominated jungle but stable, strong and often family run. We will not have a traditionalist revival unless we have a larger role for agriculture, particularly small, family, farms and rural Britain, unless we get a better balance between town and country and between city and town and unless we restore the cities to the model of the civitas instead of the soulless megatropolis, which isn't a real city at all. Likewise we will not have a conservative revival when plasma screens mean more to people than social bonds or landed property and upstanding employment.

There are many areas through which a traditionalist revival must come, spiritual revival(probably the most important area of all.), political revival, social revival and cultural revival but we must not neglect the economic and we certainly must not naively accept an economic system as traditional or conservative that is not distinctly predicated on traditional principles of man and society. Economic liberalism is not predicated on such principles and neither, necessarily, is the sort of nationalised, centralised protectionised system the likes of BNP support.

I've already mentioned several key modern thinkers in these areas to which traditionalists and conservatives should look to. G.K Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Catholic social teaching such as Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and Pius XI's Auadragesimo Anno(not to mention Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.) which is in fact in line with most traditional Christian thought on such matters. There is also the work of Ruskin, Cobbett, Thomas Paine Agrarian justice and Louis De Bonald's writings on political economy all previously mentioned. However there are many more authorities such as E.F Schumacher's Small is beautiful and his other works, the works of Leopold Kohr, Lord Northbourne's works, the ideas of the Arts and Craft's movement, the ideas of Joseph De Maistre, the writings of Traditionalists like Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy on art and vocation, the Southern Agrarians, Allen Carlson and the list goes on. There is certainly more in say E.F Schumacher's essay on Buddhist economics(which he alternatively considered calling Catholic economics and would have if not for prevalent anti-Catholicism at the time.) for a traditionalist than in all Neoliberalism and its authorities like Friedman, Von Mises, Rand and even Hayek.

Posted by: Wessexman | 06 September 2010 at 06:03 AM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 4

Kallie

"...providing you are pretty and under 35 (at the most)."

I'm not normally given to checking on the ages of females, attractive or not, but I did seek out the following:
Julia Bradbury (40); Jane Hill (41); Stephanie Flanders(42); Sophie Raworth (42);
Sian Williams (46); Fiona Bruce (46); Kirsty Wark (55); Ann Robinson (too much of a gent to say).

Having said that, I think both men and women might be guilty of looking at older men in a way that is different to the way we look at the fairer sex.
Posted by: Norfolk Al | 08 September 2010 at 11:58 AM

For many years now, I have been unhappy about the political bias of the BBC and its insidious commercialism. The vast sums it is prepared to pay for big names causes me concern. Lastly, the insertion of adverts (usually described as "trails", but still adverts) into all of its radio and TV output incenses me.

Fortunately, I found a solution. I discarded my TV and ceased to pay the license fee, or TV Tax as I prefer to describe it.

Can I suggest that all of the hand-wringers on this blog do the same? A few hundred thousand less license fees will concentrate the minds of the Director General far more than an infinite number of whiny comments on a blog.
Posted by: John Main | 08 September 2010 at 10:46 AM

Am 100% in accord with the worldview here Mr Wessexman, in every particular, from the agrarian aspect to the high standards in Art. I was reading some of Dicken's early journalism this morning ('Sunday under three heads') and it reinforces the point about most great Artists defending Tradition. (although I am actually rather dubious about the extent of Dicken's reputation)

The point about Dicken's is that the Left claim him as one of their own, especially the supposedly Radical early Dickens.

You are also quite right that the most important component is the spiritual – frankly nothing but Divine Intervention is going to work in the current set up; that or a complete apocalyptic breakdown.

But that may well happen, and the very fact that you are doing a BA is supremely important. There IS going to be a Future when this degraded culture implodes, and that is more important than our wretched present.
Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 08 September 2010 at 10:26 AM

The bbc preaches political correctness but does not practice it. My friends + older family are very fed up with the bbc (and itv). It seems that it's ok to be female on TV; providing you are pretty and under 35 (at the most). Female versions of eg. Adrian Chiles, Jeremy Clarkson, + any other unattractive (sorry!) middle aged male presenter are nowhere to be found. The left wing bias of the BBC is evident in their news programmes. A media organisation funded by the public should not be biased. If they want to be politically biased then they should be commercially funded and we can ditch the licence fee.
Posted by: Kallie J | 08 September 2010 at 08:23 AM

In a reply dripping with haughty intellectual snobbery (and an astonishing lack of self-awareness) Sam Vega attempts to refute the charge of intellectual snobbery.

As a defender of the liberal left it must be difficult for him/her to come to terms with his/her palpable contempt for the masses, particularly those who have not enjoyed the benefits of the best education (ie. ordinary people). Consequently we find him/her disguising this contempt as 'a caustic attitude toward unreasoned ideas crudely expressed'. This is quite typical of the educated left-winger irritated to find that 'ordinary people' are stubbornly lacking in enthusiasm for his world view. Put more honestly and simply Vegas might say "impatience with and contempt for ordinary people daring to express their 'ill-informed' opinions". However, this kind of honesty does not fit in well with the liberal/left world where contempt for the masses is generally seen as a crime of the right.

In the same vein his/her point about intellectual darwinism seems to have been offered neither as a possibility nor as an assertion but as a thinly disguised sneer. The slippery use of 'Perhaps...' and 'If so...' in this context betrays a strange unwillingness to admit to a faith in the intellectual superiority of left wing ideas. In spite of this the whole tone of Vegas post clearly shows that he/she regards those of the non-liberal/left as small-minded people heading for the scrap-heap of history.

Posted by: KG | 08 September 2010 at 01:16 AM

Peter Charnley continues:

‘You not only have a tendency to misunderstand what people are saying – but you proceed to make statements that totally defy logic.’

Really? Where?

‘As I have said to you before about a different subject on another thread of debate - you simply do not know what is going on out there Joshua Wooderson. Responding to people like you is not a vendetta. It is a responsibility.’

Clearly you consider yourself somewhat of a crusader. Also, I think you represent me. I am open to argument on the subject of multiculturalism, and am not as fervently in favour of it as some. But I fail to see the harm in it per se.

Also, I am irritated to discover that Kevin of Agadir is Harry Rose, for, if true, I've wasted time arguing with an alias. That said, Mr. Rose must be congratulated on how convincing his persona was. It got just the right balance of insanity and perverse logic that such a person displays.

Posted by: Joshua Wooderson | 07 September 2010 at 10:24 PM

Peter Charnley, whom I thank for replying, writes:

‘I have no vendetta against you or anyone else here. I am merely responding to a statement you made that I know is utter clap trap.’

Sorry. It’s just that your assertions elsewhere that I am deluded and brainwashed led me to suspect that you had some personal dislike of me. If that’s incorrect, then I’m sorry for misrepresenting you, though I do wish that you’d phrase your comments less aggressively than you do at times.

‘In no way does the BBC attempt to echo the social and ethical values of the wider public, as you suggested. It very much seeks to be a cultural lead. That is very obvious to any objective observer.’

Perhaps this is to some extent true. Whether it is consciously trying to change public opinion (which seems like a dubious conspiracy theory) or merely reflects the views of its employees is another matter. However, I dare say that some of the people on this site, including you, are rather more conservative than average, so may find it more left-wing than it appears to some.

‘The truth or falsity of the information I used as an example is utterly irrelevant. The point I was making is that such statements are made in a manner that unequivocally welcomes the phenomenon. The BBC does this with a wide variety of issues. That is what I (and many others) have become sick and tired of. Reflecting upon the events and happenings of the world and of our culture from a strongly pro-left wing perspective.’

Certainly, the BBC has a left-wing slant. Relatively, though, all of the major political parties do. It is impossible for it to be completely neutral, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be politically aligned to the major parties, which, of course, get the vast majority of the electorate’s vote. It seems fairly democratic.

‘You have a tendency to completely misunderstand what is being said - you have done this with Peter Hitchens and he focused upon it with a separate article.’

Have I? Where?

‘As Political Correctness increasingly undermines Christianity and sometimes even attempts to block some of its rituals/symbols/customs by accusing them of offending minority groups.’

Such cases are obviously ridiculous, but are rare enough that they garner much media attention.

‘As talk of building the biggest Mosque in the world in London in time for the 2012 Olympics (I don’t know if that is still on).’

What’s the problem with this? We’ve already got a pretty large Christian place of worship in the middle of London, called St. Paul’s Cathedral.

‘As English has literally become a second language for the majority of pupils in some inner city schools etc. etc.’

Again, this is unfortunate, but not a necessary consequence of multiculturalism.
Posted by: Joshua Wooderson | 07 September 2010 at 10:21 PM

Peter Hitchens is correct about the BBC's bias, except on one issue:Israel. The BBC, if anything, displays overt pro-Israeli bias. For example, during the Lebanon War, the BBC gave almost equal coverage to Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, as it did to Israel's attacks on Lebanon.
This, despite the fact that Israel killed roughly twenty times more Lebanese civilians than Hezbollah killed (the majority of those Hezbollah killed were Israeli soldiers, legitimately targeted because they were engaded in an invasion of Lebanese territory). Israel also destroyed far more civilian infrastructure inside Lebanon, than Hezbollah destroyed/damaged inside Israel.
Similarly, every BBC discussion on the legitimacy of the Lebanon War, began on the assumption that Israel was a law-governed state, at war with lawless terrorists, and that Israel's actions, however severe, had to be viewed in the context of the "provocation" Israel had suffered, in the capture of two Israeli soldiers. and the killing of six others, prior to the war.
The BBC never took account of two well-known, proveable facts which contradict these assumptions.
The first is that both Hezbollah and Israel are actually terrorist entities, since Israel has, on numerous occasions, been found to have deliberately targeted civilians during its atacks, by Amnesty International,the ICRC, Human Rights Watch, B't Salem, and UN investigations.
Were it not for the US repeatedly vetoing Security Council Resolutions condemning Israeli atrocities, Israel would have been condemned for many of these crimes.
The second fact is that Israel has in fact engaged in kidnapping thousands of civilians from Lebanese territory in the past, (many of whom are held without charge, or trial as "administrative detainees" and captured to be used as "bargaining chips" as Ariel Sharon put it) and Israel has targeted Lebanese civilians, yet nobody argues that this "provocation" justifies Hezbollah in laying waste to half of Israel in response.

Posted by: James Stenson | 07 September 2010 at 07:26 PM

Hello William

I hope you won't suspect some kind of vendetta, but whilst agreeing that TV does offer a considerable level of tripe, I cannot accept that all is as bad as you would have us believe.
In the last three days I have enjoyed Wallander, Country File, The Antiques Roadshow, Secret Britain, University Challenge (got around ten answers!), Who Do You Think You Are and I'm quite looking forward to Gareth Malone's new series that starts this week.

Yes, I know, they're all on the Beeb. Will we ever agree about anything?
Posted by: Norfolk Al | 07 September 2010 at 06:54 PM

michael savell

Thanks for your reply and your good wishes for my well-being.
Just last week, at my annual health check, I was informed that a man of my weight, fitness, bonny outlook, and in the top 16% in terms of all the tests, could expect to survive well into my eighties. Or, in other words, another ten years or so.

However, I digress. If I were to follow the words of 'angryharry' (I struggled awfully with the words of the last Harry I stumbled upon) I fear I might lose my bonny outlook and just be one of those grumpy old men.

Regards

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 07 September 2010 at 06:34 PM

@peter Charnley & Anthony James Armstrong

I care little what sort of entertainment programmes the BBC shows but do care as far is its news and current affairs programmes are concerned.

Robin Aitken make the important point in Can We Trust The BBC that the news department and the current affairs department used to be two separate entities, but now are not.

He state that this has led to biassed news programmes. I tend to agree with him.

Posted by: James Hodson | 07 September 2010 at 04:32 PM

Joshua Wooderson:-
"Peter Charnley, who seems to have some sort of vendetta against me (judging by his vituperative tone, both here and elsewhere..."

"But the UK is progressing towards a mutlicultural society. Whether that's a good thing is another matter. Personally, I have no problem with other cultures, provided that they attempt to conform to our language and our ethical values."

I have no vendetta against you or anyone else here. I am merely responding to a statement you made that I know is utter clap trap. In no way does the BBC attempt to echo the social and ethical values of the wider public, as you suggested. It very much seeks to be a cultural lead. That is very obvious to any objective observer.

You clearly completely misunderstood what I mean't when I said that "I simply became sick and tired of hearing news reporters making statements in a 'matter of fact, no questions asked' manner such as '....the UK is progressing towards a multi-cultural society' etc."

The truth or falsity of the information I used as an example is utterly irrelevant. The point I was making is that such statements are made in a manner that unequivocally welcomes the phenomenon. The BBC does this with a wide variety of issues. That is what I (and many others) have become sick and tired of. Reflecting upon the events and happenings of the world and of our culture from a strongly pro-left wing perspective.

You have a tendency to completely misunderstand what is being said - you have done this with Peter Hitchens and he focused upon it with a separate article.

Joshua Wooderson:
“Personally, I have no problem with other cultures, provided that they attempt to conform to our language and our ethical values.”

Give me a break.
As Political Correctness increasingly undermines Christianity and sometimes even attempts to block some of its rituals/symbols/customs by accusing them of offending minority groups. As talk of building the biggest Mosque in the world in London in time for the 2012 Olympics (I don’t know if that is still on). As English has literally become a second language for the majority of pupils in some inner city schools etc. etc..

You not only have a tendency to misunderstand what people are saying – but you proceed to make statements that totally defy logic.

As I have said to you before about a different subject on another thread of debate - you simply do not know what is going on out there Joshua Wooderson. Responding to people like you is not a vendetta. It is a responsibility.
Posted by: Peter Charnley | 07 September 2010 at 02:35 PM

'Kevin Agadir' is a pseudonym for ' Harry Rose' by Mr Rose's own admission on his Facebook site. Mr Rose thinks it is alright to post under this name as he is posting contrary opinions to his own and does not consider he is breaching his ban on this site. Clearly such opinions are mere caricatures. Perhaps Mr Hitchens will consider whether such postings should be allowed on here.

Posted by: Ronny Brookshire- Graham | 07 September 2010 at 02:20 PM

I've pretty much stopped watching tv news but flicked onto the end of Newsnight last month to find a report on Medjugorje in Bosnia by Alan Little.

It's an interesting piece but I couldn't help note how concerned the reporter's tones were by the fact that there were white, nationalist, Croat Christians gathering to celebrate a pilgrimage event there.

This is from the BBC's website (and I think verbatim from the report): "When you first see it, it looks like a tremendous celebration of immense diversity and unison - there are flags from all over the world...and of course, dozens and dozens of Croatian ones.
And it's only after a while that you realise that there's one flag that's very striking by its complete absence and that's the flag of the country we're actually in - there's not a single symbol anywhere in this crowd of Bosnian national identity. There's nobody here whose primary national allegiance is to the country that we're actually in - and that is troubling."

So is he saying the Croats in Bosnia fail the Norman Tebbit cricket test? Is it always troubling when people live in one country yet still fly the flag of their homeland and keep separate religioius affilitiations? Or is it only when it's white Christians involved that the BBC gets concerned?

Sorry to have to pick an ethnic-religious example, as I don't mean to stir. But I just found this report quite striking and it's the most recent I've seen on the beeb yet represents the same old attititudes I remember so well.

Posted by: Anon | 07 September 2010 at 02:19 PM

Hi,Norfolk al,Yes,my friend ,there are many many male activists and they succeeded in getting that particular advert pulled,it was on itv 3,so no problem for you there.
When your biking days are over feel free to read angryharry ,you'd be amazed at what you have missed and the tech stuff is magnificent.
A lot of things that other people struggle with may not seem to affect you or I as we are both veterans but to my mind it is more a reason to take part because we have less to lose.PH touches on some points and then goes on to something else,that's his right and his blog,what I have said and will not stop saying it, is,that
without confronting the basic problems ,which have to do with agendas and
unfairnesses you can forget the tinkering and niceties.
Hope you are well.

Posted by: michael savell | 07 September 2010 at 02:12 PM

It should be taken as axiomatic that the current BBC spews forth a unending stream of anti-British, anti-middle class, anti-male, anti-elitist / excellence demoralising trash. The complete absence of anything which even remotely resembles quality or excellence, particularly in the field of drama and presentation is, in my opinion, a crime (arguably in breach of it's Rethian charter?).

However, it must be stressed that the BBC is not unique in its leftward-bias, the commercial channels are little different. The problem seems to me to stem from a number of sources. First, there is the obvious fact that television has been hijacked, at the top level, by those aging former student radicals who wish ill upon Conservatism and all it represents. This has steadily worsened, as those who captured the institution in the 70s and 80s have recruited people like themselves to form the next generation of TV producers / script-writers etc.

Solution - a whole-scale culling of those working for the BBC, and their replacement with social/cultural conservatives. It is not the institution which is at fault, but rather those who manage it.

Second, RE drama in particular, it is really a philosophical issue/s. The BBC management are fanatically anti-elitist, which in reality means anti-excellence. The whole point of the licence-fee, to my mind, is to release the BBC from the burden of competition (pandering to the lowest common denomenator), and allow it to experiment with formats which may not be immidiately / obviously profitable.

Most of the classics - such as the work of Dennis Potter/ Bleasdale, even Fools and Horses / Blackadder - were produced as a result of this attitude, which was abandoned sometime in the 80s as we fell deeper in thrall (subservience) to the american way. Hence, standards have declined year upon year. It is not the BBC which should be competing with commercial channels, but the other way around.

Also, there is the question of cultural identity. The left have been abundantly clear over the decades about their intention to re-shape national identity. They are achieving this through control of the mass-media and it's agressive promotion of multi-culturalism. Drama must necessarily express a cultural identity - most of the recent BBC classics did this. The powers-that-be are actively trying to suppress the cultural expression of national identity, and also to subvert traditional archtypes (a form of historical revisionism) in drama.

Posted by: William | 07 September 2010 at 01:31 PM

“And still I meet people who claim that the Iraq War was in some way a success. As the USA formally ends its combat role, the country is lawless, riven by sectarian hate. …Christians have fled persecution in their tens of thousands”

Yes, and it was Blair who repeatedly asserted that Islam is a religion of peace. He obviously hasn’t studied the Koran or Muslim history. Instead, as the Neather report informed us, under Blair the floodgates were opened to allow unlimited immigration into England, a Christian country, in order to “buy” votes for labour from a grateful immigrant population. Objective? - to destroy the Conservative English hegemony. Blair and his acolytes asserted there was no limit to the number of immigrants we could absorb.

Blair certainly was “a grave national mistake”!


Posted by: Iconoclast | 07 September 2010 at 12:19 PM

Joshua there's debate over whether multiculturalism is little more than oxymoron. If society, social associations and culture are encompassing and signficantly formative and regulatory on the individual self, if they are extremely complex and intertwined and aiming at cohesion and unity along the aminated outlines of a complex, deep and multifarious worldview/religion/mythology well beyond the full understanding of individual reason, then multiculturalism(and terms multifaith society and secular society.) is basically little more than oxymorons.

Posted by: Wessexman | 07 September 2010 at 12:15 PM

Peter Charnley, who seems to have some sort of vendetta against me (judging by his vituperative tone, both here and elsewhere, writes:

'Joshua Wooderson:-
"As some people have pointed out, the BBC is probably no more liberally inclined than most large businesses. On ethical matters, too, it largely reflects public opinion."

'Utterly wrong - particularly your ridiculous statement concerning the BBC and public opinion. I rarely watch TV anymore. I simply became sick and tired of hearing news reporters making statements in a 'matter of fact, no questions asked' manner such as '....the UK is progressing towards a multi-cultural society' etc.'

But the UK is progressing towards a mutlicultural society. Whether that's a good thing is another matter. Personally, I have no problem with other cultures, provided that they attempt to conform to our language and our ethical values.

'Joshua Wooderson stated beliefs about non-left wing operators within the media:-
"(....Mr. Hitchens, who is, I think, somewhat of a lone voice in the world of journalism)."
Again - quite simply wrong.'

With a few exceptions from the wonderful publication that is the Daily Mail, I think that few are as conservative as Mr. Hitchens. but please, prove me wrong.
Posted by: Joshua Wooderson | 07 September 2010 at 08:49 AM

Go have another chat with your brother Christopher....maybe he can set you straight.

Posted by: Rob | 07 September 2010 at 08:28 AM

I know little of modern astrology but in the past it, like many traditional sciences, was steeped in much metaphysical, theological and cosmological doctrine and symbolism. This is similar to the Ptolemaic cosmology, which though false in one sense provided rich symbolism(and I use this term in its Platonic, ontological sense of partaking of higher realities.). This obviously will not mean anything for the irreligous and it is not meant at them. But Christians should at least think twice before they simply dismiss such things and look into the traditional sciences like astrology and their basis in traditional metaphysics and cosmology, the decline of which has lead us to the pit of modernism. It is not with the 60s radicals, with Lenin, with Marx or even the Jacobins and philosophes that the current decline of Western civilisation began but with William of Ockham, Duns Scotus and the triumph of nominalism.

Posted by: Wessexman | 07 September 2010 at 04:55 AM

I think we traditionalists have to be careful how we use political labels. Our enemies are on the right as well as the left. The likes of the Daily Mail or Telegraph or just about any of these "rightwing" papers is hardly an ally of ours. They may have some moderate conservative positions but they are hardly consistently traditionalist and feature tabloid gossip and scandals that undermine any positive conservatism they might have in the rest of their work.

Kyle Mulholland brings up explicitly Christian and monarchist perspectives and he is right to do so but I must stress that these on their own are not good enough. They must be expressed well too. One only has to look at most Christian TV networks to see whatever else they are they are hardly bastions of great art or even great entertainment/popular culture(in the positive, moral sense that Miracle plays and folk dances once were.).

Were our poets and our dramatists today? Where even our are satirists and novelists in the vein of Swift or Robert Louis Stevenson? I don't think it is inaccurate to agree with Russell Kirk that in most ages great artists and poets have been defenders of tradition and the other values of traditionalists in one way or another; even during the 19th and early 20th centuries they were still prominent in such groupings and all the great artists of these periods still partially, if unconsciously, were traditional in the broadest sense. Of course it helps that great art is traditionalist, in the sense of both representing a tradition and in representing the timeless values and symbolism of which that tradition is a peculiar manifestation. But where are our Homers and Aeschylus'? Where are our Virgils and Juvenals? Where are our Dantes and our Shakespeares? Where even are our Popes, our Goldsmiths and our Dickens'?

Posted by: Wessexman | 07 September 2010 at 04:00 AM

Does anyone think the BBC will conform with the Catholic Church's wishes not to embarrass Pope Ratzinger after taking a slight pasting from the right?

Posted by: Ash Walsh | 06 September 2010 at 10:52 PM

I looked up Kevin from Agadir's hero, Kent Hovind, on Wikipedia. As we know, America is good at fruitcakes, but this guy is exceptional. I hope that this blog hasn't seen the last of Kevin, though.

Posted by: Thucydides | 06 September 2010 at 10:41 PM

It seems it is becoming harder to know who is real and who is trying to undermine this blog.

Despite assurances from Harry Rose (or Tiberius Dole or Buck Jepherson) that he was no longer going to post here, and assurances from the web host that Rose was not going to be able to post here, Rose confesses on his FB site to posting here under yet another pseudonym.

Surely something has to be done to prevent such 'agent provocateurs' from behaving in such a deceitful manner.

Posted by: William Benson | 06 September 2010 at 09:34 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 5

Guy Reid Brown - since Harry Rose posted the following on Facebook, 'Kevin's' posts have dispappeared from here. (It's a pity. 'Kevin's' absurd posts did far more damage to the 'trad con' brigade than anything Harry Rose ever said.)

Mark Harry Rose writes on Facebook -
I feel the time has come to explain why I created the Kevin, Agadir character at Hitchens’ blog.

What I have attempted to do with Kevin, is create an unfettered (not caricatured) version of Peter Hitchens’ ethos, not Peter Hitchens the man. As such, Kevin represents the dangers of religious indoctrination - and the psychosis that can result. Hence a denial of evolutionary theory, a belief that mankind walked with dinosaurs (dragons) and that homosexual practice is not only a sin, but it is also a sickness to be cured. All of this goes hand-in-hand with a deep-seated prejudice against science - even highly effective and vitally important medical treatment, such as radiotherapy.

Imagine for one minute that Mr Hitchens gets his way and Britain becomes a highly Christianized nation with a devoutly moral establishment. Imagine how many more Kevins would come out of the woodwork, and imagine how much more extreme their demands would become.

Just to explain why I don’t think I’ve broken my promise not to post at Hitchens’ blog again. Philosophically, Kevin is the diametric opposite of Harry, so it’s not like I am promulgating the humanist philosophy which I resolutely believe in. The only similarity between Kevin and Harry is that both are overly verbose and absurdly frequent contributors lol.

Of particular interest, is not the fact that some contributors have disagreed with Kevin, but that many have tolerated and even warmed to my absurd postings - the usual naïve suspects I might add.

Posted by: Mick | 09 September 2010 at 12:06 PM

I'm getting a bit fed up of this, there are far too many false identities floating around and it is spoiling this blog (which I think is entirely the point of those who are creating them). I am interested in what real people think about what Mr Hitchens writes, I am interested in all opinions as long as they are reasonably and intelligently argued. Someone hiding behind a pseudonym arguing a position they don't hold doesn't work, it often just shows a poor grasp of the other side of the argument. A bit of parody and humour is fine as long as it is honestly and fairly done. I'm becoming more convinced that some of the debates here are actually being fuelled by more than one pseudonym arguing against each other and possibly evening trying to 'out' each other. Frankly its getting silly. I don't know what the answer is, but perhaps some accommodation could be reached between Peter Hitchens and Mark Harry Rose, so that he can post here (in his real name) honestly reflecting his own opinions. Clearly a more suitable system of punishing someone who fails to retract slanderous or libellous statements needs to be found as using something like TOR anyone can avoid IP blocks. I would suggest that there has been some degree of contrition from the facebook crowd as they have made certain changes. Perhaps another way forward would be for those who wish to post under pseudonyms to cease doing so and set up their own fully public blog and for Mr Hitchens to allow an announcement of the address here - I would happily read and post on such a proper debate. Until then no-one has 'won', this blog is made poorer by the charade that is going on and those who are doing it are just showing a puerile side that they so seek to deny.

Posted by: Alan Pierce-Jones | 09 September 2010 at 11:53 AM

I estimate that the true left is up to about 30% of the population. So, in a democracy, the only way they can implement their policies is if the voters in the 70% can be fooled into voting for MPs with the opposite views to their own on crime, the EU, school discipline, political correctness and immigration. This process of persuading the foolish voter into putting their ‘X’ next to the MP with the opposite views to their own can only be achieved where the TV media protect the left wing policies from scrutiny. Otherwise, they could not get away with their schemes, and they could not get their MPs elected.

One example of what the left currently get away with - foreign aid. I know of someone who earns £2000 per week as an ordinary secretary for one of the international aid organisations, and has bought four houses with her salary. If this is how the administrators spend public funds on themselves, imagine how scrupulous (or not) they are going to be regarding the millions they are dishing out, and imagine how much will end up in the hands of the corrupt or in the hands of our enemies? This is just one example. Has anyone ever seen a documentary programme on the BBC about foreign aid corruption? Racism in the police, yes, 'injustices' against the IRA, yes, but misuse of foreign aid money? I remember the Labour Foreign aid minister defending the giving of money rather than food and medicine, saying to give the actual goods rather than cash would be ‘patronising’. And Dave Cameron gets the protection of the BBC by ring fencing it.

Another example - AGW. Would this fraud have got so far without the BBC acting as the main promoter?

I think one hour per week broadcasting the other side to the standard BBC view in a regular slot would be more than sufficient to counteract even decades of lies. If we had this service, a lefty like Michael Howard could not get away with his latest policies which will result in increasing crime even further. We would not have a ring-fenced foreign 'aid' budget, and our school teachers would not be preaching the AGW message as if it is a fact.

For evidence that one hour a week would be more than enough, see the effect that the Channel 4 programme 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' had. The BBC went absolutely hysterical, and was shouting and screaming for months afterwards full-on using all its propaganda channels. If this is the effect of a single hour, broadcast once and once only, imagine if the other side on this and other issues were broadcast for one hour *every week*! Social workers would have to stop abducting children. We would have to start making provision for our energy needs. The criminal underclass would no longer be paid to breed. We would not be admitting large numbers every year who have no intention of integrating.

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 09 September 2010 at 11:51 AM

Sam, I don't think I made a personal attack on you. I simply commented that one has to objectively judge acaedmia and not accept it as being wise by definition. If it is leftwing that doesn't necessarily mean it is leftwing because it wisely sees the truth of a leftwing position. I myself have encountered many liberal, though not Marxist or radicals, in my uni career and I suspect academia is quite liberally biased but I'm not wanting to argue that here. I wasn't commenting on that.

Iconoclast is there any need to be so rude and silly? I live in Australia at the moment so don't watch much BBC and clearly from my comments I can be seen as a raging reactionary if anything not a leftie.

Firstly Jews were a small minority in Palestine even in 1918. Through the Turks and Brits allowing them to emigrate, through these gov'ts giving them land, through forced taking of land, through buying tribal land from tribal elders who had no right to sell the land and through reasonably valid purchases they became a significant minority in 1947(by which time some were committing terrorist acts against us Brits!) and then tried to form a state which naturally the Arabs objected to and then when they beat the Arabs took more land. Now there were many aggressions here by Jewish immigrants and the Israelis. Certainly if it happened to onself or one's own people we'd no doubt recognise it as such. There is little to be gained by ignoring the clear history or make it up as you have(like the idea we Brits cleansed Jews!). However it is not the fault of modern day Jews who have a right to a state and security. I however stand by my comments on the peace.

Peter March why would you say I was Harry Rose?

Posted by: Wessexman | 09 September 2010 at 11:33 AM

Norfolk Al -
"For those who do not suffer from such deep political angst - and prefer their viewing to be free of commercial breaks - the BBC might be said to offer excellent value for some £12 a month."

Well it 'might be said' by you - but there's only one definitely sure way to prove it - make it a voluntary subscription channel and see if others agree the 12 pound per month is 'excellent value'. If you're right, people will flock to it.

But of course 'they' won't offer this CHOICE will they - they'll continue to FORCE us to pay for it because they know most people would not want what they offer at this price. (Or any other price for that matter - I wouldn't take it for one pound).

I think sky offers the whole of their documentaries section (10 channels?) for a pound a month. The BBC gives you 2 (and a couple of tiny ones) for 12.

Posted by: Tarquin | 08 September 2010 at 09:35 PM
Interestingly how does the BBC support the government? - it's stuck it to every government in my living memory - eg Iraq, drugs
and the government don't provide it either...

Its funding mechanism is supported by government - but of course, it's not directly controlled by the party in office - it's controlled by these leftwingers who control many of our state quangos, organisations, councils etc.
They advertise in places like the Guardian and recruit people similar to themselves. It would take decades to turn this ships leftleaning stance around - and we don't have decades - and who's to say it would work even if we tried.
The quickest and most effective way to get rid of this very important leftwing tool is to make it a voluntary subscription (no adverts Al!) channel - and then we'll see how many people want what they're offering.

You can see how much the lefties value the BBC by their squeals of horror when you threaten to remove it. They won't give it up without a fight.

Posted by: Mike Everett | 09 September 2010 at 11:02 AM

Mike Everett

Good comment. Although you did miss Desperate Housewives off your list of quality American dramas.

I'm leaning towards the idea of ditching the BBC - the only good thing about it is that you can watch a programme that isn't interrupted by adverts every fifteen minutes.

I think it's also worth mentioning that on BBC comedy, right-wing people are always portrayed as idiots / nutters. There is only one comedy show I can think of that portrays leftists as idiots: Southpark.
Posted by: Richard Stewart | 09 September 2010 at 07:07 AM

Further to my comment of 06 September 2010 at 09:34 PM, it appears that Rose is determined to undermine this blog by posting using any number of pseudonyms. He seems to be quite pleased with such deceit.

Please can the web host administrator and/or moderator do something so that this Web Blog does not descend into one 'straw man' posting after another from such a dishonest person.

Posted by: William Benson | 09 September 2010 at 05:05 AM

Dickens is interesting Guy because though he was obviously no avowed traditionalist he shows how in the past even no-traditionalist artists could at least partially exhibit significant amounts of values and beliefs that resonate with traditionalists. Dickens' critiques of industrialism, his Christianity and his honest love for the common people in their variety, their virtues and vices, follies and wisdoms in a way the Left has long lost.

Posted by: Wessexman | 09 September 2010 at 01:45 AM

Wessexman, your grasp of Israel’s history is as erroneous as your appalling spelling. I highlight here just a few of the many facts that seem to have escaped your BBC “education”

The Jewish emigrants BOUGHT and PAID for the land they settled between 1890 and 1948 from the legal landowners. So, on what basis do you assert that “Jews should not have been able to emmigrate to Palestine”? Do you say that Europeans should not have been able to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, the USA, South America………? Or is it only Jews you object to?

The British allowed in many more Arabs than Jews. How come you don’t condemn the mass immigration of Muslims/Arabs into Palestine under the Mandate? The mass Arab immigration was fuelled by the agricultural and economic flourishing of the land worked by the Jews. Under the Mandate the Jews were identified as Palestinians as is confirmed on Passports of the era. The Arabs objected to being identified as Palestinians. Hence the 1947 Partition Plan refers only to the creation of a Jewish State and an Arab State.
The UN recognises any Arab immigrant into the Mandate in the two years preceding the 1948 war of Independence as a “Palestinian”refugee. Why are these Johny-come-latelys identified as “Palestinians” when, as Arafat himself confirmed, the adoption in the 1960s of the term “Palestinian” instead of “Arab” is a propaganda ruse.

Since the invention of Islam in the seventh century, the Muslims/Arabs have tried to usurp and deny the Jews’ historical links to Jerusalem and the entire historical land of Israel which includes Gaza and the West Bank.. Despite expulsions and persecutions, the Jews clung tenaciously to their ancestral home and maintained a living presence on the land. The British appeased the Arabs by ethnically cleansing the Jews from Gaza in the 1920s; it should be noted that Jews had lived in Gaza since Biblical times. The old City of Jerusalem (East Jerusalem) was a majority Jewish city for 100 years before the War of Independence in 1948, following which the Jordanians ethnically cleansed the Jews and gave their homes to Arabs. Now the Arabs are trying to ethnically cleanse the Jews again and claim the Old City as a Palestinian Muslim capital. At its core the Israeli/”Palestinian” dispute is an ideological struggle between Judaism and Islam.

You say “The problem of peace does seem to lie mostly with Israel….Then all that would be needed would be the isolation and destruction of the extremist Palestinians and there could be peace.” The Palestinian Authority is an Islamic entity; its Basic Law is Sharia. If you got your facts from Palestinian Media Watch instead of the BBC, you would learn straight from the horse’s mouth that the PLO/Fatah are no less extremist than Hamas in the fact that they deny the legitimacy of a Jewish State of Israel in any shape or form.
Posted by: Iconoclast | 09 September 2010 at 12:59 AM

Mike, there is no such thing as a free market and corporate-capitalism, based around organisations given personhood and privilege by the state and massive government intervention to support them, is certainly not a free market.

Posted by: Wessexman | 09 September 2010 at 12:57 AM

KG and Wessexman need to be sharper, especially if they go in for ad hominem attacks. It is best to understand what an opponent is saying before attacking it, and both these contributors show scant signs of that ability.
To return to the original point. Other than comfortably received opinion, what evidence is there for Universities being "left wing"? Where is the evidence in reference to their institutional activities, and their research output? These are both easily discovered by anyone with a computer, yet there is no evidence whatsoever. By what standards are they judging them to be left wing, and why are those standards to be preferred to another person's standards?
If Universities *are* left wing, how did this come about and how is it maintained, given that they do not select students on the basis of political allegiance, and recruitment to lecturing posts involves those same students a few years down the academic road? If there is some more shadowy process which steers these institutions to the left (I perked up at the mention of Gramsci, but alas, he made only the briefest of appearances) what is it, and why did it not steer to the right? If Universities are not left wing, then there is no argument. But if they are (and it needs proof rather than assertion) then a question needs to be asked about the reason why people that society generally considers to be the most intelligent are of that political persuasion.
I have no problem with "ordinary" people, being one myself, and there is nothing in any of my posts which could lead a rational person to think otherwise. One of the habits of ordinary people is, however, to challenge statements supported by apparent prejudice rather than knowledge.
Posted by: Sam Vega | 08 September 2010 at 09:35 PM

M Everett - Only the free market gives people what they want, in the proportions that they want it.

You're asking for trouble the moment you start having 'government' providing things for you, like a TV station, for example.

It's absolutely guaranteed to be used by the 'powers that be' to dish out propaganda

--

Interestingly how does the BBC support the government? - it's stuck it to every government in my living memory - eg Iraq, drugs

and the government don't provide it either...

Posted by: Tarquin | 08 September 2010 at 09:35 PM

Wessexman,

Have you ever posted on this blog under another name?
Harry Rose perchance?

Honest answer please

Act 2 scene 3
The role play ended and he was revealed to be.....................

Posted by: Peter March | 08 September 2010 at 09:13 PM

A few replies to Mike Everett, Guy and Norfolk Al

Some excellent posts here and I find myself torn between Mev and Al's views on the BBC, although I am very much leaning towards Mev's view. However, Norfolk Al highlights Secret Britain with the lovely Julia Bradbury, a programme well worth watching. Imagine my surprise when, switching on the BBC the other day expecting to see the Eastenders cast throttling each other (if only) only to find the stunning JB hiking amongst some beautiful countryside!

Credit where it's due, it is a superb programme and they do have Sophie Raworth...

I do try and give balanced views on the BBC but it is very difficult sometimes. They never comment on anything worthwhile. I am not sure about getting rid of the BBC completely as it would probablyy be replaced by a similar beast. I do wish people would see them for what they are though and not believe all the guff about their being "impartial" (David Frost's self-praising compliment is irksome in the extreme)!

Meanwhile, Channel 4, the same channel that brings you the Big Brother garbage, is now viewed by many as more newsworthy- so while the they highlight issues that offend the BBC's delicate sensibilities, such as Pakistani men/women marrying their cousins (see the recent Dispatches from a few weeks ago), the BBC carry on "celebrating diversity" (or to put it more bluntly: celebrating not being English)!

Sounds lovely but I wonder whether the BBC realise (or care) how much damage they have done to their credibility by avoiding such issues while still maintaining they are a serious news broadcaster!

Guy and Norfolk Al, hope you are both well, glad to see you both busy on here!

Regards

Posted by: Mark | 08 September 2010 at 08:30 PM

Norfolk Al - how are you doing, me old mate?

You asked:

'Will we ever agree about anything?'

I can't really answer this one but, judging by what has already been said, I shouldn't think it likely (perhaps we agree on that?!)

I'm not saying that there aren't one or two barely watchable programs from time to time, simply that it has deteriorated considerably in terms of general presentation styles (i.e: muzak, shouting, screaming and glottal-stopping) and quality of storytelling over the past, say, 15 years.

It is also I feel a fair comment that much, perhaps most, of it's content is nothing more than Leftist propoganda. The fact that some of this propoganda is 'soft' - ie inserted into otherwise reasonable fare - doesn't make it any less potent (arguably more so).

The sheer tedium we have to endure through the constant drip-drip of such storylines in, for example, Radio Four dramas is beyond belief - eg. plight of asylum-seekers, women overcoming all the odds to get to the top, homosexual male commandos, evils of British history / slavery etc The preoccupation of the makers of such programs with 'the message' seems to take precedence over the actual craft of storytelling.

Far be it from me to cast judgement on your viewing habits - all I can say is that a preponderence of tawdry talent contests, Billy Butlin rasmataz and magazine-type fare I shouldn't think really constitutes quality.
Posted by: William | 08 September 2010 at 08:15 PM

Mike Everett

For those who do not suffer from such deep political angst - and prefer their viewing to be free of commercial breaks - the BBC might be said to offer excellent value for some £12 a month.

An interesting programme about the construction of Caemarfon castle, an hour of the careers of four famous 20th-century singers, or an hour of the cultural and environmental characteristics of NW England, or an hour about the Big School Lottery.

Well, that's me set up for the evening - as usual, I'll give Big Brother a miss...

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 08 September 2010 at 07:00 PM

Hello Teddy Bear (I haven't said that for about 25 years!)

Yes, thanks, I am well aware that the BBC is publicly funded as opposed to Sky, ITN, Daily Mail etc etc, but to argue that this makes a difference is a non-sequitur.

Is bias any better because it is privately funded? Maybe you are annoyed about paying the licence fee but that has no relevance to the argument about bias. Are privately funded media outlets like the Daily Mail, for example, less biased because they are not publicly funded? Would anything that you replaced the BBC with be totally impartial?

My argument essentially was that the BBC is a media outlet that doesn't err a great deal from conventional wisdom on certain issues affecting society. However, others are almost exactly the same. To say BBC News is biased but ignore ITV or SKY is unfair. I ask you the question that I posed in my original post: Can you show me a demonstrable difference (other than the presence of adverts) between the main evening news output of the three main channels?

Posted by: John Blance | 08 September 2010 at 06:39 PM

Kaillie,The 2 males you have chosen as examples,Chiles and Clarkson do at least have something to say.Chiles,football+is hardly brilliant but men watch it for the football ,not for him,how long he lasts in a chat show remains to be seen,not long is my opinion.Clarkson on the other hand makes stacks of money,both for himself,and the BBC and has a show which men and women appear to like as it is rated one of the best shows in the world.The male announcers,who seem to be getting fewer by the week always look to me as if they are apologetic for the fact they are there at all.

Posted by: michael savell | 08 September 2010 at 05:50 PM

John Main (08 September 2010 at 10:46 AM) has the right idea - if you don't like the BBC, don't pay your licence fee. If you unplug the aerial connection and detune the set, TV Licensing can't touch you.

I did this, spent the licence fee refund on a subscription to a DVD rental service instead, and couldn't be happier with it. When I want to watch a programme that's been on TV, I do it via the Internet (no licence required) or on DVD (again, no licence required).

My only fear is that if many people use this approach, then the BBC will eventually use their enormous political power to require all Internet users to get a TV licence just in order to connect. If they can justify the TV licence despite the huge number of non-BBC channels, then they can surely also justify an "Internet connection licence" despite the huge number of non-BBC websites.

Posted by: Vladimir Smith | 08 September 2010 at 05:28 PM

Iconoclast and Wessexman
Firstly, iconoclast..
I didn't say the BBC should support "Islamism" whatever that is. Hezbollah is a terrorist outfit, which seems to me to be more important than the religion of many of its members (most countries in the Middle East are also "Islamist" if you mean Moslem).
My point was nothing to do with Hezbollah, but rather the coverage the BBC gave to innocent Lebanese victims of Israel's bombing.
It was odd that the BBC gave roughly equal coverage to the attacks on Israel, since they were nowhere near equal to the attacks on Lebanon, in terms of scale, devastation, and casualties.

My point was that both Hezbollah and Israel are actually terrorist entities, (by the recognised definitions of terrorism), since both have been proved to deliberately target innocent civilians

Israel's most respected and famed military journalist, Ze'ev Schiff, once wrote, "The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets ... [but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck."
Moshe Sharett, Israel's first foreign minister, critically dubbed this policy "sacred terrorism." . In 1981, Menachem Begin famously said "There were regular retaliatory actions against civilian Arab populations," during the 1948-67 conflicts.

According to the Jerusalem Post, former Laborite foreign minister and ambassador to the UN Abba Eban justified the attacks on civilians by arguing "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that afflicted populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities".

This has always been the rationale for Israel to attack civilian Arab populations, since the days of the Irgun. That populations who are targeted will "exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities"(to surrender to Israel) in other words, classic state terrorism.
Wessexman. Indeed, Mr Hitchens attitude is odd for a British conservative, since we have never been divided on political lines, in terms of support for Israel's actions, in the same way US conservatives and liberals have.
But the US was not always divided along such lines either.
It is since the rabidly pro-Israel neocons hijacked US conservatism, that this has come about.
Old-fashioned conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Michael Lind and William Buckley (who all opposed the neocon Iraq War) are much more sceptical of US support for Israel's crimes than the modern breed of US "conservatives".

Pat Buchanan rightly argues that supporting Israel's acts of terrorism against Arab populations (and its brutal settlement policy in the Occupied Territories) is hurting US interests, by breeding hatred for the US in Middle Eastern countries that could otherwise become US allies.

The odd thing is that peter Hitchens is politically far closer to these old-fashioned paleocons than he is to the fanatically pro-Israeli neocons. He just hasn't yet made the connection between destructive neocon wars like the Iraq/Afghan/Kosovo wars, (which Mr Hitchens rightly opposes)and destructive neocon support for brutal Israeli treatment of the Arabs.
Posted by: James Stenson | 08 September 2010 at 05:01 PM

‘Also, I am irritated to discover that Kevin of Agadir is Harry Rose, for, if true, I've wasted time arguing with an alias. That said, Mr. Rose must be congratulated on how convincing his persona was. It got just the right balance of insanity and perverse logic that such a person displays.’
Posted by: Joshua Wooderson | 07 September 2010 at 10:24 PM

No No NO! There is something wrong here.

For a start, ‘Harry Rose’, if he is a real person, is NOT capable of creating Kevin, Agadir, because whatever your political stance, Kevin’s posts (and I have been reading over as many as possible this afternoon) display a great deal more knowledge and articulation than HR’s and KA is in no way a caricature ‘Rightist’ whereas HR is a caricature of a caricature ‘leftist.’, completely ‘unnuanced’ as they say.

HR offers no biographical detail, whereas KA describes his past and present (and future) locales and careers in all sorts of detail.

KA goes on at great length on medical matters but from a holistic perspective that is again far from caricature Trad Con, whereas HR would just damn all things Alt. Medicine as a matter of ‘rational, humanist’ course.

Also, they both subscribe to the belief in a coming New World Order, but whereas HR welcomes it ecstatically in caricature terms of eliminating all differences of Race, Religion, Family, Nation etc, KA is of a completely different and strongly antipathetic opinion – I actually believe his analysis of the NWO is spot on (See under heading , I think, ‘Bile Rides out’ Posted by: Kevin, Agadir | 28 August 2010 at 11:40 AM)

However, if KA is fake he has dome something very, very serious, and this is not at all funny. He has claimed direct first hand knowledge of a cure for ME that he has administered himself and is suppressed by Western Medicine. If that is not true than that is very serious indeed, getting ME sufferer’s hopes up under false pretences.
That Kent Hovind character he recommends also rings an alarm bell, seeming to combine leaking-out truth with outrageous falsehood, thus discrediting the truth, classic disinfo tactic (cf David Icke and the Reptiles)

So (I am running out of time here) KA/HR may even be an ‘O’Brien’ in the Orwellian ‘evil genius’ sense (see classic disinfo as above). Who knows, lies and deception have no place in a public forum like this, because truth and trust is absolutely necessary; we should be able to disagree with each other but at least proceed on the basis that we know the other is sincere – this kind of thing wrecks good trust and healthy discourse.

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 08 September 2010 at 04:59 PM

Only the free market gives people what they want, in the proportions that they want it.

You're asking for trouble the moment you start having 'government' providing things for you, like a TV station, for example.

It's absolutely guaranteed to be used by the 'powers that be' to dish out propaganda - that's why they want it - it's not there to provide 'high quality programs' - that's just the reason they give for persuading everyone to accept it.
It's there for the state to control people and influence their opinions.

The USA does not have state broadcaster - but it produces lots of high quality drama - Mad Men, The Sopranos, The Wire, 6 Feet Under, Deadwood, Fraser, Cheers, Hill Street Blues, The Simpsons - I could go on and on and on - do you hear calls by Americans for a State Government channel?

We absolutely have to get rid of the BBC if we are to try and remove ingrained socialism from our country. It one of the left's main tools.

(The various posts below saying that because non-leftwing newspapers are biased to the right, the state broadcaster should be allowed to be biased to the left to balance things up are just laughable. Newspapers follow the free market mechanism - and therefore lean in the direction their readers want.

If people liked leftwing views then newspapers like the Mirror and Guardian would be more popular, and other newspapers would then move over to the left to attract readers. The balance of newspapers is determined exactly by the free market - and that's why the left hate them and wish to have a state broadcaster there to pump out their (unpopular, enforced) leftwing message for them.
The Guardian only survives by leftwing councils posting jobs in it.

So let me see - I'm forced to pay taxes against my will, to public sector organisations that I don't want, that don't do the things I want them to do - like clean the streets, but instead use my money to support various leftwing organisations and causes - and they also use my stolen money to advertise their leftwing jobs to leftwing people in a leftwing paper that only survives because of subsidies paid to them out of my taxes. Brilliant.

Tear the whole lot down and start with the BBC.
Posted by: Mike Everett | 08 September 2010 at 01:23 PM

KG I too find many problems in Sam's argument. For a start it highly ironic he defends leftwing intellectuals by saying they are the ones who have contempt for unreasoned ideas, seeing post-modernism and similar affronts to reason dominate many of the perspectives of these leftwing intellectual. As the metaphysician Frithjof Schuon put it, it was left to the 20th century not to think and call it philosophy.

Anyway there is little point in glorying in the liberal academia unless we can judge why they should be valued. I doubt Sam thinks the Schoolmen were much to be valued yet they once formed the mainstream academia, so you really have to make a proper argument why we should value the academic because it should go without saying academia with a particular value system can have a major role in recruiting its own members.

Posted by: Wessexman | 08 September 2010 at 12:50 PM

James Stenson. Hezbollah is an Islamist outfit. Even the left wing BBC doesn’t support Islamism. You evidently do.
Posted by: Iconoclast | 08 September 2010 at 12:41 PM

James, I too found Peter's inclusion of anti-Israel bias as proof of leftwing bias as strange. British conservatism is not the American conservatism, as far as I know we do not have a well defined consensus on Israel. It is good us traditionalists have moved past our past anti-Semitism but we are hardly the robust supporters of Israel that the likes of Sean Hannity are.

Even in the US of course it is the more traditionalist sections in the conservative movement, like the paleoconservatives, who are least definiantly pro-Israel at all costs.

My own position for what its worth is that though Jews should not have been able to emmigrate to Palestine and set up a state on other people's land between 1890 and 1948(partly on our watch.) the Israelis have a right to a state today, it is not there fault what occured 60 years ago, though they have no right to keep taking Palestinian land in the Westbank and East Jerusalem. However they have a right to a state as I said and to security in Israel proper. As for the settlers they are invaders but I could never bring myself to accept attacks on them(even the adults only.), however they should be considered invaders and aggresors. I think this is a pretty balanced, traditionalist position.

The problem of peace does seem to lie mostly with Israel and its American backers. If they pulled down their settlements and allowed a Palestinian state then half the problems in Palestine would be solved. Then all that would be needed would be the isolation and destruction of the extremist Palestinians and there could be peace.

Posted by: Wessexman | 08 September 2010 at 12:23 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 6

Iconoclast has twisted the facts. He writes
"The 1947 Partition Plan (available on line) proposed an Arab State and a Jewish State with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under UN supervision."

What is also "available online" are a few inconvenient facts about that Partition Plan which icococlast appears to have left out of his narrative.
First is the fact that the Partition plan,outrageously, offered the Jewish setlers 56% of the land, despite the fact that, at the time, they only owned 7% of the land!!

How would we feel if hundreds of thousands of migrants moved here, eventually seized 7% of the land, and suddenly demanded they be given 56% of the whole country,(which has other people living in it) to form their own state?

You also forgot to mention as Rashid Khalidi pointed out, the land offered to the Zionists in the Partition Plan, included all of the best arable land in the region.

You also forgot to mention something else about the UN Partition Plan (isnt it amazing how many historical facts iconoclast has mysteriously omitted from his account?). That is that the Zionist movement never intended to honour the UN Partition Plan.
We can now prove this, from quotes from leading Israeli founding figures. For example...
""Zionists pursued from early on a "stages" strategy of conquering Palestine by parts. "The Zionist vision could not be fulfilled in one fell swoop," Ben-Gurion's official biographer reports, "especially the transformation of Palestine into a Jewish state. The stage-by-stage approach, dictated by less than favorable circumstances, required the formulation of objectives that appeared to be `concessions.'" It acquiesced in United Nations proposals for the partition of Palestine but only "as a stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation" (Teveth, Ben-Gurion, p.101) Chief among the Zionist leadership's regrets in the aftermath of the 1948 war was its failure to conquer the whole of Palestine."


Iconoclast also says that the Jews had "no choice but to fight for their lives". on the contrary, the were fighting to expel the native people, as Israeli historians now admit. Or, as Tom Segev wrote... 'Disappearing' the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality."
You see, iconoclast?

The European Zionist settlers who began moving from the 1920's-40's, had no right to live on that land, compared to the Arabs already living there.

Right-wing Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, taking heart from Nazi demographic experiments in conquered territories (about 1.5 million Poles and Jews were expelled and hundreds of thousands of Germans resettled in their place), exclaimed... "The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has almost become fond of them. Hitler - as odious as he is to us - has given this idea a good name in the world."
I think that sums it up.

Posted by: James Stenson | 10 September 2010 at 12:42 PM

Make the BBC a true public service - fund it by tax - shrink it massively - Instruct it to promote the British national interest - make it a solely elitist corrective to market failure. Leave every thing else to the private sector.

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 10 September 2010 at 12:23 PM

William | 09 September 2010 at 05:21 PM: "Alex Sasayle (?)"

Alexei Sayle

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 10 September 2010 at 12:15 PM

Iconoclast it would be as silly to hold Arabs responsible for what happened centuries or indeed millenia before as it is to hold current Israelis responsible for what happened 70 years ago. It wasn't actually Muslims that forced most Jews from Palestine, indeed in the years between Heraclius defeat of Shahanshah Chosroes II invasion forces in the late 620s and the Muslim conquests a decade later it was the Christians who did a lot of slaughtering of Jews who had already been significantly displaced by the Roman empire.

Anyway, none of what you said changes the fact that Jews were about 8% of the population of Palestine in 1918. Even if we ignore dubious land aquisitions, the way in which the Arab inhabitants were engulfed and displaced was a great wrong. There is nothing wrong with admitting that, indeed it is history and to deny it for partisan, either anti-Muslim/Arab or pro-Israeli reasons is silly.

Nevertheless I recognise the right of Israel to now exist and have peace, but not of course to control any of Gaza or the West Bank and I do dispute dispute the more pronounced anti-Israeli comments of James Stevenson.

Peter March: No I'm not Harry Rose nor have I ever posted as him or any of his aliases, as I have replied to you I hope you will return the courtesy by telling me what makes you ask that question.

Harry Rose is a silly fellow. He shows an attitude common on the left, ie a contempt for his opponents, particularly their intelligence, coupled with emotive responses to anything that goes against their social liberal agenda. Hence if you check out the PHMD facebook there are plenty of instances where conservatives are condemned just for holding certain opinions as if these were obviously both evil and absurd. Now obviously those on the right also sometimes exhibit these qualities but not as generally and we are less likely to act so automatically, which means when it is undeserved, in contempt of the intellects of our opponents.

Posted by: Wessexman | 10 September 2010 at 12:07 PM

William
Your problem is that there are no right-wing comedians. That's because right-wingers have no sense of humour. Discuss.

And no, Jim Davidson cannot be described as a comedian. Or funny. And it's Alexei Sayle by the way.
Posted by: Scaramouche | 10 September 2010 at 11:51 AM

"...one hour per week broadcasting the other side to the standard BBC view on a regular slot would be more than sufficient to counter even decades of lies. If we had this service a lefty like Michael Howard could not get away with his latest policies.."

I think it would take an awful lot more than that to persuade the bulk of the population that Michael Howard is a 'lefty'. Perhaps this statement touches the crux of this debate - that is, the more extreme position one occupies on the Right, the more all the others are dumped in the 'lefty' camp.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 10 September 2010 at 09:37 AM

Wessexman,

I'll ask again, have you ever posted on this blog under the name Harry Rose?

A simple question

Posted by: Peter March | 10 September 2010 at 07:20 AM

Posted by: Alan Pierce-Jones | 09 September 2010 at 11:53 AM

I agree with your sentiments about false identities since the fictitious "Kevin" engaged me in debate and I responded. After discovering that I had been debating a fictitious character I found it to be quite irritating. I still don't think there is anything wrong with using a pseudonym if the same name is used consistently and the person is expressing true sentiments, but to completely fabricate beliefs completely defeats the purpose of the blog.

Posted by: Mick | 09 September 2010 at 12:06 PM

"It's a pity. 'Kevin's' absurd posts did far more damage to the 'trad con' brigade than anything Harry Rose ever said"

No it didn't. The arrogance and intolerance of Harry Rose just showed itself in another form. In the short exchange that we had I had come to the conclusion that the character was a zealot that I did not care to continue to respond to. I don't agree with a lot that Steven Armstrong says but at least I sense sincerity and humility and there are many other very conservative people that are the same. The truth is that there are intolerant people on both sides of the political spectrum.

As for the BBC, I like listening to the radio broadcast here in the US (which I listen to in the car) because they do some very good international news programs. They are much better than most of the radio programs that we have. The only other good radio news program we have is NPR. Other than that we have the most unintelligent right-wing talk radio, which I am not going to waste my time with.

Posted by: Elaine | 10 September 2010 at 04:52 AM

Ref: John Blance | 08 September 2010 at 06:39 PM
John I thought it was fairly clear as to why the BBC is NOT the same as ITV or Sky. The latter are private companies that need to make a profit to stay in business. they each will appeal to a certain segment of the market that they feel best serves their interest - be it left or right.

The BBC receives a forced public taxation on the condition that they do not try to appeal to one segment or the other, but produce news and programmes that are fair, impartial and balanced. They therefore have a status that the others do not have - whether deserved or not - and most here know 'NOT'.

So whatever output they have, it is more generally believed and accepted that this is fair and balanced, which is not so with the other companies.

You state "My argument essentially was that the BBC is a media outlet that doesn't err a great deal from conventional wisdom on certain issues affecting society".
Most people who monitor the consistent bias in the various areas of the BBC will tell you that 'wisdom' and 'BBC' do not go hand in hand. Their pro EU, Labour, Islam, UN, Global Warming, Obama, Socialist, PC, agendas (to name but a few), and anti-Christian, Bush, Israel, Conservative, Capitalist etc. agendas are really a matter for debate on how much they truly can be considered wisdom on the way they affect society.

The very fact that the BBC knowingly is biased on these matters, in direct contravention of its charter, makes it corrupt and unethical, and for any society that wishes to progress in a civilised manner, maintaining such a power and influence is ERRING in the extreme.

I hope you can see the difference now.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 10 September 2010 at 03:29 AM

Has anyone told Harry Rose he's no Dean Swift? His idea of satire was nonsense. The reason many didn't call out Kevin was presumably because this is not a proper message board.

Posted by: Wessexman | 10 September 2010 at 12:47 AM

To Bob, the son of Bob, who "estimates that the true left is up to 30% of the population".

Would that be the young left (who are simultaneously economically right-wing and politically correct - i.e. thoroughgoingly individualistic, materialistic and hedonistic) or people like my 91-year-old father, who fought (as a prominent trade unionist and self-declared socialist) for a fair deal for the ordinary working man, while having no conception whatsoever of political correctness (and who, when confronted with it late in their lives, showed an instinctive revulsion against it)?

Incidentally, I am not in the least surprised to discover that "Kevin, Agadir" was an act of ventriloquial imposture by Harry Rose; "he" never rang remotely true.

Posted by: Neil Saunders | 09 September 2010 at 11:00 PM

Wessexman, If “Jews were a small minority in Palestine even in 1918“, it was because a succession of cruel conquerors had continually expelled and persecuted them for thousands of years! Life as a Jew (or Christian) under Islamic rule in the Holy Land was particularly harsh (see contemporary documents published in Bat Ye'or's book "The Dhimmi, Jews and Christians under Islam.")
You say “There is little to be gained by ignoring the clear history”. Well you obviously have ignored, the clear history, which is all on public record, and prefer to make your “history” up.

To put your false historical account straight: The Ottoman Empire controlled the land in Palestine for 400 years. Arab intermediaries had acquired their interests to the land as local tax collectors for Constantinople according to the Ottoman Land Code of 1858. The Arab tenant-farmers or squatters never owned the land they now claim as their land "from time immemorial," So says no less a scholar than Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi in Blaming the Victims (page 214). In his in-depth narrative entitled, "The "Palestinian Peasant Resistance to Zionism," referring to the provisions of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, Khalidi writes:

“Jews often purchased land from an absentee landlord, [which led] to the expulsion of tenant cultivators….The land concerned had formerly been sparsely populated or uncultivated….But fellahin [Arab peasants] with long-standing rights of tenure [not ownership] were displaced in the process of Jewish settlement [ownership]. The fellahin naturally considered the land to be theirs and often discovered that they had ceased to be owners [which they never were] only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord who had acquired it in the decades following the implementation of the 1858 land law.”

Jews were present in Gaza until 1929, when they were forced to leave the area due to violent riots against them by the Arabs. Following these riots, and the death of nearly 135 Jews in all, the British prohibited Jews from living in Gaza to quell tension and appease the Arabs. Some Jews returned, however, and, in 1946, kibbutz Kfar Darom was established.

The 1947 Partition Plan (available on line) proposed an Arab State and a Jewish State with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under UN supervision. There was no requirement for Arabs or Jews to relocate and they were to have full civic rights in whichever State they chose to reside. A window of one year was allotted for Arabs and Jews to relocate to their respective States if they so wished. The Partition Plan declared the British intention to withdraw in August 1948. The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan and declared a genocidal war on the Jews. The Jews had no choice but to declare their own State and fight for their lives.


Posted by: Iconoclast | 09 September 2010 at 10:20 PM

I hope that you are correct about the BBC,at least those of us a the bottom of the heap will have some one our side.Over the years the Tories,aided by the Tory press and their monkeys on a stick like yourself have attempted to make us a low wage economy,and when we retire our meager pension has to be supplemented by a small credit, unless we have saved a bit ,then we have to spend that first.The likes of you think that these powerful anti Labour forces have accepted you into their inner circle.but you are only being used,and cast aside when you are of further use.olcrom

Posted by: Brian Butler UK | 09 September 2010 at 10:09 PM

Mike Everett:

Its funding mechanism is supported by government - but of course, it's not directly controlled by the party in office - it's controlled by these leftwingers who control many of our state quangos, organisations, councils etc.
They advertise in places like the Guardian and recruit people similar to themselves. It would take decades to turn this ships leftleaning stance around - and we don't have decades - and who's to say it would work even if we tried.
The quickest and most effective way to get rid of this very important leftwing tool is to make it a voluntary subscription (no adverts Al!) channel - and then we'll see how many people want what they're offering.

---

That's two significant backtracks, being enforced by the government is rather different to being run or controlled by it, I'm glad you aren't a brick wall

Voluntary subscription - often suggested, but the inevitable problem is that no one will pay, even those who want it - countless polls back this up, the majority support the BBC, but few would actually fund it voluntarily (like very few people bother subscribing to Sky), and we'll all lose out, the same would probably happen if you made any tax voluntary, I probably wouldn't pay it myself as I'd rather have my twelve quid given the choice

Posted by: Tarquin | 09 September 2010 at 09:31 PM

Hi HM

"Mark suggests that the BBC would never cover a tricky issue like cousin marriage. His evidence? Channel 4 made a programme about it and the BBC didn’t. Great."

I think you misread what I wrote or deliberately distorted it. I did not say that my evidence for the BBC's lack of good news coverage was that Channel 4 covered it instead, it was simply an observation. Channel 4 tend to cover much more interesting topics than the BBC do. Your loyalty to the BBC is very touching but please don't take my comments out of context!

I am glad you like the BBC but personally I think they leave a lot to be desired- I'd go so far as to say it is chock full of garbage for the most part (except for the programme mentioned in my previous post)- have you checked out just how nasty and unpleasant Eastenders is increasingly becoming? I sometimes wonder if it isn't a deliberate plan to depress the whole country! It's not even on at a later time!

Given the varying degrees of appreciation for the BBC I think it should be optional whether people have it or not. I wonder how many people would opt to pay the License Fee were that to be the case! It might even make the BBC less complacent!

Regards

Posted by: Mark | 09 September 2010 at 08:51 PM

Iconoclast,
I wish that I didn;t have to keep to a word-limit here.
You have inverted historical reality by trying to portray the Arabs as the immigrants, the expulsionists, and the would-be ethnic-cleansers. The truth is the reverse.

I hardly need to explain all the facts you got wrong, in your analysis of Jewish migration to Palestine, because David Ben-Gurion himself famously explained why the European Zionist migrants would have to depose the Arabs who already lived there…"There is no example in history"that a nation opens the gates of its country, not because of necessity…but because the nation which wants to come in has explained its desire to it."
In other words, he was admitting the Zionists had to force the Arabs to let them move in, take the land, and create an artificial colonial state.

Right-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris said that, because the Jews had to remove the Arabs from their land, in order to create a state (since the Christian and Moslem Arabs were the majority, and lived on 93% of the land) the Zionist settlers only had two choices... "the way of South Africa" - "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority" - or the "the way of transfer" - "you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by transferring all or most of the Arabs out."" (Morris.B, Revisiting the Palestinian Exodus of 1948," )

Israel has clearly chosen the "way of South Africa" in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Instead of "transferring all the Arabs out" (which would create international outrage) they have established an apartheid state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem with a "a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority" which Benny Morris accurately explained was the only other option, if they wanted to seize all that land.

Iconoclast says the battle is between "Islam and Judaism". That, as all proper historians have noted, is complete nonsense.

Even Benny Morris (who is so Right-wing that he celebrated the recent Gaza slaughter as "an efficient operation") wrote that ..."The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism.. It had nothing to do with anti-semitism."

From the earliest days, David Ben-Gurion admitted that his aim was to use the opportunity of war to expel the Arab populations of the area, or as historian Tom Segev wrote "The idea of forced transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings," (Segev, 1967)

General Moshe Dayan, wrote..""We are a generation of settlers, and without the combat helmet and the barrel of a gun, we will not be able to plant a tree or build a house."
From the outset, Zionism sought to employ force in order to realize national aspirations," Yosef Gorny observed.
Posted by: James Stenson | 09 September 2010 at 07:25 PM

I'm rather surprised that Mike Everett, or William, for that matter, has not taken the natural progression of the idea of doing away with the BBC and suggested that tax-funded libraries should be next on the hit-list. Just think of all those pinko books, fiction and non-fiction, that are readily available to the gullible masses so often referred to in Bob, son of Bob's posts.

William - my list of recent viewings clearly crossed in the post with your comment on my preferences. I should have mentioned a programme on parish churches in the Middle Ages, but I'm saving that for the i-player...

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 09 September 2010 at 05:33 PM

Wednesday 8 September 2010, Radio 5 Live, mid to late afternoon - an examination of the reasons for the decline of political satire on television, focusing particularly on shows such as 'Spitting Image'. Contributions were invited from various contemporary 'comedians' / cultural pundits unfamiliar to me.

Reasons postulated for the decline:

First (paraphrased) : 'during the '80s there was a nasty Tory government in charge, doing all sorts of nasty things, whereas now the coalition are all nice, sensible guys trying to do the right thing, which is no subject for satire (I jest you not - check out the i-player if you don't believe me).

Second (paraphrased) : 'the BBC is now nasty and right wing, and won't tolerate satire.

Nothing whatsoever about the fact that the BBC won't satirise Labour/coalition figures because the people who run it are sympathetic to them / treat them with kid gloves. Incredible!

*Thursday 8 September 2010, Radio 5 Live, mid to late afternoon : in-depth interviews with self-proclaimed left-wing comics Eddie Izzard and Alex Sasayle (?), the one gushing rather nauseatingly about his desire to change the world/enter politics, and pious protestations of right-on sympathies, the other plugging his new biography in which he details his parents starry-eyed communism and frequent childhood trips to the Soviet Union.

Izzard makes the following statements (paraphrased) : 'I love people just too much (sic), I wouldn't be happy to see anyone die, except maybe the high-ranking Nazis of WWII (left-wing brownie-point there)

'I want to enter politics to improve people's lives, and I don't want to leave it to the nasty political right (second brownie-point).

A discussion then developed in response to Alex's (?) book in which all parties speculated - within certain limits - why Sasayle's (?) mother thought that it was OK to turn a blind eye to the excesses of Stalin, in contrast with Hitler, who actually killed far less people.

Nothing was mentioned about the left-wing symphathies of the media elite. Conversely, Izzard said (paraphrased): ' well, Stalin just killed his own people, whereas Hitler started invading other peoples countries, and also Stalin was on the winning side' . As if any of that justifies such attitudes. What a distorted, fanatical and blinkered perspective these people have.

This is the sort of bias which I am talking about.

Posted by: William | 09 September 2010 at 05:21 PM

Mike Everett repeats the tired old line about the BBC: 'They advertise in places like the Guardian and recruit people similar to themselves.'

Loads of media organisations advertise their jobs in the Guardian. The Telegraph are advertising a job there right now. It's where people who work in the media go to look for jobs.

Teaching jobs are routinely advertised in the TES. It doesn't mean all teachers read the Times and agree with Rupert Murdoch.

Posted by: Mick | 09 September 2010 at 04:33 PM

Just to let everyone know who is in the dark, Mark Harry Rose is conspiring to drown this blog with a host of fake contributions. He has outed himself as Kevin on his blog. I think Alan Pierce-Jones has a good idea.

Posted by: John Waynbridge | 09 September 2010 at 04:32 PM

Mike Everett seems to forget that Britain has plenty of private sector television already, none of it noticeably better than the BBC. Sky, for example, has produced few original programmes of any quality, despite its expensive subscriptions.

Mark suggests that the BBC would never cover a tricky issue like cousin marriage. His evidence? Channel 4 made a programme about it and the BBC didn’t. Great.

He’s wrong anyway. Googling “cousin marriage” shows that Newsnight ran an item on the issue all the way back on November 16th 2005.

The BBC provides several channels of varied, good quality TV, plus radio - national and local - plus an excellent website and the iPlayer service, all of it free from advertising, and all for £2.80 a week: little more than the cost of renting a single DVD.

Would that all taxes were so negligible, and provided so much in return.

Posted by: HM | 09 September 2010 at 02:41 PM

My, what of lot of heat the BBC can generate among commentators – certainly brings the ranters out in force.

The key question is whether the it is possible to justify a compulsory licence fee for something that the market itself offers. In the case of the BBC I am inclined to say yes, for two reasons. First, there would be fewer of the sorts of programmes that I want to watch made. Mike Everett’s comparison with the USA is irrelevant: that is a huge country, which can afford to make expensive, quality programmes of the sort he lists within the market framework. We in Britain could not; a better comparison would be with France or Italy, neither renowned for the quality of their television. That is a selfish view, of course, but not perhaps unusual.

The second reason is more important. Effective democracy requires a disinterested media, and I believe that the BBC generally does a good job in its efforts to be as impartial as possible. Of course it’s impossible to be impartial in everyone’s eyes – I can imagine Kevin from Agadir (or his persona) complaining that the BBC does not give sufficient weight to the view that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. But, in general, as others have pointed out, the BBC worldview – insofar as it has one – seems to be pretty much in line with generally accepted thinking as represented by the main, elected political parties (and I don’t just mean the government) – and that seems to be entirely reasonable. Mike Everett’s bluster about ingrained is just nonsense, while Hitchens’ own complaints that the BBC does not support his world view – and his mutterings about a conspiracy involving Cameron’s government – are just a bit petty.
Posted by: Thucydides | 09 September 2010 at 02:27 PM

Sam Vega asks for definitions of left-wing. I should have thought it was obvious.
Anyone more left than me is 'left wing', while clearly anyone to the right of me is 'right wing' - simple!

Posted by: Brian Meredith | 09 September 2010 at 01:45 PM

Richard Stewart | 09 September 2010 at 07:07 AM: -
"only one comedy show I can think of that portrays leftists as idiots: Southpark."

And the wonderful 'King of the Hill' (mind you I'm not sure if that's on BBC). I Wonder why cartoons are the only source of good subversive satire?

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 09 September 2010 at 12:55 PM

Re Dickens – the character Stephen in ‘Hard Times’ was condemned by his union for not supporting industrial action. He was driven out of his employment by the other workers and this eventually lead to his death. But he was also condemned by his employer. Both sides were criticised by Dickens.

It was the common people in Oliver Twist who stole from the money given by the parish to pay for the food of the orphans such as Oliver.

And the person who helped Oliver was wealthy and middle class, and turned out to be a relative.

When Oliver was bullied in the undertakers, it was another orphan boy who did the bullying. So one orphan was a goodie and one was a baddie – this is different from the BBC where certain types are always goodies and other types are always baddies - eg see below Radio 4 plays described by William

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 09 September 2010 at 12:39 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 7

Mark

Hello there, Mark. It's a long time since we exchanged posts; good to see you making your points in your usual moderate fashion.
If you are finding life in front of the TV tedious, and this post may be too late for tonight's viewing, you could pop in to BBC 3 to cast your discerning eye over the Women's World Cup, enjoy a nostalgic hour of the Vera Lynn story on BBC 2, or spend several hours on BBC 4 taking in the sights of live in the North-East. I suspect young Wesley might opt for my first suggestion...

More seriously, I do stumble across some more lengthy coverage of news stories on News 24, but they are never listed in the usual TV guides.

regards


Posted by: Norfolk Al | 12 September 2010 at 07:20 PM

The other side,
"How Aric Sigman distorts the scientific evidence to mislead you."
Google

Posted by: Ian Somerville | 12 September 2010 at 06:00 PM

Mike Everett: "tucked up there in 99% white Norfolk... If this is the best our friends of the BBC can manage..."

Well, the 'best' certainly seems to have brought out the worst in you.

Thucydides: " To the left of you, perhaps..."

Quite so, with perhaps the exception of the pistol-packing pastor from Florida, I couldn't imagine anyone to the right of Mr Everett.

Daniel Heslop; "TV consumption should be limited."

Limited to what, sir? Your time-limits, or to your personal selection?

Mr O Barclay: "The BBC is good value for money and can provide a range of quality and diversity that I can't see the free market satisfying... I barely watch it."

Not sure what to make of this comment.

Luckett Bell: "Hairy chest on display and all - which is simply a discourtesy to the viewers."

Hm, no doubt you feel our host should wear a tie when on TV, or, indeed, in the photograph that heads this page. In any case, the proms have been very informal on many occasions. I think that was part of the original intention.

mikebarnes - good to see you are still following my every word, and that your sense of humour is still intact.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 12 September 2010 at 04:48 PM

Hi HM

Yes I do think that, but that is not 'evidence' simply an observation. My only 'evidence' is what I see, or in this case, what I do not. When was the last time the BBC covered anything newsworthy? Actually, allow me to rephrase that: when was the last time the BBC covered anything newsworthy properly? If there is anything serious happening to the country, ie mass immigration, EU treaties removing the independence of the country etc you can bet the BBC won't mention it, or if they do it will be in such a way that it is not given the prominence it deserves.

I am more than happy to be corrected on this if you have seen them cover such issues as there is a possibility I may have missed it- thing is, I never ever see any mention of them.

Not too long ago their main piece was a story about inequalities in the work place. They were moaning that not enough women were running companies or only reaching a certain level. They omitted to mention that a lot of women took time off to have children and raise a family, hence delaying their climb up the career ladder. Far easier to pretend it is always a case of unfair discrimination!

I wouldn't mind if they took every factor into the equation but they didn't!

Must admit though, Crimewatch is always necessary viewing. Kirsty Young is very appealing and makes the programme much easier to bear. Credit has to be given where it is due!

Anyway, Strictly Come Dancing is going to start soon and if you consider that 'newsworthy' you're in for a treat. That is all they will talk about for the next six months!

Regards

Posted by: Mark | 12 September 2010 at 01:16 PM


Re Norfolk Al’s comment about Michael Howard and is he a leftie – just suppose every week there was a documentary showing the crimes that his early release offenders have committed (On a new channel - I do not think the BBC could bear to do something so much against all their principles). If this occurred, he could not get away with it. Let the BBC make five documentaries, or ten, for the other side - it would make no difference, he still could not get away with it, as one hour of the truth will always beat ten hours of lies. This is what Channel 4 proved with ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, where their single hour wiped out the propaganda effect of hundreds of hours made by the BBC.

The BBC keeps a tally of the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan (as they should, I have no objection), but would never keep a similar list of the deaths, rapes, and assaults back here caused by prisoners released early by those who think like Michael Howard does – or, more accurately, caused by voters who keep putting their 'X' next to criminal-loving MPs with the opposite views to their own on crime.

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 12 September 2010 at 11:54 AM


Neil Saunders, re socialists who are not PC - people like your grandfather, but not necessarily him personally -

There are some who
WANT:
- wealth redistribution, genuine health and safety at work, inheritance tax to take the wealth away from those given it by their parents.

but DON'T WANT:
- mass immigration which will end up with whites being the minority.
- corruption - huge council salaries and promotion of each other in cliques way beyond ability
- corruption - foreign aid corruption
- corruption - EU budgets
- a replacement of better people, such as matrons in the NHS and senior policemen, able to use initiative and sack bad workers, with a system of targets so that the better people are no longer in charge, and instead we promote those loyal to politically correct behaviour
- an inability to sack bad state employees such as cruel nurses and incompetent teachers.
- anarchy in schools
- council and local authority and social worker bullies (including child abduction of middle class children for adoption)
- a state broadcasting channel which tends to prefer to interview each other rather than our politicians, so often we only get the BBC interpretation of events
- a state broadcaster which hates Britain and our history and culture.
- an abandonment of our energy needs
- knocking down historic buildings, especially Victorian buildings
- a removal of the word 'England' from official forms
- a promotion of crime by supporting cushy sentences or no sentences
- turning a blind eye to drugs

Some Labour voters were hoping for just the 'want' items, but not the others, and voted accordingly for socialist MPs. But unfortunately, you cannot get the first list without the second, due to the nature of the person who feels called to be a socialist MP. The only question is, how culpable are those who carried on voting for socialist MPs long after they could see their other hate-related agendas? To what extent can they be accused of using their vote to betray their country?

It is like the common people inviting someone like Samson into their temple and telling him to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and usurers. In he comes, but instead of just driving out the money-changers and usurers, he starts rocking the pillars and the whole building begins to crack and shake. At this point those who supported him should have driven him out, saying, 'Get out! We did not mean you to do that', but then they see a few rocks from the ceiling crashing on the money-changer tables and a few coins being 'redistributed' as they roll around on the floor, and they think 'We might as well let him carry on.' And when the whole building starts to collapse, it is no use saying 'It is nothing to do with us, we did not ask him to do that.'

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 12 September 2010 at 10:30 AM

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 11 September 2010 at 04:07 PM

Hello Daniel – yes indeed, Aric Sigman is an excellent man. He is honest with a truly scientific approach and conveys authentic truth about the detrimental effects of TV and all other such screen based technologies, and so is therefore probably destined to spend the rest of his life as an Outsider.

Unlike Ricky Gervais, apparently, who’s domain IS the screen (Posted by: Mr O Barclay | 11 September 2010 at 12:21 PM) and who appears to conform to a contemporaneously acceptable definition of ‘rational’
Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 12 September 2010 at 03:30 AM

Mr. Hitchens,

This may not be the right place to ask a question, but I am writing as a curious Yank. Can you explain to me why France can eject the Gypsies, but the EU insists on regulating England's immigration policies? Are my facts just plain wrong, or is there a double standard in play?

Posted by: Mark Daugherty | 11 September 2010 at 09:56 PM

GRB,

Never thought of Viz. The 'Modern Parents' characters certainly take the Michael out of lefties rather well.

And for a totally humourless lefty, one need look no further that Bob 'I've got more in common with a Chinese peasant' Crow.

Posted by: Richard Stewart | 11 September 2010 at 09:01 PM

Mike Everett | 11 September 2010 at 11:32 AM: - "Oh touche - not."

Well 'an army' was the first example of market failure that sprang to mind, all analogies break down in the end though. My point was that you simply assert that none of us should be forced to buy things we don't wish to, and I merely ask why not? We (unfortunately for you?) live in a representative democracy where the government of the day decides on tax levels and where they should go. There is no way to secure total agreement on how much should be public and how much private so unless we wish to emigrate to Galt's Gulch we just have to live with the compromise.

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 11 September 2010 at 04:51 PM

Iconoclast.
I am unable to reply at the moment as I'm on a library computer with a five-minute time limit. I will reply to your post in full tomorrow.

Posted by: James Stenson | 11 September 2010 at 04:43 PM

Guy Reid-Brown | 10 September 2010 at 07:31 PM: - "Even if the entire content was all sweetness and light it would still only ever be a neuro-damaging narcotic."

Yes there does seem to be a growing body of empirical evidence to support that claim. The psychologist Aric Sigman has written about this issue in a recent paper called 'Visual Voodoo'. It seems that the quantity of television watched, regardless of content is in itself harmful. Perhaps like sweets & chocolates, TV consumption should be limited. The public are not yet ready to let themselves hear that though.

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 11 September 2010 at 04:07 PM

Norfolk Al. I must protest your indignation of the SNP, they are only looking out for their own. Alex Salmon may not be a perfect leader. But then who is..
No on second thoughts the scottish National Party are all that you imply.

Posted by: mikebarnes | 11 September 2010 at 01:09 PM

Right wing vs left-wing comedians: I went to see Ricky Gervais last night and he was very funny. But he kept stopping every now and then to emphasise to the crowd that he's a liberal, rational human being. And he had his usual pops at the Bible and later on traditional values, for being in his opinion irrational.

A good chunk of his routine was a variety of jokes about fat people. He justified this by telling the audience that whereas one's race and sexuality were things one could not choose, one can decide how much to eat and how much exercise to do. Therefore his rational reasoning allowed him to make jokes about fat people, no matter whether anyone was offended. All very well then (I suppose) and all very funny.

But then he made an aside suggesting that catching AIDS was an "act of God". Much as I'm glad he did not attempt any jokes about people with AIDS (as I can't see that there would be a funny side of it anyway) I wonder if his rational reasoning might however have concluded that, with free condoms availbale from clinics, STDs should theoretcially be as avoidable as being fat. Not an act of God. And therefore a fair subject for him to work on.

I'm glad he didn't and has better taste than to do so. But it did give an insight into the limits of left-wing thinking when it comes to rationality. Really they have just as many thought "phobias" as the right. But they think they don't. And they are happy to do humour that offends traditional values but not jokes that offend theirs. This is fine and to be expected in any person. I just wish Gervaos hadn't kept trying to justify it by saying he was keeping it liberal and rational. Liberal yes. Rational...hmmm.
Posted by: Mr O Barclay | 11 September 2010 at 12:21 PM

Norfolk Al - So you've finally got off the fence and expressed a strong opinion! So it's TV that ruffles your feathers. Bloke gets sentenced to gaol for protecting his own home ? Let's not get too upset. Cancel the (dreadfuly boring) Antiques Roadshow? The end of civilisation as we know it.

The BBC is good value for money and can provide a range of quality and diversity that I just can't see a free market satisfying. But talking to friends and colleagues, the mood seems to be one of resentment towards licence fee and the BBC. I barely watch it.

Mev - I remember you being a bit of a "Cameroon" pre the election. You must be pretty happy with how he's doing so far. Better than Hitchens (and virtually else for that matter) expected. But we know no politicians are ever perfect. And new governments always look their best early on.

Posted by: Mr O Barclay | 11 September 2010 at 11:54 AM

Odd tactic by Mike Everett to respond to charges of ranty blustering with yet more bluster - complete with shouty CAPITALS, and lots of references to awful lefties controlling everything. "It's pretty self-evident that the BBC leans to the left." No, it isn't. To the left of you, perhaps, but that's not the point.

Posted by: Thucydides | 11 September 2010 at 11:38 AM

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 10 September 2010 at 09:18 PM
"you certainly give an excellent impression of an ardent spokesperson for that three-lettered party whose name is best not mentioned."

Hey Al - nice try - simultaneously sleighting both of your 'opponents' in one sentence. I've no connection to the BNP - but I'm not in favour of immigration or multiculturalism - so I'm not about to start monstering them just to please people like you, who talk the talk but don't walk the walk safely tucked up over there in cosy 99% white Norfolk.

And I won't be doing a Peter Hitchens and threatening you with a lawyer either.
(Mainly because I'm just a name on an internet blog - not a public person - so it makes no difference what people say to me in here anyway, but also because if someone says daft or incorrect things just try try and win an argument then they just hurt themselves and their case as far as I can see).


Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 10 September 2010 at 06:08 PM
"Why? I may not for example want an army, but hey tough!"

Oh touche - not.

Like there's any similarity between a state broadcaster and an army.
I think that almost all people in the world would suggest that countries need armies to protect them (though feel free to propose the oposite if that's what you think) - whereas state broadcasting is definitely not in the same bracket as something you really do need to survive.

If this is the best our 'friends of the BBC' can manage then they're not putting up a very good case for it are they?
(Probably because there isn't one - so they have to resort to nitpicking and obtuse parallels. Plus a BNP reference just for good measure.)
Posted by: Mike Everett | 11 September 2010 at 11:32 AM

Mr. Norfolk Al,

You are right: the marvellous Proms broadcast of Sir John Eliot Gardiner directing Monteverdi's Vespers is indeed the kind of offering which ought to justify the BBC's existence.

But why do the presenters of such programmes appear before the cameras in deliberately scruffy guise - hairy chest on display and all - which is simply a discourtesy towards the viewers?

It is patently to "make a statement". Are such boorish "statements" characteristic of the Right or of the Left?

Posted by: Luckett Bell | 11 September 2010 at 10:27 AM

Mike Everett

'Blustering rants' or not, to my mind you certainly give an excellent impression of an ardent spokesperson for that three-lettered party whose name is best not mentioned.
Dumping all who prefer to watch, or listen to, advert-free broadcasting into your hated 'lefties-club' does, to me at least, seem somewhat OTT.
I suspect many watching tonight's concert from the Proms might come to a similar conclusion.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 10 September 2010 at 09:18 PM

Hello Mark, good to hear from you too, I am well thank you and you? I hardly get to post here much and I wish I had the opportunity more.

[‘Richard Stewart | 09 September 2010 at 07:07 AM: -

"only one comedy show I can think of that portrays leftists as idiots: Southpark." . . Wonder why cartoons are the only source of good subversive satire?’

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 09 September 2010 at 12:55 PM ]

I have often thought on this myself and it must be to do with the fact that these ARE cartoons – rather like getting under the radar in the old Soviet days. (The only comparable thing in Britain is 'Viz' - cartoons in published format)

As far as the whole subject of TV is concerned though, the battle was really lost the day it was invented and talking about ‘quality’ TV is MISSING THE POINT! Even if the entire content was all sweetness and light it would still only ever be a neuro-damaging narcotic. (Stephen Fry is it’s Patron Saint and ultimate tick-all-the-boxes Godhead and he will tell you that he watched loads as a kid and it didn’t damage HIM)

24 hour TV was amongst all those other things that Aldous Huxley predicted for his Brave New World – along with sex and drugs and rock and roll (‘Soma’), 24 hour contraception, music ALWAYS in the background, explicit sex education for infants, artificial conception, the extreme female horror of aging combined with extreme pulchritudinous display (yep – not at all incompatible with that mind control psy-op that constitutes ‘feminism’). He isn’t acclaimed as the Prophet he should be, because the pretence has to be desperately kept up by the subsidised (from all angles) Cultural Leftablishment that all these things ‘predicted’ way back in the 1930s (’predicted’ in inverted commas because the younger brother of Julian was an Insider, not a Crystal Ball Gazer) was an unstoppable spontaneous organic ‘enlightenment’ of the 1960s whose time had inevitably come. Yep – the ‘underground’ of London, 1967, say the UFO club – primitive music with the all important intoxicating rhythm, drugs, light shows, group dancing, scantily clad girls (very important for ‘breaking down inhibitions’, or more accurately breaking down the psyche’s resistance to manipulation) all there in Huxley.

This highlights the intrinsic sort of bias perpetuated by the BBC as discussed on this thread, and explains why it can never be neutral.

I have seen lots of stuff on the channel when I used to watch a lot more, from Open University to documentaries about pop music where the ‘liberating’ 1960s Cultural Revolution is inevitably portrayed as an intrinsic Good Thing that freed us from a repressive Black and White ‘conformist’ pre-Christine Keeler era.

All a lot of hooey – a far bigger joke perpetrated on a far bigger scale than even ‘Mike’ could conceive (or maybe not? An O’Brien in training there maybe?) lots of brainy, public school educated Dead White Males engineering a ‘subversive’ revolution.

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 10 September 2010 at 07:31 PM

'William
Your problem is that there are no right-wing comedians. That's because right-wingers have no sense of humour. Discuss.'

I disagree, humour is subjective. I happen to find Pat Condell's YouTube out-takes particularly amusing - he certainly doesn't care for muslim 'sensitivities' although I'm not sure he would describe himself as 'right-wing'. Much of the staple comedy fare when I was growing up - mother-in-law jokes, Dick Emery, Les Dawson etc - would now be possibly illegal.

I think that there is plenty which is risable about the Left (consider if Gordon Brown, and even Blair, had been on Spitting Image, and the same treatment had been meted out to them as was dealt to Margaret Thatcher), it's just that that such material won't be given air-time on the BBC/media.

There are today 'permitted' subjects for comedy - the British in general, 'toffs', the monarchy or Hitler - but woe betide anyone who dares laugh at homosexuals, feminists, muslims or communists (and lets face it, there is plenty there to go at).

Indeed, radical, pious liberals are among the most humourless people I've encountered, perhaps a fitting subject for comedy in itself. The new, approved comedy is deliberately internationalist, 'non-stereotying' (a ridiculous concept for comedy) and, in my opinion, bland / uninspiring

We are not free to laugh at what we choose, at least not without some form of penalty. The politicisation of comedy (how sad, an attitude which is in itself antithetical to it's spirit ) really gathered momentum with the Ben Elton lot in the 80s. There has been a concerted effort, freely admitted by the 'alternative' crowd, to denigrate the sort of humour which was the bed-rock of television and working-class culture .

And through near-total control of the mass-media, the exclusion of alternative, traditional cultural forms, and the promotion of celebrity 'culture', the liberal fringe have to a large extent for the younger generation achieved it. Friends humour now pervades.

What we are allowed to find amusing is now determined through the myopic prism of the left. What seems to be regarded as comedy by these people is a rather insecure, vituperative string of left-wing pieties.

My gratitude to all those who corrected my spelling.

Posted by: William | 10 September 2010 at 06:27 PM

"The basic bottom line is people should not be forced to buy anything they do not want."

Why? I may not for example want an army, but hey tough!

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 10 September 2010 at 06:08 PM

Mark,

This is what you wrote:

“Meanwhile, Channel 4 ... is now viewed by many as more newsworthy - so while they highlight issues that offend the BBC's delicate sensibilities, such as Pakistani men/women marrying their cousins (see the recent Dispatches from a few weeks ago), the BBC carry on "celebrating diversity" (or to put it more bluntly: celebrating not being English)!”

Your meaning is clear, I think, despite your misuse of the word “newsworthy”. You think Channel 4 covers serious issues that the BBC would be afraid to touch. As evidence you mention a Channel 4 documentary on cousin marriage, supposedly a subject too tough for the BBC, but actually one they had covered years before.

And this is what I wrote:

“Mark suggests that the BBC would never cover a tricky issue like cousin marriage. His evidence? Channel 4 made a programme about it and the BBC didn’t. Great.”

I do not see how you I can be accused of distorting your words.

Posted by: HM | 10 September 2010 at 03:03 PM

James Stenson, You have inverted historical reality by substituting opinion for fact. Selecting juicy quotes to support your antizionism, particularly quotes from Benny Morris, won’t wash. Here is Benny Morris’s letter to the The Irish Times, dated 21 February 2008. The only reason I have omitted some paragraphs is the word count limit:

Madam, - Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.
…….

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing"…..

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.

…….

Prof BENNY MORRIS, Li-On, Israel.
February 21, 2008


Posted by: Iconoclast | 10 September 2010 at 02:54 PM

"You can see how much the lefties value the BBC by their squeals of horror when you threaten to remove it. They won't give it up without a fight."
Posted by: Mike Everett | 09 September 2010 at 11:02 AM

And low and behold, the BBC's lefty supporters come out in force to denounce me.

I'm a 'ranting' 'blusterer' according to Thuclides. He says he likes some of the BBC's output - so that's all right then. As long as it favours him he's happy to take the money off others to support what he likes. He has no confidence that the free market will provide the same things as he wants, so he wants others to subsidise his pleasures and political propaganda.

Mick tries to say that just because they advertise in the Guardian doesn't they'll get lefties applying as all sorts of media types look in there for posts.
Which obviously 'demolishes' my main point that the BBC does recruit and promote left leaning types - doesn't it? It's pretty self evident that the BBC leans to the left - you hear it constantly in almost every news broadcast - especially on the radio. You can hear it in who they ask to comment on stories - how long they give their opinion for - the quality of the comments given etc.
We can all see that it's leftwing - but of course these lefty types will argue with you til you're blue in the face - or rather til they're red in the face - that the BBC is not leftwing.

Tarquin tries to draw fine distinctions about whether this is a state broadcaster or not - and thinks that a small clarification is a significant setback to me.
Well given we have ony 500 lines per post and I'd rather not bore people to death with the fine detail on the BBC's exact legal status - but it's basically a 'public' (i.e. state) organisation (controlled by lefties) and the state will throw you into jail if you don't give them the money they demand. I don't care about it's exact legal status - I just don't want it!

In almost every one of these cases these people try to find ways to justify forcing people to buy/subsidise a product they like. So if they like it, there's all kinds of reasons why they think the rest of us should support it.

The basic bottom line is people should not be forced to buy anything they do not want. Only the free market gives people want they want in the proportion they want it.
These other people arguing for the BBC are against the free market because they do not like what it (i.e. the rest of us) delivers - so they want to FORCE others into subsidising what they want/like.
No amount of bluster or nitpicking can get you away from this.

Posted by: Mike Everett | 10 September 2010 at 01:55 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 8

Sam Vega says re left-wing universities: "But if they are (and it needs proof rather than assertion) then a question needs to be asked about the reason why people that society generally considers to be the most intelligent are of that political persuasion."

Yes, this question does need to be asked. There are two possible reasons, one that you suggest, namely that intelligence leads to left-wing opinions. But I favour another explanation - simply that the left are over-represented in these institutions. Evidence for this is that in the real world the intellectual newspapers of the right have far greater circulation than the intellectual newspapers of the left, even thought their flagship paper, the Guardian, is so revered and relentlessly plugged by the BBC. So, in the real world the intelligent right dominate, but in the worlds of the universities and school staffrooms you will find Guardian newspapers all over the place as here the intellectual left predominate, completely out of all proportion to their true numbers.

And once they dominate an institution such as a university department, like vipers in a nest, they seek to keep out everyone else. Hence, if you go for an interview for a post of teacher trainer lecturer, and you mention that you favour traditional teaching methods, I doubt that you will get past the first interview. According to Sam Vega this must be because intelligent people tend towards modern teaching methods. The proof that this is not the case is the collapse of our education standards in the hands of the teachers they have trained. A cross section of intelligent people would never have promoted the ways of anarchy.

All we need now is an explanation for the over-representation of the left. One explanation could be that those with the hate of the left, who hate our society, who hate better countries, and who hate better people, feel a strong calling to oppose those things they hate, so they gravitate towards institutions where they can do most damage - universities, the BBC, parliament (whenever the voters are stupid enough to let them in, which is most of the time), teacher training, local councils.

And the same applies in the judiciary. Two alternative explanations can explain our left-wing judiciary and their soft-sentencing leading to massive crime levels. Either intelligence leads to soft sentencing, a love of criminals, and a desire to increase crime, or, alternatively, the left have taken over this institution too, out of all proportion to their numbers.

At the last parliamentary debate on capital punishment, ALL the BBC ‘Question Time’ panel were against, and ALL the BBC ‘Any Questions’ panel were against. I am sure all the panel members on both programmes were intelligent people. No doubt to Sam Vega this just shows that 100% of intelligent people are against capital punishment, whereas to others it just shows the left dominate some institutions.

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 15 September 2010 at 12:46 PM

So Kenneth didn't own a TV? I suppose that explains why the wicked witch, Evil Edna was, in fact, a TV set.

Posted by: Richard Stewart | 15 September 2010 at 09:05 AM

John - just to make the point a little more bluntly.
You, and many others, have been receiving the viewpoint of the BBC all your life and accepting it as true. you have just been told by the present head honcho of that organisation that he was aware of MASSIVE left-wing bias within it. That means you have been subjected to this propaganda all your life, and accepted it as fair and unbiased.
He told you YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED!
When will you wake up?

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 14 September 2010 at 06:21 PM

John Blance | 13 September 2010 at 04:19 PM
John, I don't believe I'm missing your point, what I'm saying is that people don't have choice about having to pay for the BBC, under penalty of prison or fine, even if they want to watch ITV or Sky. The BBC receives this money on the condition that they exert every effort to be impartial, unbiased, and fair. If they can be seen to be pursuing their own agenda to satisfy their particular mindset, and heedless to fair criticism when they get it wrong, then first they are getting money under false pretenses, and second they have an unfair advantage over the view that will be accepted as true by their skewed reportage. This makes them a propaganda power far in excess of any other media, and the damage they can do to twisting reality is far greater.
If you really don't see the difference yet, just substitute the word POLICE for BBC and think how you feel about corruption in the police force as opposed to a private security agency.

If you ask me if I would expect the same view on a particular issue from a religious based media viewpoint as an atheist based religious viewpoint then the answer is NO! But I can read both viewpoints with that awareness and make my own judgement. So long as both are making their points in a legal framework.

For examples of continual and blatant bias by the BBC you can visit my website by clicking on my name below. However, but as an example just the fact that you write "or that Israel should be allowed to flatten Palestinian homes with impunity and not be questioned, then you will clearly find the BBC to be biased" shows just how BBC bias has worked on you. What makes you think that Israel flattens Palestinian homes with impunity? You'll probably find that the reason you have that impression is how the BBC has reported news in that part of the world. You are the proof of BBC bias, and rather than see how you're brainwashed you're living in denial (the Nile).

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 14 September 2010 at 06:00 PM

Mike Everett

I fear our views are unlikely to converge.

I am, however, in agreement with one point you made when setting out your thoughts on the manner of debate on this site. I can well understand, with so much repetition of subject, why our host sometimes deals with comments in an abrupt fashion. But I do wonder how many readers are reluctant to voice an opinion just in case they get a verbal jab in the eye - it happened to me when I made my first comment and it set me back for some weeks. Some might wish it had been a permanent injury...

regards

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 14 September 2010 at 05:11 PM

Bob sob,

You don’t seem to be able to understand that as I don’t agree with your premises, neither do I agree with your conclusions. No one voted for the “end of England”, or for “high crime”. You may think that the policies espoused by politicians would lead this way, but the voters who vote them in don’t, so it makes no sense to speak about betrayal.

“Voters have no right to betray the future generations”. Leaving aside the question of whether or not there is actually any betrayal involved, voters are actually free to choose to cast their votes as they wish; that’s how democracy works. You may vote for the BNP (I don’t know); I would rather you didn’t, as in my opinion the BNP, as well as being singularly unpleasant cretins, if they were in power, would betray Britain’s centuries-old traditions of tolerance and willingness to engage with the rest of the world. But that’s just my view, and you certainly have the right to vote for the BNP.

As for your ideas about the BBC, would you also give somebody who believes the earth is flat an hour to make their case? These things are all a matter of judgement. You may not, but I believe that the BBC does a pretty good job in maintaining an appropriately balanced point of view.
Posted by: Thucydides | 14 September 2010 at 04:36 PM

Thucydides the Modest - if the country were in the hands of the better people, then, by definition, we would be better run. At present we have the opposite - the country is in the hands of the worst people.

I do not know what we can do to stop voters voting foolishly for their own misery. The people have been given full representative democracy and they have used this to vote for the end of England and for mass immigration. How would you define that, if not 'betrayal'? And as if that is not bad enough, they also vote for high crime, and councils that pull down their historic buildings. If their motive was not betrayal, and I do not think it was, then the only excuse is stupidity and selfishness leading to them letting the bad ones in, in a sort of arrangement where their group is favoured in return. It is one thing to choose foolish ways for your own generation, but these voters have no right to betray the future generations also. This country was built up over the centuries and one generation does not have the right to destroy it all.

One thing which might help to slow down the decline would be to close down one of the main agents leading us down the cliff - the BBC. Or, as others suggest below, make it subscription-based. If that is not possible, break it up into five independent smaller channels, each with a charter which makes them compelled to use a format of programme where each side of an issue is presented by its supporters, one side one week, the other side the other week and with editorial control handed over to the team presenting their case. This would at least mean both sides were properly heard, instead of the present farce where the Big Brother Corporation is allowed to control all state broadcasts and to implement their own version of 'impartiality' which they take from their instruction manual, '1984'.

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 14 September 2010 at 12:57 PM

Hello Richard and Michael- 'Will o' the Wisp'! I find it rather endearing that K.Williams didn't even own a television.

I don't see the successor to 'I'm Alright Jack' coming down the line anytime soon, and yet the TUC are obviously getting all nostalgic for The Way It Was. Plus ca change etc.

Anyway, 'You couldn't Make It Up' time - BBC Films have indeed produced a recent Feelgood film about Trade Unions - look up 'Made in Dagenham'. THAT one should have H. Harman and hubby Dromey quaking in their booties.

Actually, seeing as we are talking entirely obscure Carry On film here, I suggest as an experiment that youse all go onto the BBC website and type in 'Carry On at Your Convenience' and read the very first entry. They manage to convey a deeply impressive amount of presumptive, politically motivated po faced intolerance in a mere few words. Worth the license fee alone.

Sorry John Blance you are backing a loser here - and why on earth is 'supporting Israel' Right Wing'? If you answer that one honestly, that will be a VERY revealing answer. The BBC are now in fact actively being accused of Right Wing bias for being pro-Isreali in some quarters.

Can somebody please tell me what range of beliefs and opinions I am supposed to adhere to if I am to comfortably label myself as either left wing or right wing?

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 14 September 2010 at 12:47 PM

Norfolk Al 13 September
"I'll refrain from rating your recent posts, other than to say that you do rather let yourself down when you reply in anger."

Please do rate my recent posts Al. I'd be glad for you to knock down any illogicalities, falsehoods, debating 'sleight of hands' (like your ‘playing the man’) or insults like from you/Thucides, who after I've outlined a straightforward anti-BBC case, just start saying my points are bluster, rants or 'angry'.

Having looked through my my posts, I personally can't see any bluster / ranting or anger. Is this what should expect when they make a strraightforward case for something?

I know my style used to be quite confrontational, but to be fair, that was the style of debate I found when I arrived here. I’d quite often witness the gloves coming off between adversaries and it was quite fun to watch and, let's face it, the tone is probably set by the host, who's not adverse to calling people he disagrees with 'morons' etc.

However, I can see now with experience that it can produce adverse effects, and the subject itself can get lost if you decend into aggressive name calling.
I also think that I only used to 'name call' once someone else had done it to me first - but who knows - if you say someone else is talking ‘nonsence’ they're likely to get upset and say something a bit more insulting back to you, and then it accelerates.

So, although I think I do state my case clearly and in direct way, I don't think I 'rant', 'bluster' or get 'angry', and I'd happy for you/someone to point out where I've done that on this post.

Your hypocrisy does slightly irritate me though I have to admit, settling in nice cosy safe Norfolk for your old age, as opposed to Brixton for example.
It's all very well saying you've lived in other cities when younger, but people can generally look after themselves when they're young.

And as for the 'white' remark, I've got friends who are non-white, and I treat them no differently to anyone else, I judge the person in front of me on who they are, but the subject of racism is a very complex one.

Peter Hitchens uses the term mono-cultural to defend his position, but how does Dianne Abbott defend taking her child to a private school to escape from the kind of school where black lads regularly knife one another? Is she being racist, or a realist?

Maybe Peter Hitchens should open a topic on racism and what exactly it is and isn't, because at the moment it's too easy for the likes of yourself to play the 'holier than thou' card without looking at the fine detail of what someone actually believes (as opposed to what they do i.e. like live in Norfolk or send their child to posh private school) whenever they feel they're losing a debate - as you've done here.
Posted by: Mike Everett | 14 September 2010 at 11:23 AM

To Bob, son of Bob

Apart from mistaking my father (who is nearly 92) for my grandfather (both of mine are, alas, long dead), your summary is spot on.

Many Labour supporters are socially and culturally small "c" conservative (as were many Old Labour politicians); more fool them, then, for continuing to vote tribally for a party that despises everything they hold dear.

Posted by: Neil Saunders | 14 September 2010 at 10:55 AM

Ian Somerville

I watched the debate between Ben Goldacre and Aric Sigman.

Ben seemed to be repeating a claim (whose truth we could only take on trust) that Aric had ignored half the evidence (i.e. the half that suggests that social networking sites on the Internet are not harmful to the emotional development of young people); Aric repeatedly replied that the possibility of such harm was too serious to ignore.

Ben is a professional sceptic while Aric is a professional controversialist; on balance, though, I think Aric made the stronger case this time.

Posted by: Neil Saunders | 14 September 2010 at 10:51 AM

I landed at Doncaster ('Robin Hood') Airport the other day and whilst lining up in the arrivals hall saw that they had placed a large television screen on the wall for the entertainment of arriving passengers. The sound was muted but the programme was the BBC World News and the picture was of a grinning Anthony Blair ; I couldn't help myself saying out loud : ' Oh, no! What a sight to be greeted with'. An ageing woman in front of me in the queue turned and said : 'We could do with him back, sunshine'.
Oh well, somebody misses him..

Posted by: Terry Courtnadge | 13 September 2010 at 11:29 PM

Sorry, Bob Crow has more in common with a Chinese labourer, not peasant...

Posted by: Richard Stewart | 13 September 2010 at 10:17 PM

Guy

Go onto youtube and search for 'Bob Crow Have I Got News' and you'll see the 'Chinese peasant' comment. You'll almost feel sorry for him.

Carry-on films, a wee bit before my time although I do remember Willo-the-Wisp, the cartoon voiced over by dear old Kenneth.

Posted by: Richard Stewart | 13 September 2010 at 10:15 PM

James Stenson, you trot out all the usual suspects in the antizionist canon, and stir in a few decontextualised quotes just so you can deny the fact that the Israeli/”Palestinian” conflict is at its core a conflict between Islam and Judaism. The biggest joke in your antizionist canon is Illan Pappe who admits he writes fantasy not history - and you expect me to take you seriously? Ha! Ha!

Benny Morris started his career as a left winger and swung vehemently to the right when the scales fell from his eyes. I quote from his 2008 article in Newsweek:

"The founding charter of Hamas repeatedly refers to the victory of Saladin over the me­dieval crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and compares the crusaders to the Zionists. In researching my new history of the 1948 war, I was struck by the fact that this analo­gy, usually overlooked or ignored by previ ous historians, suffused the statements and thinking of Palestinian leaders and the leaders of the surrounding Arab states dur ing the countdown to, and the course of, the war. A few days before Arab armies struck at Jewish forces in Palestine, Abd al-Rahman Azzam, secretary general of the Arab League, told the British minister in Transjordan their aim was to "sweep the Jews into the sea."

If the documents I studied 20 years ago painted Palestinians tragically, as the underdog, this record did the opposite. It has become clear to me that from its start the struggle against the Zionist enterprise wasn't merely a national conflict between two peoples over a piece of territory but also a religious crusade against an infidel usurper. As early as Dec. 2, 1947, four days after the passage of the partition resolution, the scholars of Al Azhar University proclaimed a "worldwide jihad in defense of Arab Palestine" and de clared that it was the duty of every Muslim to take part.

This history has deepened and reinforced my pessimism, itself bred by the fail ure of Oslo. Those currently riding high in the region—figures like Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal, Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—are true believers who are convinced it is Allah's command and every Muslim's duty to extirpate the "Zionist entity" from the sacred soil of the Middle East. For all its economic, political, scientific and cultural achievements and military prowess, Israel, at 60, remains profoundly insecure—for there can be no real security for the Jewish state, surrounded by a surg ing sea of Muslims, in the absence of peace.”


Posted by: Iconoclast | 13 September 2010 at 09:56 PM

Posted by: GuyReid-Brown 13 September 2010 at 02:31 PM.

"'Carry on at your Convenience'

It was a gambling budgie, of course, not a parrot. Just thought I'd clear that up. A gambling parrot would be silly wouldn't it?".

I don't think the budgie actually gambled Guy, it was more of a tipster. I wonder if they could make a film like 'I'm all right Jack' today.

Posted by: Michael Williamson | 13 September 2010 at 07:22 PM

Iconoclast.
Sorry for the length of time it took to reply, I did not have internet access where I'm currently staying.
You don't appear to have read what I quoted Benny Morris as writing.You also don't appear to understand why I quoted him, out of all the historians I could have quoted.

I mentioned him, precisely because, as I wrote in my post, he is notoriously rabidly pro-Israel, and very Right-wing, so much so that he passionately supported the recent Gaza war, (he called it a "highly-efficient operation") which even supporters of Israel like Peter Hitchens, oppose.

I could easily have quoted many leftist Israeli historians who agree with me, such as Oxford Uni professor of MiddleEast Studies Avi Schlaim, Harvard professor Sara Roy or Illan Pappe.
I chose Morris, precisely because he comes from the other side of the political divide, and i disagree with him about many issues.
Yet he still ripped apart the standard pro-Israeli lie, repeated by yourself, that it is Islam that causes hatred of Zionism among the Arabs. Morris wrote (as I correctly quoted) that "the chief motor of Arab antagonism towards Zionism was fear of territorial disposession and the loss of their homes". You can find this quote in his book, which I referenced.

You didn't even attempt to respond to all the other evidence I provided, including quotes from israeli prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, and Israeli historian Tom Segev, which prove beyond all doubt that there was an organised program of "forced population transfer" by the Zionists or, as Tom Segev wrote, in his book 1967...."The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings. "'Disappearing' the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality."
Did iconoclast not even know this fact? that the Zionists always intended the forced disposession of all the native Arabs in the area?
iconoclast also didn't dispute military historian and expert Yosef Gorny's observation that ""Zionism sought to employ force in order to realize national aspirations,".This force consisted primarily of the collective ability to rebuild a national home in Palestine"
Posted by: James Stenson | 13 September 2010 at 05:16 PM

Mike Everett

Thanks for your response, and the award of a gold star. Being a nice fellow, I'll refrain from rating your recent posts, other than to say that you do rather let yourself down when you reply in anger.

Either to you, or the like-minded mikebarnes, I did once explain that I am a newcomer to this part of Norfolk, moving here after working for many years in West Yorkshire, Manchester, London, and Glasgow, to name just some of my
many home towns. Due to recent events, and subsequent suggestions from my children and grandchildren, I am currently considering a move to the Colne Valley area - quite close to Huddersfield, should that name mean more to you. In response to your '99% white' jibe, I can only say that I would be more concerned to find myself living next door to somebody who is capable of such a remark than somebody whose skin is a different colour to mine.
Should I make such a move, I shall consider dropping 'Norfolk' and using 'West Yorkshire'.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 13 September 2010 at 04:57 PM

Teddy Bear

With respect, you are missing my point. Are SKY and ITV biased? And, if so, is that a good or a bad thing? Are they somehow allowed to be biased because they are privately funded? If we did not have the BBC could we all settle down to wonderfully non-biased broadcasting? You really need to think more deeply rather than just trot out the old cliche about the licence fee being a tax. Maybe it is and maybe we shouldn't pay it but this has nothing to do with what I asked you.

Now, you also perform the other standard anti-BBCist trick of listing a load of issues on which they are allegedly partial. I accept that if you think, for example, that the permissive society was a retrograde step or that Israel should be allowed to flatten Palestinian homes with impunity and not be questioned, then you will clearly find the BBC to be biased. I outlined this in an earlier post. This, though, does not make them biased per-se, it just means they are not in tune with what you think on such matters. You may think yourself to be totally impartial, but may be you are not. Bias essentially is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, I have always found the notion that the Beeb favours one political party over another laughable. All you have to do is watch a collection of Paxman-presented Newsnights to see politicians of all parties getting a fearful grilling. But this is the case on all serious news programmens across all channels. Adam Boulton is just as rough with politicians of differing hues on SKY, as is Jon Snow on Channel 4.

Now why is this? Well, essentially because broadcast news in this country, regardless of the channel on which it appears, is governed by strict OFCOM guidlines meaning that outright partisanship is not possible. A few try to circumnavigate the rules, but at the moment there are no British Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks or Bill O'Reillys because OFCOM rules on fairness and due imparticlity do not allow it. The truth is, bland though they may be, no British TV station's output is particular biased to one cause or another because it does not have the power to be so.

Posted by: John Blance | 13 September 2010 at 04:19 PM

'Carry on at your Convenience'

It was a gambling budgie, of course, not a parrot. Just thought I'd clear that up. A gambling parrot would be silly wouldn't it?

Posted by: GuyReid-Brown | 13 September 2010 at 02:31 PM

Hello Richard (11th September 9:01pm) - re: the humourless Bob Crow - although it is essential that a character like that is humourless, nevertheless, he is a wonderful fictional comic creation himself and the humourlessness is absolutely in the Fred Kite mode - even the name Bob Crow is perfect. I have never come across the 'Chinese Peasant' quotation, but that is right up there with 'All them cornfields and ballet in the evening.

It has been a long time indeed since comedy wasn't skewed leftwards, but part of this is that conservatives tend to keep quiet about it on the whole, whereas Leftists can be positively boorish in bringing their politics into things - I remember highlighting an excellent Mark Steyn online article and correspondence here where we were regaled with numerous anecdotes of leftist prejudices being inflicted on Classical Music fans by conductors and performers (even the Boston Pops)

I think it can be fairly taken for granted that, for example, most people wouldn't know that Barry Humphries is a conservative and he is unlikely to make a big point of it. One has a pretty good idea where the old school comedians, Morecambe and Wise etc put their crosses too (one definitely knows about the splendidly gloomy Kenneth Williams)

Still, back to the if-he-didn't-exist-it-would-be-necessary-to-invent him Bob Crow . Perhaps the title of 'most underrated late Carry On film of all ' (there were some really duff entries later on) should go to the dreadfully titled 'Carry On at Your Convenience'. This was a relative flop, I think probably because of the crass lavatory factory setting (entendre humour should not be set against such a literal background, I am thinking) but it is well worth seeing. The digs at militant trade Unionism are very refreshing - but even apart from that, there is an excellent story line plus tributaries (remember Sid James' gambling parrot?), an excellent extended set piece of the Factory Day Out at the seaside, very moving too (Sid again, and Joan Sims, who says Carry ons couldn't do understatement.?)

Posted by: GuyReid-Brown | 13 September 2010 at 12:55 PM

On the BBC note - as far as I can see there have not been any convincing or even half decent attempts to justify the BBC's enforced licence fee by its friend on here.

Just a bit of nitpicking and name calling.

That's hardly surprising is it - when there are no obviously justifications.
It's exactly the same is as if the 'powers that be' suddenly decided that there should be a public newspaper - in the interests of 'quality journalism' of course.

And before you knew it they'd taken over the Guardian (on the pretext of substantial advertising savings - given the amount the state spends on that paper) and were forcing people to contribute - under threat of a jail sentence if they didn't - to the cost of the operation, via a compulsory paper licence fee.
Before you know it, of course, this wonderful new state paper would be expanding rapidly (with corresonding enormous salaries to all involved) - with endless supplements and all helpful free pullouts - and of course the news stories would all carry the 'balanced' coverage we'd expect from a state provider.

Not only would the paper become some hideous self-serving monster - it would also place itself at the very front of the newspaper stands - taking up a decent portion of the shelf, and forcing people to read its headlines, before they could get past it to the papers they really wanted.

Of course - Norfok Al would love it - as they do a very nice cookery section, and have some nice articles on allotments, that the free market couldn't possibly provide.
And anyway, the BNP decide they don't like the new paper, as it constantly writes bad stories and editorials about them, so if the BNP don't like it - that's good enough reason for Al to support it.

------------------

Did anyone notice the 'BBC commissioned report' making the headlines on BBC radio and news channels last week - on the 'effects of the public sector cuts' on the various regions?
Of course the study pointed out all the hardships that would be caused by such cuts. (As if wealth could just be invented by the state).

Is it just me or is the BBC becoming a quasi political body in its own right - with its own agenda? Using its license fee to help support its causes and opinions.
Since when did someone argue that the BBC licence fee (which is meant to be there fto make 'quality programs' of course) should be used to commission reports into certain political issues, which favour certain viewpoints?

Posted by: Mike Everett | 13 September 2010 at 10:45 AM

Norfolk Al
"Well, the 'best' certainly seems to have brought out the worst in you.
Thucydides: " To the left of you, perhaps..."
Quite so, with perhaps the exception of the pistol-packing pastor from Florida, I couldn't imagine anyone to the right of Mr Everett."

Oh very good Al - please award yourself one gold star in your quest to be the most wonderful person in the world.
We can all easily play the 'Al' roll if we wanted to - all it requires is for you to give your country away to anyone who wants it - offer your wallet to anyone who needs it - and hey presto, you'll be Mr Popular with all your deserving beneficiaries.

But hey, you look good on weblogs and get to sound such a nice person - and it costs you nothing at all. Just pick up all those easy 'nice person' credits - just lying there waiting to taken off those who raise an objection to immigration and mutliculturalism.
You take all the gain - the self serving pats on the back - and others (not in Norfolk, and with, ahem, probably longer to live) take the pain.
Posted by: Mike Everett | 13 September 2010 at 10:16 AM

@bob sob, 12 Sept, 10.30 am

Allow me to complete your thought process (I’m using the terms loosely here). If the people cannot be trusted not to use their votes to betray the country, clearly they should not be permitted to vote. Government should be left safely in the hands of the “better people”.
Posted by: Thucydides | 13 September 2010 at 09:04 AM

Norfolk Al | 12 September 2010 at 04:48 PM: - "Limited to what, sir? Your time-limits, or to your personal selection?

Not by me at all, but perhaps by concerned parents who are persuaded by the research I referred to; just as they might with their kids' consumption of sweets, late nights, etc.

Posted by: Daniel Heslop | 12 September 2010 at 07:46 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 9

Norfolk Al is correct when he says that Mike " appears to have the minority view that all three main parties are made up of lefties," . The reason it's a minority view is too few of us think for ourselves, and are not content to let the media think for us. So we see their agendas quite clearly. Since most of the media are lefties, and influence the public so strongly with their propaganda, it's natural that most of the politicians have to follow the mainstream (lack of) thought to have a chance of election, which is why today there's little between them, and charisma becomes the quality of a leader, not substance.

This is a big reason why we're so opposed to the BBC in its present form, because of the damage it's poorly thought through but blatantly biased agenda really does.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 18 September 2010 at 11:14 PM

You’ve missed the point a little Mr Everett. I wasn’t answering Mr Bear’s question; I was correcting the comment that followed it. However, since you want an answer, here are two examples from recent panels (information from the BBC’s website, where the programmes can still be viewed):

22nd July 2010: Damian Green, Nigel Farage

1st July 2010: Iain Duncan-Smith, Simon Heffer

And here are some further examples from 2009 (information courtesy of a site called Media Lens, where a list of panels from 2003 to 2009 can be found, colour coded by political affiliation):

1st October: Theresa May, Dr David Starkey

24th September: Lord Heseltine, Fraser Nelson

2nd July: Iain Duncan-Smith, Peter Hitchens

25th June: Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, Kelvin MacKenzie

4th June: Liam Fox, Sir Max Hastings

28th May: Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage

21st May: William Hague, Marta Andreasen

14th May: Theresa May, Benedict Brogan

And so on.

Are you a regular viewer of Question Time, Mr Everett?
Posted by: HM | 18 September 2010 at 07:25 PM

Neil Saunders | 14 September 2010 at 10:51 AM
Thanks Neil, and apologies, I only read your post today.
I have no expertise on the question of whether television and or internet use is harmful or not to the emotional development of young people. I am able to search databases of academic evidence. If you go to PubMed and type in: loneliness [ti] AND internet you will get 12 results. Many of them do not support Dr Sigman’s theory. My point is if you are going to put forward any theory, should you not at least, refer to the “other” evidence?
I have not yet watched the debate between Ben Goldacre and Aric Sigman, and take your word for it that “Aric made the stronger case this time” However having read through the PubMed results above, I have to return a verdict of “Not Proven” for Dr Sigman’s theory.
Posted by: Ian Somerville | 18 September 2010 at 06:44 PM

Teddy Bear (and the rest of your stuffed playmates)

Stop talking twaddle - Question Time: June 10 - Jeremy Hunt, Katie Hopkins and Toby Young on the panel. That's 3 unpleasant rightwhingers (sic). 'Never more than one' indeed. I seem to recall the Hitchmeister himself appearing alongside othe right-inclined individuals on several occasions.

This week the BBC has had wall-to-wall obsequious coverage of His Popiousness's visit - for goodness sake, how is this the action of a left-wing extremist organisation?

Seriously, get a life guys, or change the channel.


Posted by: Scaramouche | 18 September 2010 at 04:25 PM

Mike Everett

"You get more than one left winger on so often..."

Well, those on the far Right may might well think it's par for the course; others might think the panels reflect the percentage of voters who support one of the three main political parties. But then, you appear to have the minority view that all three main parties are made up of lefties, so I can see where you're coming from.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 18 September 2010 at 11:52 AM

Richard, it looks like we were both riding the same wave of nausea. The combination of slimy politicians who should be ashamed of the job they’ve done, the morons who would vote them in again, and Dimbleby and the BBC giving them a free ride in an unashamed party political broadcast was too much to stomach. I could only take 10 minutes of it.

HM – To be accurate, I didn’t make an error, I said “I don’t remember”, which is true. If I was like the BBC I would have stated categorically that there never was. In any event, you pointed out that there was, although you avoided the point about the BBC staff deciding to strike when the Conservatives will be having their party conference for real, and then again during the spending review – how convenient.

Seems all you can do is try to dismiss the examples that you can’t refute with the usual left-wing resort to insults when they have no argument. At least you recognize you’re out of your depth, although you’ll probably go into denial, or just carry on with the insults. Try thinking things through for yourself for a change instead of relying on the BBC to do your thinking for you.
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 17 September 2010 at 11:46 PM

Posted by: HM | 17 September 2010 at 03:38 PM

Mr HM's post is just priceless!

Asked to name a time when more than one 'right winger' was on QT at the same time, he can recall one way back in 2005!
You get more than one leftwinger on so often it's just about par for the course!
But two 'righties'? Well that's so notable lefties will remember the outrage 5 years later!
Brilliant.
Posted by: Mike Everett | 17 September 2010 at 09:31 PM

Hi HM

"Mr Bear’s memory has let him down. David Cameron and David Davis appeared on a special edition of Question Time dedicated to the Tory leadership election, broadcast on 3rd November 2005."

Good point but that was five years ago. I think Mr Bear can be forgiven for that lapse. If the BBC haven't had more than two members of the Tory Party on together for five years that hardly makes them 'balanced'.

Personally I think the BBC are just sloppy overrated journalists who view everything from a lazy liberal standpoint rather than partaking in a deliberate attempt to convert the masses to the Left (although it is certainly possible)!

To be fair the BBC often do show balance but it is usually on Strictly Come Dancing when one of the performers stays on their feet while spinning round the dance floor.

Boom Boom!

Regards

Posted by: Mark | 17 September 2010 at 06:19 PM

“Can you tell me how often have you watched Question Time and seen more than one ‘right-wing’ person on the panel? Tonight there won’t even be one, as they’re all Labour. But I don’t remember the BBC ever doing that for the Conservatives.”

Mr Bear’s memory has let him down. David Cameron and David Davis appeared on a special edition of Question Time dedicated to the Tory leadership election, broadcast on 3rd November 2005.

He could have avoided this error if he’d been prepared to spend a minute checking his facts. Instead he posted his comment here, and included a similar post on his website (sample threads “BBC Bias on Obama’s 9/11 Mosque Site Plan”, “The BBC’s Propaganda for Fundamentalist Islam”, “How the BBC Call Left-Wing BNP Right-Wing” etc.).

As with the comments of BNP man Bob, son of Bob and conspiracy fantasist Guy Reid-Brown, Mr Bear’s blundering rants say much about his own bias, and very little about the BBC.

Posted by: HM | 17 September 2010 at 03:38 PM

I was about to mention BBC radio 2's reporting of some reported small drop in retail sales yesterday which suggested that things would 'get even worse' as a result of the impending 'government spending cuts' - which completely failed to mention why the cuts were happening - not even one short sentence at the end along the lines of of 'the govenment is introducing spending cuts in order to reduce Britain's large deficit'.
I'm not even expecting them to mention that it was Labour's policies that brought this about, although that would be nice.
I'm not expecting them to say that big government is a bad thing per se and that countries with large governments are sluggish and uncompetitive - and that the % of tax the government takes is a good measure of how communist your country is - and that whilst we're busy taxing and interfering our country into economic oblivion, the far east is beating us hands down and will soon be the dominant force in the world - no - I'm not expecting them to tell us the truth that the more your tax and the bigger your government is the worse off you will become - which is the truth that should be stated if fair reporting was being done - I was just hoping for them to say why the government is doing it - 5 or 10 seconds.
But no - they just give you a one minute report that basically says here's another reason why government spending cuts are inherently 'wrong'. (which is basically the Labour Party's position)

-----------------
I notice that in today's Mail Tim Montgomerie has written a whole page about how biased the BBC is - and it looks like they're launching a 'Winge Watch' to list all the times the BBC provides biased anti cut reports in its programs.
So the mail will be listing them all for us by the look of it.
Well done The Mail.
------------------
John Blance and the left will argue with you all day long that the bbc is not biased - but that's what the left DO. They argue and argue and argue until reasonable, sensible people lose the will to live and go and find something better to do with their time. You will never get anywhere arguing with them. That's why the free market solution is always the best - that way we do not have to argue with lefties to get what we want - we just buy it - we vote with our feet - and the lefties can argue until they're blue in the face that they're right and you're wrong.
Only the free market allows their nonsense to be ignored.


Posted by: Mike Everett | 17 September 2010 at 02:48 PM

John Blance, you say “correct me if I am wrong, they are the elected government of Gaza and therefore there views on any IDF incursions/blockades are surely relevant to the reporting of the story”.

“Views” are matters of opinion, not fact.
We mustn’t forget that the German Nazis were an elected government. Numerous Nazi doctors delighted in torturing and performing monstrous medical procedures on death camp inmates. Iran’s government is elected. Would you uncritically accept their “views” as fact, just because they are elected?

The BBC reported Hamas’s statements during Operation Cast Lead as fact, although those statements were uncorroborated, and often later proven to be false. The BBC was particularly fond of uncritically broadcasting statements by a Hamas sympathising front man, a Norweigan doctor whose name escapes me at the moment (maybe another commenter will oblige by posting up his name), as if to imply that a European doctor working in a Gaza hospital couldn’t possibly be biased!


Posted by: Iconoclast | 17 September 2010 at 12:05 PM

Edward Bear,
I started watching the Labour candidates on QT but had to turn it off otherwise I'd have ended up chucking my TV set out of the window.

Posted by: Richard Stewart | 17 September 2010 at 10:14 AM

John Blance

Of course Fox News aren't impartial. They are there to give a right-leaning slant on things to counterbalance the left-leaning views on all the other channels. What's wrong with that?

Posted by: Richard Stewart | 17 September 2010 at 10:12 AM

The slimy BBC are giving the whole of Question Time as a Labour party propaganda event and will be striking when the Conservatives hold their party conference and spending review. Even if you're a Labour party supporter you should be disgusted at how the BBC pretends to be fair and balanced. If you don't think you're paying for it BIG TIME within society for this lame thinking brainwashing machine you delude yourself.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 16 September 2010 at 11:05 PM

Gentlemen

Many thanks for your replies.

Bob, son of Bob:

Thanks for listing those examples. The Great Global Warming Swindle was an interesting programme. It was controversial and provided much food for thought - the kind of documentary that Channel 4 like to make - however, it differed markedly from the coverage of the issue across their news output. This is similar to the BBC's for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.

Also, you mention FOX News. I wonder, do you consider FOX to be impartial?

Iconoclast:

How do you suggest that the BBC, or any other news network, report goings on in the Middle East conflict? What, in your opinion, would constitute unbiased reporting on the issue? Hamas are unsavoury lot, no doubt, but, correct me if I am wrong, they are the elected government of Gaza and therefore there views on any IDF incursions/blockades are surely relevant to the reporting of the story.

Guy Reid-Brown:

Thank you for accepting my point that there is no great difference between the news reporting of all the major TV stations in this country. I didn't think that anyone was even going to address this let alone concede it.

My own personal view is that anyone who holds a strident view that is out of sync with the broad sweep of public opinion could find any of the channels biased. If, for example, you thought that the moon was made of cheese then you might find The Sky At Night to be biased in favour of those who don't. However, the BBC, ITN or SKY can't seriously make programmes about astronomy and give equal airtime to cheesists can they? No, again, for the reasons set out in my first post, their starting point on these issues has to be the weight of scientific evidence and the conventional wisdom. You may not like it, I often don't as well, but that is the way broadcasting in this country works.

Also, you then go on to say that you want the BBC to be biased. Blimey, the wheel really has come full circle now. So bias is bad if it does not reflect your world view but is ok if it does? In the BBC's defence, I would say it does its job as state broadcaster rather well. It gives you live coverage of the state opening of Parliament (you'd probably find that biased if you were a republican), royal weddings and funerals, the remembrance day service at the cenotaph (again, if you were a quaker or CND member you'd probably take offence) and the Last Night of the Proms to name but a few. Goodness me, it even did that rather twee Heroes Concert at Twickenham the other day and still had to cop a load of abuse from The Sun and others saying it was anti-forces.


Posted by: John Blance | 16 September 2010 at 07:49 PM

Many excellent points, thanks guys for entering the fray.
Guy thanks for the praise on the website, feel free to contribute there as well.

John Blance – I directed you to my website which has over a 1000 topics concerning BBC bias. There are many there that DO show how the same subject has been covered differently by other media companies, but with less of a personal agenda,, to show the contrast. If you are sincerely interested in truth, browse the site and judge for yourself. If not, then no amount of debate here is going to make any difference.
You write ", the BBC feels the need to broadcast the feelings of the Palestinian government and citizens”. I’ve no problem with that, but does the BBC in their reports make you aware that any Palestinian who would speak in favour for Israel is liable to be summarily accused of being an Israeli collaborator, taken outside without trial, and publicly gruesomely executed as an example to any others who might wish to go against the ‘party line’? You can Google it if you weren’t already aware of it. Do you not think that this fact would provide a true balance for the view of the Palestinian that is being broadcast?

Did you also know that Israel is the only nation in recorded history to have given back land taken in a defensive war in exchange for peace – not once but twice? Does that balance your initial point about Israel grabbing land? Can you identify ANYTHING the Palestinians have actually done to achieve peace, yet the BBC focus is always to project what Israel has or hasn’t done to reach an agreement, playing perfectly into the Palestinians agenda of ‘give nothing, claim ‘victimisation’, blame the enemy, get something’.

Can you tell me how often have you watched Question Time and seen more than one ‘right-wing’ person on the panel? Tonight there won’t even be one, as they’re all Labour. But I don’t remember the BBC ever doing that for the Conservatives. If you think it’s unfair and complain, you will be fobbed off with some excuse that simply justifies their desired view.

They long ceased to care about the British public, since we are only the poor suckers who HAVE to pay for them, while they have their sights on greater influence and power. How is it you don't get what this is about?
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 16 September 2010 at 05:25 PM

The BBC are currently broadcasting wall to wall coverage of the Pope's visit and it is massively celebratory in tone - as I type Huw Edwards is talking about 'celebration, excitement, thousands and thousands of people taking pictures, a warm welcome - I've never seen anything like it.' He then praises the 'brave, meaningful' speech the Pope gave earlier today.

Funny thing for the 'Leftablishment' to do.

Posted by: Mick | 16 September 2010 at 05:12 PM

John Blance asks for "an example of how the BBC covers a story or issue demonstrably differently to any other broadcaster. I am sorry but it is central to your argument. If you are saying the BBC is so biased as to be made an example of then it stands to reason that you think other broadcasters to be less partial. All I am asking you to do is provide examples of this. Bluntly, I don't think you can because there are not many, if any."

Example 1
This is the debate format for an issue in which each side has editorial control of a programme, for example, each programme could be an hour long and a week or two apart. This is quite different from what we have at present where the BBC likes to impose their own version of ‘impartiality’ by making sure their own types have full editorial control of all programmes.

This happened once when Channel 4 made "The Great Global Warming Swindle". First of all Channel 4 allowed the sceptics to make a programme. Okay so far. Then the BBC came back to present the establishment position. Okay so far. Then Channel 4 replied to the BBC programme….no, cancel that last statement; the debate was ended with the BBC shouting and screaming hysterically, complaining to Ofcom and threatening legal action, and Channel never came back with their reply. This debate format was therefore successfully blocked by the Big Brother Corporation.

Example 2
Listen to FoxNews radio (5pm Friday our time with John Gibson on the internet, for example) and every week a popular theme is the bias of the mainstream media news in the US, similar to the bias of our own TV media news.

Example 3
This is not exactly in the category of broadcaster, but if you go to Youtube and type in Peter Hitchens or Mark Steyn you will see examples of the other side on many issues. For example, Mark Steyn talks about demographics and points out that in less than ten years time half the Russian army will be Muslim.

Example 4
The Channel 4 Dispatches documentary about Muslim extremism that resulted in a police investigation against Channel 4 and an Ofcom inquiry.
This is not the kind of programme the anti-British Broadcasting Corporation would make.

Example 5
ITV 'Tonight: Is Community Service Too Easy?'
An undercover TV investigation showing criminals on community service doing 'nothing at all' for long periods and smoking drugs.
- Not a Blatant Bias Corporation type of programme.

I am not saying Channel 4 and ITV are impartial, as their main news is just part of the mainstream left-wing establishment, and we really do need a Fox News equivalent in Britain to counteract this. But there are pockets within these organisations which make commendable programmes, such as Channel 4 'Dispatches' and ITV 'Tonight'.

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 16 September 2010 at 12:55 PM

John Blance is entirely correct to point out that the News bulletins on every channel are virtually identical. Yep - they are ALL biased, but we have to pay a compulsory tax for the Beeb's particular brand of it. (I don't even bother to buy a newspaper anymore, the Metro is free anyway and covers the same meaningless stuff)

The BBC news bulletin I have now found out did not quote the Cardinal in full, thereby rendering the Archbishop's spiel meaningless in the context.

The BBC lies by omission as much as anything else, and there is no sense whatsoever of the corruption and tyranny that the EU is inflicting on what was once an independent Sovereign State being put under any meaningful scrutiny at all.

The vast power that the EU has accrued over this nation should be directly opposed by the Public Broadcaster.

so yep -I believe the BBC SHOULD bloomin' well be biased - in favour of , um, Britain - that is an entirely alien concept to that entire mindset from the DG down, But why not? There are enough Enemies Within to put the anti-POV, and they are subsidised anyway (I am eagerly awaiting the surely inevitable Newsnight expose of Common Purpose - hoho)

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 16 September 2010 at 12:19 PM

Posted by: John Blance | 15 September 2010 at 05:38 PM
"Other than rant about the BBC and the licence fee you have not provided me with an example of how the BBC covers a story or issue demonstably differently to any other broadcaster."

If I may intrude on another's conversation - fine - let's do it.
I often (i.e. every day day or so, it seems) hear what I think are biased reports (including the ranking of the news item - and the time given to opposing views - who has the last word - and even the strength of the quotes that are selected etc) on BBC radio news (let's deal with radio 2 and 5 as I think they're two of the most popular - and I'm not listening to Radio 1 for anyone).

Given that Peter Hitchens is away and the posts are not moving down too quickly perhaps anyone who's interested in this subject can listen and submit any bias they hear / see and we'll judge how it looks in a few weeks / months?

Posted by: Mike Everett | 16 September 2010 at 10:06 AM

John Blance, you say “the BBC feels the need to broadcast the feelings of the Palestinian government and citizens”. The BBC certainly does that, with brass nobs on. During Operation Cast Lead, the BBC uncritically broacast Hamas’s propaganda as fact.
Posted by: Iconoclast | 16 September 2010 at 09:50 AM

Hello Teddy Bear - had a look at the site and it looks excellent;see my previous post re:the BBC has obviously decided the Catholic Church has an unacceptably 'Right Wing' element. (suffice it to say, the Leftablishment want all opposition to their ideals removed , all brakes on total contraception, gender reversal and so forth moved wholesale) It is ludicrous how even that crass DJ Simon Mayo puts the propaganda across, as in his interview with Tony Blair. God Save Us from pseudo-Christians. (The Radio 2 7am bulletin even gave the Archbishop of Westminster precious airtime to rubbish Cardinal Kaspar for pointing out the truth about Third World Britain and its 'aggressive atheism. Lots of materialistic politically correct cant about diversity etc - it is unrelenting, all this)

Fascinating how the Christian Establishment as represented by the Archbishop does all those things that their own Holy Book warns against - they conform to the Ways of this World, not God, preach False doctrine etc. that should be a whole other topic on its own though. (I am agnostic, but always feel duty bound to defend my cultur's Founding Faith against its own adherents)

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 16 September 2010 at 07:57 AM

Bob, son of Bob

"and once they dominate an institution..."

This really relates to the later thread, but I wonder how you view the comment of an early poster who suggested that his support for any religion would tend to lean towards the Catholic faith as they are 'anti-Left'. It would appear, in terms of crime and punishment and the known actions of many priests in various part of the world, that any signs of the traditional beliefs held by the Right have certainly been dominated by something. But was it the Left?

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 15 September 2010 at 09:52 PM

Teddy Bear

Just a couple of points:

Regarding Israel, I was not saying that I personally believe Israel to be particularly brutal, I was merely suggesting that if one had a particularly pro-Israel viewpoint then you might not like the fact that, in order to provide balance, the BBC feels the need to broadcast the feelings of the Palestinian government and citizens. But, at the risk of labouring the point to an almost excruciating degree, all the other British news outlets tackle the issue in a similar vein. None is particularly pro-Israel and none is particularly pro-Palestinian, because they are not allowed to be by law. To be honest if you were George Galloway arguing the opposite I would disagree with you just as much.

Also, you still haven't really answered my questions. Other than rant about the BBC and the licence fee you have not provided me with an example of how the BBC covers a story or issue demonstably differently to any other broadcaster. I am sorry but it is central to your argument. If you are saying the BBC is so biased as to be made an example of then it stands to reason that you think other broadcasters to be less partial. All I am asking you to do is provide examples of this. Bluntly, I don't think you can because there are not many, if any.

Indeed, I was mindful of this when watching the news just the other night. It concerned the Phil Woolas election story. I watched the BBC news and then followed it up with the ITV equivalent and thought that I was watching almost exactly the same report. They used the same bits of evidence, the same quotes, the same statistic about it being the first time for 99 year that a British election result had been challenged in the courts etc etc. You couldn't with a straight face say that the BBC report was somehow bias and the ITV equivalent the quintessence of impartiality.

Either you are truly worried about bias effecting political discourse in this country, in which case you would have to criticise all channels, or you are miffed about paying the licence fee, in which case you focus only on the Beeb. My point is that, even if you get rid of the BBC you will, as long as OFCOM are in charge, have to endure very similar news output.
Posted by: John Blance | 15 September 2010 at 05:38 PM

Hello Richard - indeed, KW would pop next door to his Mum's if he wanted to watch something, which wasn't often.

There really is no point arguing about BBC bias. It Is What It Is.

This is the 'Pick of the Day' on the Metro TV page today:

'Benedict: Trials of a Pope' BBC2 7PM.

I don't have a cut and paste facility here - just look it up.


I would like to say that the BBC doesn't even pretend to hide its bias, but the Thompson interview is a massive piece of misdirection.

Posted by: Guy Reid-Brown | 15 September 2010 at 12:55 PM

[Teddy Bear]

Page 10

John – It would appear that you really don’t get the main objection to the BBC bias, as opposed to a general bias by much of the media. It’s really not just the licence fee. It’s more the credibility that is endowed to the BBC by virtue of the licence fee. It’s provided on the basis as per its charter that the BBC does its utmost to be fair, impartial, and balanced. Therefore its coverage of a particular topic is expected to be just that, and will be accepted more on that basis than if it was a privately owned company. If it fails chronically to be able to do that, whether because of an internal mindset or purposeful personal agenda THEN IT SHOULD BE SCRAPPED – not fit for purpose. Otherwise the damage it can do is far greater than any of the other media, which one can take with a pinch of salt.

This might force people to not so blindly accept what the media says, but really think for themselves. As much as you might not agree with the viewpoint of Fox news, at least it gives an alternative which can also be considered. Whether or not the BBC continues in a private capacity, or completely shuts down, I really couldn’t care less. It definitely needs to be neutered for the benefit of our society.

To again use the Police as an example; they are given powers over and beyond that of a private security company, and are compulsorily paid by us to follow a strict procedure in carrying out their duties. If they were found to be continually and generally corrupt, do you think they should still be endowed with those powers?

For your further information, I know all my rights in regard to not having to pay for the BBC, regardless of whatever a present or future government might decide to do with them. I would advise anybody wishing to know theirs in this respect to visit the BBC Resistance website.

Finally, while it is entirely probable that there are many issues that you and I view differently, I think you would have to agree that is is certainly stimulating to have other views, which is why I guess you have entered into this discourse. If the only information you have on a subject comes from the same source, designed to reach a particular objective in a certain way, but there are other factors to be considered and worked out, why wouldn't you also want that to be part of your decision making process? Perhaps there is a need for more media like Fox to achieve that objective.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 28 September 2010 at 06:22 PM

Teddy Bear

Well, like I've pointed out before, if we did get rid of the BBC, as long as TV was as strictly regulated as it is at the moment, what replaced it would be very similar to everything else. You have conceded that TV News is very derivative in this country and appear only to object to the fact that you have to pay for the BBC blandness and not that of its commercial competitors. Fine, but under current rules anything that replaced the BBC would be by and large the same. If you thought TV news was biased before then you would also in the future.

I am as convinced as I can be that what yourself and those who agree with you are really worried about is not bias per se, but - as Guy Ried-Brown let slip in an earlier post - the lack of a broadcasting station that openly cheerleads for conservatism. If we privatised the BBC and deregulated the broadcast media we would undoubtedly get a proliferation of stations a bit like Fox News in the US. You may well be very happy about that, but you can't honestly say that it would be more impartial than the BBC? It may chime with your own views, but that, I venture to suggest, is not the same as being unbiased.

Posted by: John Blance | 27 September 2010 at 05:59 PM

Tarquin:
If I subject Hislop to the same left/right test that the BBC subjects potential audience members of Question Time to, ‘whether they support the Iraq Invasion or not’, then Hislop has made sure of his continued appearances on the BBC.

As for Dimbleby, you’d have to not be able to think outside the BBC box to need proof of his ‘leanings’. Otherwise all you’d need to see is which of the ‘unknown’ points raised by the audience are summarily dismissed and moved on, and which allowed to be expanded. Who is grilled, and who given a free ride.

Re your attempt at being patronising over 3 party politics, if I was sincerely trying to give an alternative argument to Lib-Dem policies following their conference, I would have made sure there was a genuine right-wing perspective to give a counter, and not two additional left wing voices to merely express nuances.

In case you’re wondering, I’m really not surprised you don’t get it – it’s built in.
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 26 September 2010 at 12:53 AM

Teddy Bear says: "Having one REAL rightwing voice on the Question Time panel being ridiculed by 4+1 leftwing voices, not to mention a largely leftwing audience carefully selected by the BBC, means their points will be ignored or dismissed when they might be eminently valid. If the BBC were really doing their job they would ensure that there were minimally 2 REAL right wing voices on their panel on each programme as well as a balance in their audience"

This sums up Question Time and, like the Emperor's clothes, everyone can see it but some have to go through a charade of pretending it is in some way remotely balanced.

And Teddy Bear says: "I can easily understand why the left-wingers want to retain the BBC, as it fits perfectly into their either devious or plain ignorant agenda."

This raises the question - how much better would the country now be if the other side had been transmitted for, say, one hour a week for the past few decades? I believe that one hour of the truth can often easily cancel out a hundred hours of lies. The reason is that the ways of the left are inherently unpopular (apart from wealth redistribution) and need intense media backing to keep voters voting for them.

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 26 September 2010 at 12:07 AM

John: I can’t really comment on any depth about an interview I didn’t hear or know in what context it was given. If the chief of police is saying that crime has gone up because of political policies forcing police off the streets, can anybody really dispute that this will be a factor? One (like myself) might go on to add that crime has also increased because of the mindset generated in this society as a result of failed social engineering, and lack of morality and ethics by supposed ‘role models’. Whereas Peter Hitchens might also agree with the latter statement as well, it’s questionable whether Humphrey’s would. So the fact that Humphreys agrees with Hitchens on one of the elements, doesn’t mean they have the same perspective. It could also be that Humphreys agrees so readily with the statement of the police chief to avoid focus on the other, especially if the point was made to bring the issue of cuts by the present government into question. Then Humphreys has an ulterior motive in voicing agreement.

To the second point, somebody wrote a humorous comment a few years ago that said when the BBC was told it needed to be independent as part of its mandate, it didn’t mean that it had to imitate the newspaper by the same name.

What you don’t seem to get is that the BBC receives funding on the basis of fulfilling certain criteria. For the BBC then to get that funding and instead of fulfilling that criteria to the best of its ability, merely behaves like many of the other privately funded media, is not doing the job it was set up to do, and should then be sold off. I’ve already given the example of police vs private security firms, and which one would you expect to be more lawful, and which disappoints more if they’re not? The very fact that you say the BBC’s output is similar to many of the other media outlets, shows the BBC is NOT making effort to do what they are paid to do, and is an acknowledgement of their bias. So why are we forced to pay for them?
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 25 September 2010 at 06:48 PM

Teddy Bear

Thanks for your response.

I was particularly interested by the Today interview in the context of the discussion that we are currently having. It was eyebrow-raising because essentially Mr Humphrys seemed to agree wholeheartedly with a point of view expressed not only by the Chief Inspector of Police Forces but also by Mr Hitchens in his book. Now, Mr Hitchens likes to portray himself as a lone and authentic conservative voice crying in a wilderness created by the left-wing establishment/liberal elite (delete as appropriate) so I thought it pertinent to mention something I heard on the supposed mouthpiece of this left-wing conspiracy, the BBC, essentially sympathising with the Hitchens/conservative line. It was rather ironic, that's all.

In respect of your other points:

I think it is really rather ridiculous of you to suggest that just because I refuse to believe that the BBC is more or less biased than any other broadcasting outlet in this country then I am therefore either (a) in thrall to whatever I see there or (b) a "lefty."

As I pointed out in previous posts, I am not always in agreement with every position taken on the BBC (on issues such as AGW and abortion I could quite easily be described as a conservative) but, like I said before, all the broadcasting institutions in this country are, by force of law and the marketplace, shoehorned into a kind of bland formulaic centrism. As the centre of gravity changes in society on a certain issue, so too does the attitude of the broadcasters.

Posted by: John Blance | 25 September 2010 at 02:52 PM

How better for Question Time to give a balanced and fair view in Liverpool this evening of the recent Lib-Dem conference than invite the following to the panel.
David Dimbleby – BBC Chairman of the debate - LEFT
Vince Cable – Lib Dem – Naturally LEFT
Caroline Flint – Labour – LEFT
Ian Hislop – Private Eye Editor who thinks he’s a comedian – LEFT
Mehdi Hasan – New Statesman Senior Editor – LEFT
John Redwood – Conservative MP – As far right as it’s going to be, and definitely outnumbered.

Teddy Bear

Oh, do stop ranting - first and foremost, how is Hislop left? That's just ridiculous, he's certainly not far-right, but I wasn't aware that put you in socialism territory, please show me one leftist policy he supports (that isn't support by the 'right', in case we're pedantic on this)

Dimbleby is a frequent complaint - I would like some proof of his leanings, and in particular the evidence of these views in his role as chair - wouldn't matter if he were a communist if he chaired impartially

As for Cable - three party politics, my dear - would you like to vet the Lib Dems' choice each week so that an appropriately 'right' speaker was on?

fed it...

Posted by: Tarquin | 24 September 2010 at 11:13 PM

How better for Question Time to give a balanced and fair view in Liverpool this evening of the recent Lib-Dem conference than invite the following to the panel.
David Dimbleby – BBC Chairman of the debate - LEFT
Vince Cable – Lib Dem – Naturally LEFT
Caroline Flint – Labour – LEFT
Ian Hislop – Private Eye Editor who thinks he’s a comedian – LEFT
Mehdi Hasan – New Statesman Senior Editor – LEFT
John Redwood – Conservative MP – As far right as it’s going to be, and definitely outnumbered.

Now let somebody tell me you’re proud of the fair and balanced coverage given by the BBC as demonstrated here, and that if you were ever on trial you would like a jury with the same balanced and fair composition.

Even if I was of the left persuasion I would be ashamed of what the BBC call fair and balanced. Any wonder our society is in the state it is?
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 23 September 2010 at 08:25 PM

John Blance, I’ll give you my take on your post. Others might see it differently.
“How do we know you’re a lefty?”, is the first of your questions. I can assure you any alternative would be worse.
A lefty means that you agree with the propaganda put out by the BBC, and feel any nuances they might project on any given issue makes them fair and balanced. So for example the human impact of ‘global warming’ is a given fact, and only the methods of dealing with it need to be aired to make it ‘balanced’. For the BBC if you don’t agree with the premise then you are a denier or sceptic, or have a political agenda to deny it.

An alternative reason somebody might support the BBC in its existing mindset is because it can be seen how negative it is for the society, and wishes to bring that society down. You may well be in the latter group, but we give you the benefit of the doubt.

You raise a point about an interview you heard today of the head of police who admitted that over the last 30-40 years crime has risen because of the police retreat from the beat to desks. The interviewer then praised him for his candour and bravery, or whatever. You feel this demonstrates balance by the BBC, which in this instance might well be the case.

Actually, the very fact that this event happened made an impact on you, which is why you even mention it. This already indicates that you are aware of the usual way this subject is covered by the Beeb. What doesn’t seem to impact on you is what has been happening then for the last 30-40 years that the BBC has not reported to have made this point long ago before it became the issue it has? Why hasn’t an issue been made of this long before now? Surely this is part of their remit in being ‘independent of the government’ to show that this is what is really happening because of political manipulation of the police.

So if you want to be seen as a seeker of truth, as opposed to a lefty blindly accepting the ‘correct thought’ of the BBC in whatever they want to profligate, perhaps you will ask yourself whether this point should make you reflect on why you believe what you believe, and whether there may be a genuine reason to be concerned.
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 23 September 2010 at 07:35 PM

Gentlemen

Sorry I haven't replied for a while. Apologies to Mr Everett for arguing my case - apparently "lefties" like me do it all the time to induce an unwillingness to live among the enlightened masses. No, Sir, I do it because I have as much right to debate on here as you do and as long as people make silly remarks about British broadcasting and the BBC in particular, I will.

Also, how do you, and indeed others on here purport to know that I am a "lefty?" Is it not possible to try and asses the case for and against bias at the BBC from an objective standpoint?

And the Question Time argument is a little obtuse as well. HM has dealt with it very succintly and well but, just to labour my point still further, I am as certain as I can be that were ITV or Sky to broadcast a programme like Question Time then we would have a broadly similar ideological make-up of panellists.

And another thing. Driving in to work today listening to Today on Radio 4 I heard John Humphrys interviewing Sir Denis O'Connor, the head of HM Police Inspectorate, about the issue of anti-social behaviour and the police force's alleged inability or unwillingness to tackle it. Sir Denis's point was essentially akin to that expressed by Mr Hitchens in his book A Brief History of Crime/The Abolition of Liberty: namely that, over the past thirty or forty years the police have retreated from the streets into patrol cars and behind desks to the detriment of crime prevention in this country. Humphrys basically gave him the chance to state his and HM inspectorate's view before ending the interview praising his common sense and rounded it all off by saying and I quote: "Give that man a medal!" I wonder if Mr Hitchens, Mr Everett, Bob Son of Bob or Teddy Bear were listening?

Posted by: John Blance | 23 September 2010 at 02:46 PM

Bob soB - that's an excellent encapsulation - well done.

Posted by: Teddy Bear | 22 September 2010 at 06:54 PM

Mike: I can well believe that you understand already why the lefties posting here resort to insults and interpreting your writings emotionally rather than intelligently and logically, but I’ll answer it anyway. Basically, they can’t respond any other way. There whole mindset and worldview lacks the vision to see what’s wrong with their argument. So when confronted by solid facts and evidence that show this, since they have no other ‘comeback’, they resort to attempted ridicule of the other view.

You can witness it as well with HM, and a few previous (leftwing) posters here, besides your ‘Norfolk Al’. I’d also really rather they confined their replies to logic and reason – taking ALL of the points raised together, rather than select the few isolated ones without context to try and ridicule. But I do understand why they’re really unable to do that, and the frustration they exhibit is the victory we have to content ourselves with for the time being.

What the likes of HM doesn’t seem able to grasp is that the BBC is not paid to represent a certain side or the other but to provide balance. The fact that Thompson has admitted to a MASSIVE LEFT WING BIAS from 30 years ago, means this will have influenced the public and therefore the politics of today. It is completely disingenuous to claim that this bias has been addressed when there is not only any evidence of it, but vast amounts to the contrary. If for no other reason than the BBC still spends the vast amount of their job advertising budget at the Guardian, then he must believe we’re really stupid to be taken in by mere assurances.

The reason the 3 main parties are leftist is largely due to the power of a leftist media, dominated by the LEFTWING BBC still with the MASSIVE BIAS. Having one REAL rightwing voice on the Question Time panel being ridiculed by 4+1 leftwing voices, not to mention a largely leftwing audience carefully selected by the BBC, means their points will be ignored or dismissed when they might be eminently valid. If the BBC were really doing their job they would ensure that there were minimally 2 REAL right wing voices on their panel on each programme as well as a balance in their audience. If they can’t do this then the licence fee should be abolished because they are not providing the service they should. I can easily understand why the left-wingers want to retain the BBC, as it fits perfectly into their either devious or plain ignorant agenda. It’s therefore not surprising that the problems inherent in our present society are as they are, as whether conscious or not, beings really know the BS foisted on us. The irony is additionally having to pay for the forces making that BS sound plausible.
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 22 September 2010 at 03:59 PM

Thucydides the Modest thinks it is not self evident that the BBC leans to the left, and John Blanc says they are in sync with the broad sweep of public opinion.

One way to define left-wing on a particular issue is to arrange everyone on a spectrum of their opinions from 1 (left wing) to 10 (right wing), and the middle view (the 'median' in statistical terms) at position '5' defines the left/right divide, so higher than '5' is right wing, less than '5' is left wing, and '5' is neutral. For example, if we consider the recent convoy of ships with aid for Gaza, the view at '5' might be that the convoy was a peace convoy, simply bringing supplies such as medicines and wheelchairs.

However, one important factor has been omitted from this calculation of what is left/right on the convoy issue, and that is the presentation of both sides. If the other side on the convoy had been presented on the TV with equal prominence to the BBC view, the opinion that it was a peace convoy would probably move down to take up position 1 or 2 on the left. Now the median opinion at '5' would be that the ships were obviously hate convoys. So as a realignment of what is left/right can often occur when both sides are aired, a true definition of what is right/left is the median opinion *once both sides have been aired*.

Using this definition of informed median opinion as a reference point, the BBC is, in my opinion, usually to be found at positions 1 to 2 on the scale. The single exception is with regard to wealth redistribution, as this has a large following.

So the BBC seeks to prevent both sides being aired in an attempt to push all the opinions which actually belong at 1 and 2, up to the 5 mark by presenting one side only. I am not saying they always achieve the magnificent 100% bias mark if you include comments in interviews or news items or political discussion programmes (Question Time, for example, only reaches 90% bias), eg Peter Hitchens himself often is included in these types of programme, (briefly, and outnumbered).

But if you consider the format type of a documentary presented by one side followed by a documentary presented by the other side, I think the BBC can always claim the 100% mark has been achieved in all discussions of crime, the EU, school discipline, school exams, AGW, social worker child abductions, local council corruption, immigration, the removal of 'England' from official forms.

Channel 4 used this format for AGW once, and the BBC did not like it at all. In fact they went hysterical. They much prefer each programme to be fully monitored by their own and therefore they steer clear of the documentary format I describe like a vampire avoids the light, even though it is obviously the fairest method.

Posted by: Bob, son of Bob | 22 September 2010 at 11:42 AM

“Why out of a panel of usually 5 ... should there be no more than two from the right?”

Well, because Question Time is based on British party politics, which means one seat each for the three main parties. This leaves two seats, one of which is usually filled by a journalist, with the other seat going to the smaller parties, or to some other suitable person, such as a leading business figure or trade unionist. It would be a little odd if the journalist were to be always someone from the right, so most programmes will inevitably have only one or two right wingers.

This isn’t bias; it’s a reasonable reflection of political reality. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are, after all, separate and competitive entities. Identifying them both together as “the left” may seem sound to a blog-dweller like Mr Bear, but it’s clearly not appropriate for Question Time.

“Also it would appear from the dates furnished, that even this is not every programme.”

Quite true, it wasn’t. Why should it be?

“I’m also not surprised that HM would be familiar with Medialens. Check out the site to see their agenda.”

I’m not familiar with Media Lens, and I’ve no idea what their “agenda” is; I found the page using Google.

“Finally, the other proof of BBC bias demonstrated here is how it is the lefties who defend it. What does that tell you?”

Not much, really. The real pattern seems to be this: the stronger your ideological commitment, the more likely you are to think the BBC is biased. Mr Bear - who gives us much blinkered fervour, but little reliable analysis - is an exemplar of this.

Posted by: HM | 22 September 2010 at 09:08 AM

….’Wall to wall coverage’ of the Pope’s visit actually involved 14 hours of programming over 5 days including the one for 3 hours meeting the Queen. We’ve had more snooker than that in one day.

In any event, the double standard and bias of the BBC is highlighted as they produced 2 programmes, Panorama and another documentary ‘Benedict, Trials of a Pope’, on the eve of the Pope’s visit to make sure the public was aware of the paedophilia surrounding the church. For sure, the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church might not agree with many people, but there are certainly more positive viewpoints than those presented, which the BBC has a duty to do in order to be fair and balanced.

I can’t believe that if it was a visiting top Muslim dignitary coming to Britain that the BBC would air a similar negative programme just preceding it. They don’t even want to publish those stories even when they’re news.

Posted by: Teddy BEar | 21 September 2010 at 04:51 PM

'Successive Tory governments have left most state education in the hands of the Left. And they continue to do so. '

Hence we get programmes like 'Unequal Opportunities' fronted by John Humphrys, shown last night on BBC2. It still amazes me that some people continue to believe that the Comprehensive system can or does work. The point of this programme seemed to be simply to reinforce the existing pro-Comprehensive bias of the BBC (in a show fronted by an ex-Grammar school boy, how ironic!). There was no mention of academic selection as a force for good in terms of social mobility, just the typical carping about the difference in attainment between Independent and State schools (with no hard evidence as to why this was the case ie use of traditional teaching methods, strong discipline, parental involvement). There was no discussion of the structure of our school system just the assumption that Comprehensives work, end of story (Not even the suggestion that there should be different schools to teach different things based on the idea that children are NOT all the same) This point of view was supported by a visit to a very un-typical Comprehensive school, Mossbourne Academy with its immaculate uniforms and behaviour and Grammar school level attainment.
All in all depressing stuff.

Posted by: Jason Jones | 21 September 2010 at 02:15 PM

Al says - (re socialist Abbott's decision to avoid state comps in her area):
"I suspect she made her decision about the choice of schools on the basis of what she felt was best for her child. Many parents make similar decisions. In her position, it rightly left her wide open to criticism."

No Al - I don't accept that bland, non judgenmental, ambiguous answer. Your'e always the first to accuse anyone on here of 'racism' - so your reluctance to comment on this case is slightly 'unusual'.
I'd like to know what you think of the following sentense...

"I knew what could happen if my son went to the wrong school and got in with the wrong crowd. They are subjected to peer pressure and when that happens it’s very hard for a mother to save her son. Once a black boy is lost to the world of gangs it’s very hard to get them back."

Is Abbott a racist when she makes these kind of stereotypical remarks about black boys?
Yes or no - and why?

Perhaps we should test your levels of 'racism' on various awkward issues and see whether you pass the racist test? It's the easiest thing in the world for people like you to smear others, whilst never being questioned yourself - so let's see how you get on with some tricky little ones.

Posted by: Mike Everett | 21 September 2010 at 11:23 AM

Just a further comment on the BBC. Somebody, at the outset of this debate, suggested that the BBC was 'agin' the Catholic Church because that body was anti-Left. The almost wall-to-wall coverage of the Papal visit - and most of it pretty complimentary - would suggest a balanced and neutral stance on what was a major news item.
Likewise, the comprehensive coverage of The Battle of Britain is a solid response to those who like to accuse the BBC of anti-British attitudes.

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 21 September 2010 at 09:31 AM

Mike Everett

Just to get back to the subject of debate - I think it was something about the BBC, bias and the make up of QT panels - I will answer your question about 'socialist' Abbott. I suspect she made her decision about the choice of schools on the basis of what she felt was best for her child. Many parents make similar decisions. In her position, it rightly left her wide open to criticism.
Back to my points on the subject matter... Roughly 90% of voters vote for those you term the Left, so why should there be more than one person representing your view of the Right on any panel? Of course, it might be that Hitchens, Heffer or Phillips - or any of the others whose names were listed in a previous post - are in your view not up to Griffin standards.

If I fail to answer, please don't think I have 'slunk' away - I'm off to Yorkshire for the rest of the week.
Posted by: Norfolk Al | 20 September 2010 at 08:07 PM

It has been recognized for quite some time, including in May by Peter Hitchens here, that the Conservative party abandoned real right wing policies in favour of the leftist ones that much of our media foist upon us, making them centrist at best. Therefore to classify a Conservative politician as a right-wing viewpoint is as erroneous as calling a BBC journalist fair and balanced. A right wing viewpoint would state that ousting Saddam and his regime was totally right, and would go on to get rid of a few others that threatened our society. The first part by the way is one of the questions asked by the BBC in a questionnaire to determine and control the make-up of their audience for Question Time.

Left wing believes that one can appease those who seek to undermine our society, be it extremists or criminals. They seek change, more for their ego to feel powerful, without really looking at the complete ramifications of what those changes will mean. When showed their thinking is flawed, and usually their facts, and that their ‘solutions’ do not achieve their intended goal, they blame ANYBODY and ANYTHING but themselves.

Without even exploring the real ‘right’ credentials of those names HM has furnished from previous Question Time panels, he has himself proved BBC bias. Why out of a panel of usually 5, not to mention leftie presenter Dimbleby himself who selects the questions that will be asked, and how they will be covered, should their be no more than two from the right? Also it would appear from the dates furnished, that even this is not every programme. I’m also not surprised that HM would be familiar with Medialens. Check out the site to see their agenda.

Finally, the other proof of BBC bias demonstrated here is how it is the lefties who defend it. What does that tell you?
Posted by: Teddy Bear | 20 September 2010 at 07:37 PM

Norfolk Al: this chap really does just go in for personal put downs doesn't he, whenever he gets himself into a tight spot.
So I'm either ‘angry’ or 'unpleasant', but when you ask him to pinpoint this, he can't.

I asked Al to pinpoint the ‘anger’, and he says
"I feel your opening words answer your first question concerning 'anger', "

Well if I can try and guess what that means, he either means the very first post I made on this issue
"Only the free market gives people what they want, in the proportions that they want it."
So no anger there, or he means this latest one
""...back again, are we?"
Anyone else think that's 'angry'?

That was simply to point out that Al trailed me around again (I seem to attract them) on this blog as usual trying to score his usual cheap personal (unpleasant?) putdowns when I simply argued against the BBC (I’m ‘angry’ or "suffer from deep political angst" etc) but after I asked him to pinpoint the ‘anger’ or give his view on Abbott, he just gave up, but then popped back again a couple of days later to have another ‘go’ at me (again unprovoked).

I can assure you Al that I am a quite pleasant person to meet thank you, but thanks for your standard putdown tactic.
I would try not to respond in kind but it seems it’s all you deal in.

Al's an insufferable hypocrit who’s retired to a – ahem - ‘quiet’ corner of England and now pokes his finger at anyone who disagrees with immigration in an effort to make himself look like a better person than others.

It's one of his standard daily ‘feel good’ tactics now that he's no longer a buying director for retail company. Having witnessed/received his 'I'm a better person than you' tactics for several years when in tricky spots, he either resorts to well-practiced personal putdowns and ‘racist!’ smears, or starts telling people of his ‘wealth of experience’ in life, in an effort to pull some sort of rank on his opponent that his debating points were not able to deliver - and which he was obviously sadly missing now that he was no longer a manager (what does he think the rest of us are?) it’s a common trait of managerial level retirees, once they no longer have any staff to ‘instruct’.
So now he visits this blog with his constant easy ‘racist’ putdowns of anyone who disagrees with him on immigration which I've told him countless times, I disagree with primarily because of economic considerations.
Then when I ask him to say if socialist Abbott is ‘racist’ for using private education rather send her son to a local school where black boys regularly stab each, he won’t give an opinion.
So come on Al, let's hear it, please point out the original angry sentences and let’s hear your view on Abbott, don't just swerve the issue because it's awkward for you.

Posted by: Mike Everett | 20 September 2010 at 03:29 PM

I am so frustrated with Peter Hitchens.

Every article he writes is full of misery and negativity. As a supposed Christian, surely he should be joyous, happy, forgiving & able to turn the other cheek. Week after week his column is venomous, nasty & vindictive.

He's obviously a clever guy, but if he wants to proclaim his Christianity, can he be more positive & happy about it.

I prefer his brother.

Posted by: gary jappy | 20 September 2010 at 12:19 PM

Mike Everett

"...back again, are we?"

Yes, indeed, it is me, and still living in 99.9% white Norfolk...

I feel your opening words answer your first question concerning 'anger', although I'm quite happy to switch to 'unpleasant' as an adjective included in any description of your posts.
As to Diane Abbott, I really have no idea. I know she is one of the candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party, but I have not been following any of the recent coverage of that event.
On the subject of panels and representation, I would suggest that the mix, as others have suggested, is much in line with the voting habits of the nation ie. if around 90% of those who vote do so for the Big Three, then the representation is about right. The fact that the BNP and Griffin seldom make it is clearly an irritation to you, but again, as others have said, there are several representative of the Right who appear quite regularly. It seems they are not saying what you would like to hear. Is Griffin the spokesperson for the Right that best matches your views?

Posted by: Norfolk Al | 19 September 2010 at 05:48 PM

Posted by: HM | 18 September 2010 at 07:25 PM

Fair point HM. Although I note your list was not comprehensive but selective, and I couldn't find the report you mentioned on Media Lens.
To be honest I'm no longer a regular watcher of Question Time as I stopped watching it a few years back when there always seemed to be lefties on than righties - and I seemed to notice that Dimbleby was more inclined to favour the lefties in terms of how much time he granted them, their rights of reply, and how much he interrupted. The Griffin episode was a disgrace (from wherever your standpoint if you believe in fair debate) and after that I began to watch it even less.
It looks like they're trying not to upset the Tories too much these days though - obviously watching their backs for the moment until normal service can be resumed.
However, my main point was not about QT - it was about the news - and Radio 2s rush hour news (where a lot of people get their news from) is especially biased.

But - my other main point is that I simply do not agree with having to fund a television station that I perceive to be biased. I don't mind bias in the free market where people can choose which biased newspaper or magazine they read - but why should we be forced to fund a biased state broadcaster?

(And I can turn the channel scaramouche thanks - but I'm still paying for it).

Posted by: Mike Everett | 19 September 2010 at 12:49 PM

Oh hello Al - back again are you?

Having slunk away and given up when I asked you to point out where I'd shown anger etc on my posts (your comment) and when I'd asked you whether you thought Diane Abbott was a racist or realist ('racist!' being one of your favourite insults) - and I graciously didn't follow you around insisting on an answer - here you pop up again ready for another dig! (in that case I re-raise those two questions for you).

I say there is often more than one 'lefty' on because you often get more than one of the following... labour party spokesman, a trade unionist, some kind of 'equalities' spokesman, someone from the greens or a flamboyant left leaning police chief etc.
Only ever once a BNP person of course - in that well remembered fair and balanced debate.

The panel is often balanced towards the left - even if you do the Lib Dems a favour and say they're in the 'centre' - there are usually more panellists to the left of the Lib Dem 'mid centre' than there are to the right of the Lib Dem 'mid centre'.

And of course the audience seems to be self selecting towards happy clappy seals of leftwing youthful activism.

Posted by: Mike Everett | 19 September 2010 at 10:41 AM