Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 29, 2013 17:11:24 GMT
It's a very common deception used by the BBC to promote their chosen line.
BBC Watch has noted many times that 'independent expert' guests used by the BBC to explain or discuss events between Israel and the Palestinians, are anything but, and have their own recognised agenda. The BBC however makes no mention of the specific interests of that individual to promote a certain view. In this way the BBC makes it look like they're being impartial when they're purposefully using guests with known agendas under the guise of independent.
Their most recent one is here, but they've also done an excellent breakdown on the different NGOs used by the BBC without proper attribution of their agendas.
2 stories today highlight the same insidious deception to promote the BBC agenda, one from Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph, and the other from Steerpike at The Spectator.
And here's Steerpike's observations:
BBC Watch has noted many times that 'independent expert' guests used by the BBC to explain or discuss events between Israel and the Palestinians, are anything but, and have their own recognised agenda. The BBC however makes no mention of the specific interests of that individual to promote a certain view. In this way the BBC makes it look like they're being impartial when they're purposefully using guests with known agendas under the guise of independent.
Their most recent one is here, but they've also done an excellent breakdown on the different NGOs used by the BBC without proper attribution of their agendas.
2 stories today highlight the same insidious deception to promote the BBC agenda, one from Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph, and the other from Steerpike at The Spectator.
Is there a creature in discovered space more close-minded than a self-conscious liberal?
By Daniel Hannan
By all means have Brussels cheerleaders on air – but let's have a declaration of interest
All human beings have their assumptions, their biases. But there is something vast and indestructible about the bias of those who have convinced themselves that they, unlike the rest of us, have risen above perspective to inhabit a world of pure facts.
It's amazing how often we let them get away with it, too. Plenty of people believe, for example, that the Economist is more impartial than the Daily Mail or the Guardian. In fact, all three papers have their prejudices. Name an issue and I'll tell you, with 80 per cent certainty, where each of them will stand on it. Sure, they can all surprise us on occasion, but the Economist is no less predictable than the others. The only difference is that it goes through a little on-the-one-hand-on-the-other routine before reaching the conclusion that you knew at the outset it would.
Don't be fooled by an Olympian tone. High-minded centrists, just like Marxists or libertarians or Islamic fundamentalists, incline instinctively to certain conclusions, and then rationalise those conclusions to themselves. As Jonathan Haidt would put it, their elephant (their intuition) leans, and its mahout (their conscious mind) scampers around seeking to explain that lean with suitable facts.
The brilliant Tom Chivers hilariously satirised the attitude of what he calls "the self-righteous vacillating centrist stats bore" – a label he cheerfully applies to himself. For a long time, I thought his blogpost was a parody. Then I came across Jonathan Portes, who runs the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.
The NIESR is a think-tank whose conclusions fall safely and predictably into the soft-Left BBC-approved part of the political spectrum: EU good, austerity bad, immigration good, bonuses bad, etc. Fair enough: we all, as I say, have our prejudices. What is unique about Mr Portes, though, is the almost unbelievable pomposity of his tone, his insistence that he deals only with facts and leaves opinions to others. He has been in overdrive recently, attacking critics of EU immigration, in language which one can't imagine from his predecessors at what used to be a staid and serious think-tank.
I asked him on Twitter how much money he got from the EU, and whether he thought it would cough up if his reports didn't support British membership. He did get money from Brussels, he admitted, but he took no position on EU membership. It's amazing how many people think that they can make something true simply by stating it.
One of my local newspaper editors was an energetic Lib Dem supporter who used to give regular slots to Chris Huhne, then an MEP. Whenever I asked whether I might reply, he'd say "No, we've had enough from MEPs recently". So how come he always made space for the Lib Dems, I'd ask. "We are a non-partisan newspaper," he'd say, as though that closed the issue.
In fact, Mr Portes strongly supports EU membership (see here and here, for example). If he didn't, as I suspect he is well aware, he wouldn't get hundreds of thousands of pounds a year from Brussels. But rather than fully acknowledging the fact – and no one is suggesting that he didn't already support the EU before it started paying him – he went into paroxysms, pointing to some report where the NIESR had criticised the EU's austerity programme, and then demanding, in his inimitably narcissistic way, an apology. So frenzied and frequent were his Tweets, and so petulant their tone – have a look at his timeline – that for a moment I thought his account had been hacked by a child. I kept waiting for him to sign off with "And anyway, @danhannanmep, you're a great big lying liar!!!"
None of this would matter if Mr Portes were not regularly trotted out, especially by the BBC, as representing some sort of neutral position. I've remarked before on how the most effective bias often comes in how studio guests are introduced: "Joining us now are Mr Blue, a Right-wing controversialist, and Mr Red, a distinguished academic…"
There will be more and more of this sort of thing in the run-up to any membership referendum. The EU firehoses a great deal of money at think-tanks, Jean Monnet professors, pressure groups and NGOs. When it does, we should be told. It may influence the recipients, or it may not; but surely it's only reasonable for the information to be put before viewers and listeners.
Mr Portes's organisation gets a great deal of money from the EU, and supports British membership of the EU. Fine: good luck to it. But, please, spare us the self-righteous tone.
By Daniel Hannan
By all means have Brussels cheerleaders on air – but let's have a declaration of interest
All human beings have their assumptions, their biases. But there is something vast and indestructible about the bias of those who have convinced themselves that they, unlike the rest of us, have risen above perspective to inhabit a world of pure facts.
It's amazing how often we let them get away with it, too. Plenty of people believe, for example, that the Economist is more impartial than the Daily Mail or the Guardian. In fact, all three papers have their prejudices. Name an issue and I'll tell you, with 80 per cent certainty, where each of them will stand on it. Sure, they can all surprise us on occasion, but the Economist is no less predictable than the others. The only difference is that it goes through a little on-the-one-hand-on-the-other routine before reaching the conclusion that you knew at the outset it would.
Don't be fooled by an Olympian tone. High-minded centrists, just like Marxists or libertarians or Islamic fundamentalists, incline instinctively to certain conclusions, and then rationalise those conclusions to themselves. As Jonathan Haidt would put it, their elephant (their intuition) leans, and its mahout (their conscious mind) scampers around seeking to explain that lean with suitable facts.
The brilliant Tom Chivers hilariously satirised the attitude of what he calls "the self-righteous vacillating centrist stats bore" – a label he cheerfully applies to himself. For a long time, I thought his blogpost was a parody. Then I came across Jonathan Portes, who runs the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.
The NIESR is a think-tank whose conclusions fall safely and predictably into the soft-Left BBC-approved part of the political spectrum: EU good, austerity bad, immigration good, bonuses bad, etc. Fair enough: we all, as I say, have our prejudices. What is unique about Mr Portes, though, is the almost unbelievable pomposity of his tone, his insistence that he deals only with facts and leaves opinions to others. He has been in overdrive recently, attacking critics of EU immigration, in language which one can't imagine from his predecessors at what used to be a staid and serious think-tank.
I asked him on Twitter how much money he got from the EU, and whether he thought it would cough up if his reports didn't support British membership. He did get money from Brussels, he admitted, but he took no position on EU membership. It's amazing how many people think that they can make something true simply by stating it.
One of my local newspaper editors was an energetic Lib Dem supporter who used to give regular slots to Chris Huhne, then an MEP. Whenever I asked whether I might reply, he'd say "No, we've had enough from MEPs recently". So how come he always made space for the Lib Dems, I'd ask. "We are a non-partisan newspaper," he'd say, as though that closed the issue.
In fact, Mr Portes strongly supports EU membership (see here and here, for example). If he didn't, as I suspect he is well aware, he wouldn't get hundreds of thousands of pounds a year from Brussels. But rather than fully acknowledging the fact – and no one is suggesting that he didn't already support the EU before it started paying him – he went into paroxysms, pointing to some report where the NIESR had criticised the EU's austerity programme, and then demanding, in his inimitably narcissistic way, an apology. So frenzied and frequent were his Tweets, and so petulant their tone – have a look at his timeline – that for a moment I thought his account had been hacked by a child. I kept waiting for him to sign off with "And anyway, @danhannanmep, you're a great big lying liar!!!"
None of this would matter if Mr Portes were not regularly trotted out, especially by the BBC, as representing some sort of neutral position. I've remarked before on how the most effective bias often comes in how studio guests are introduced: "Joining us now are Mr Blue, a Right-wing controversialist, and Mr Red, a distinguished academic…"
There will be more and more of this sort of thing in the run-up to any membership referendum. The EU firehoses a great deal of money at think-tanks, Jean Monnet professors, pressure groups and NGOs. When it does, we should be told. It may influence the recipients, or it may not; but surely it's only reasonable for the information to be put before viewers and listeners.
Mr Portes's organisation gets a great deal of money from the EU, and supports British membership of the EU. Fine: good luck to it. But, please, spare us the self-righteous tone.
And here's Steerpike's observations:
Didn’t the BBC know that Will Straw is a PPC before his dad told them?
Steerpike
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was on today’s Daily Politics, gushing with pride that his son Will is Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for the seat of Rossendale and Darwen in Lancashire. Yet it seems that this piece of dynastic info was news to Auntie. Will Straw was on the BBC News Channel this morning, discussing energy prices, and there was no mention of his being a PPC. The presenter simply said, ‘Will Straw is Associate Director of the centre-left think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research.’
Mr S would have forgiven the presenter had he not asked: ‘the Labour Party is talking about a freeze on energy prices for two years. Would you go along with that?’ Straw is a candidate seeking office under Miliband’s banner; of course he goes along with the price freeze nonsense. But he neglected to mention his candidacy, and gave this reply:
Tory chairman Grant Shapps declared open season on the BBC last weekend, and it’s sloppiness like this that riles the blue team.
Steerpike
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was on today’s Daily Politics, gushing with pride that his son Will is Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for the seat of Rossendale and Darwen in Lancashire. Yet it seems that this piece of dynastic info was news to Auntie. Will Straw was on the BBC News Channel this morning, discussing energy prices, and there was no mention of his being a PPC. The presenter simply said, ‘Will Straw is Associate Director of the centre-left think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research.’
Mr S would have forgiven the presenter had he not asked: ‘the Labour Party is talking about a freeze on energy prices for two years. Would you go along with that?’ Straw is a candidate seeking office under Miliband’s banner; of course he goes along with the price freeze nonsense. But he neglected to mention his candidacy, and gave this reply:
‘I think it is an idea that has really caught the imagination of the public. It is the only policy so far that looks like it can actually put downward pressure on these price increases. And it is now in a sense supported by former Prime Minister Sir John Major because the windfall tax that he proposes is pretty similar to a price freeze.’
Tory chairman Grant Shapps declared open season on the BBC last weekend, and it’s sloppiness like this that riles the blue team.