Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Defending Peter Allen & Jane Garvey

Several sites are trying to make out this exchange on Radio 5 Live as a typical example of BBC bias. It's Jane Garvey and Peter Allen from the highly rated DRIVE programme describing the BBC on 2nd May 1997...
Jane Garvey: I do remember I walked back in - we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London, all very upmarket in those days - and the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. [Hearty laugh from Peter Allen] I'll always remember that. Er... not that the BBC were celebrating in any way, shape or form…
Peter Allen: No no no, not at all...
Jane Garvey: ...and actually I think it's fair to say that in the intervening years... er... the BBC, if it ever was in love with Labour has probably fallen out of love with Labour, or learnt to fall back in, or basically just learnt to be in the middle somewhere which is how it should be. Um, but there was always the suggestion that the BBC was full of pinkos who couldn't wait for Labour to get back into power. That may have been the case - who knows - but as I say there have been a few problems along the way over the last ten years. Wish I hadn't started this now."

I shall now surprise you all and come to their defence. If you are a regular listener to 5 Live you'll know that Allen and Garvey are two interviewers who are staright down the line. Allen in particular regularly gives Labour Ministers a very hard time. Garvey's sense of humour and mischief often gets the better of her and lands her up in situations like this - but that's why people love their programme. In my opinion they are the greatest double act on British radio.

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't know why you waste your time with this - listen to PM with Eddie Mair - pure bliss.

Ross F said...

What Jane Garvey said is not so much an example of her bias, but rather evidence that the BBC as a whole is biased towards Labour. This was especially true before the Iraq war.

Man in a shed said...

Not sure you can defend the BBC on what they describe Iain. Of course the presenters may be great people and the fact they speak freely is to be applauded.

The fact the BBC is institutionally biased to the left, when it is funded by a compulsory tax, is not defensible in a democracy. (You knew you were going to get this sort of reaction didn't you ?)

Paul Linford said...

I don't think it was just the BBC that couldn't wait to see the back of the Tories, you know. Most journalists I know felt like that in '97. Institutional bias - or just a reflecton of wider public opinion?

VFTN said...

Spot on Iain. Not only do this pair play it straight they also tend to ask questions in a manner the man in the street might and pull people up when they lapse into jargon riddled nonsense.

Dave Blunkett's Dog said...

How many wives, partners, husbands, siblings of MPs/SpAds/political figures have positions within the BBC as presenters, researchers, editors etc?

Have the BBC recently placed any recruitment adverts in media other than The Guardian?

There is much about the BBC current affairs and news coverage which is admirable, but a pro-big government stance, advocating more public spending or state involvement without consideration of where the money comes from is not one of them in my view.

Fib Dem said...

Peter and Jane were just being honest. The BBC is about 90% in favour of either Labour or LD and only 10% leaning to the Conservatives.

As such it is completely unrepresentative of the views of the population.

Several so called neutral BBC journalists went on to be Labour representatives, Ben the MP and Lance the No.10 PR Manager.

What the BBC needs to realise is that this will just lead to an over reaction from the Tories when they get into power.

Chris Paul said...

They are good. In fact Radio 5 Live in general is good and my station of preference. But they do get into bother. Allen was VERY unwise to attempt to handbag Nick Griffin of the BNP live in Burnley (where Howard had just been conflating race tension and asylum in a cack-handed way, latter not the issue in Burnley). Anyway Allen was not up to it and Griffin gave him a bloody nose.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry to say as a long standing reader and very occasional commentator on your blog, that it has a lot less traction than it did before.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of the actions of Allen & Garvey, the time has come to reform the BBC. As a licence fee payer, I deeply resent paying an ever increasing 'tax' to pay for the over-inflated salaries of it's mediocre presenters, and poor quality programming.

The Corporation continues to hide behind the myth of friendly 'Auntie Beeb'. Behind this facade is a seriously bloated, politically biased media monolith. Current affairs programming seems to be reduced to the level of regurgitating 'news speak' on behalf of Governement departments, lobby groups and those others with vested interests in manipulating public opinion for their own selfish purposes.

There should be a wholesale breakup - retaining the 5 main radio networks, local radio & 2 terrestrial channels. The remainder should be set adrift into the commercial world - if it cannot survive then so be it.

jilted john said...

The performance of the BBC in recent weeks demands that it be privatised. I will NOT pay my license fee for this constant stream of biased claptrap.

I am heartily sick of their constant climate change,pro migration and anti-tory rhetoric. Time has come to call a halt to this very biased organisation.

Trust said...

Paul Linford is being (deliberately?) naive.

The BBC clearly has to be seen to be impartial as a public broadcaster which is uniquely funded and has a unique position in British life.

Whilst it would be perfectly acceptable for journalists to have the feelings he describes. It is absolutely imperative that to be profesional there should not have been oceans of champagne at Broadcasting House at the time and they certainly shouldn't admit to that years later.

Whatever the rights and wrongs these two have provided a huge stick with which to beat the BBC.

pensioners are us said...

Just spotted this titbit I thought I would share with you all. The Populus poll in the Times newspaper also had good news for Gordon Brown -- hot favourite to replace Blair as Labour leader and the new prime minister -- finding that he was rated more highly than Conservative leader David Cameron.

bobette said...

"......Broadcasting House...strewn with empty champagne bottles...."!
I notice she didn't say who had paid for all that champagne - the taxpayer, no doubt.

The BBC is funded by a tax extracted from a frequently-unwilling public, with threats of fines or jail for non-payment. This is supposed to make them IMPARTIAL - is there anyone at the BBC capable of understanding what that means?

Apparently the BBC personnel were drinking champagne at work because Labour had taken power - so could that possibly mean they are biased for Labour and against the Conservatives..........

Paul Linford - I worked in what's best described as the public sector in 1997, and any outward show of political views would have resulted in being sacked, sharpish. We had a tea fund to buy our own tea/coffee - the job didn't provide that, let alone champagne..........

West Country Tory said...

Iain - suprised you have not reported on the Headlines of todays Western Morning News.

Steve said...

west country - do you mean 'fears over vanishing dolphins?'

Allen/Garvey/BBC - I agree that they are generally a good double act although it has worn off for me a bit. One reason it works is the contrast - always get the feeling that Allen is basically centre right (kind of suburban/commuter/golf thing going on) while Garvey is basically CL. They are generally sceptical I think - I recall in particular Allen going pretty hard on Sinn Fein spokesmen and they generally give union reps a hard time, certainly on pay claim issues (I think broadcat media generally is actually pretty unsypmpathetic to unions as opposed to centre-left political outfits - I don't expect many readers will agree).

I would like to hear presenters ask (1) how much would your proposals cost (2) which tax should we put up or other programme should we cut back to fund it (3) what is the rationale for the government to do this rather than some other method.

Simon Chapman said...

Sorry Iain, but that doesn’t wash.

Your defence would be a whole lot more convincing if they had behaved in the straight-up way that you describe. Instead of desperately trying to cover-up what they were saying and laugh it off, how about:

"I will always remember 2 May 2007 - there were champagne bottles everywhere. Many people in the BBC were celebrating. Was that a reflection of the public mood or evidence of a deep-seated bias against the centre-right? The BBC has had a lot of criticism for institutional bias. One recent critic is Robin Aitken. Let's interview him now….”

They might give others a hard time, but they certainly don’t give the BBC a hard time.

Anonymous said...

Even Tory voters I know were relieved they lost in 97.

BJ said...

Fib Dem: I'll see your Ben Bradshaw and Lance Price, and raise you Patrick Mercer and Stephen Milligan.

BJ said...

Oh -- and the BBC often provides food and drink treats for its staff when they work long hours on a big story like a general election. Sometimes -- and I think it happens a bit too often, to be honest -- we are treated to a glass of champers.

more vulgar than a vulcans vulva said...

The BBC is in a state of denial.

It *is* biased and many of its leading reporters (Paxman/Marr) tactily acknowledge this.

Also - don't forget - on Northern Ireland, there approach is bias.

They describe the UVA as a "ruthless, nasty organisation" - Jim Naughtie, Today

But regularly refer to the IRAs - "30-year mainland campaign"

I am hard pressed to recall a SINGLE occassion where they have used negative words to describe the IRA.

Why?

They fucking love it.

Newmania said...

Iain you are hardly likely to attack a paying customer are you...( Where were you this morning ? Hmmmmmm) That is why even the Telegraph is muted usually in its indignation. BBC bias is better hidden but very much still there.. Anyone in any doubt about the attitude of the BBC when no-one is looking should look at the web page on the IRA and compare it with items on Protestant Para militaries
The BBC has a 45% market share, Sky has 6 % . It has a virtual monopoly on access of the nations debate. It is not always an organised conspiracy throughout but there have been Stalinist controls at he top of current affairs. Its role in portraying Scotland to itself as a heroic Industrial Heartland betrayed both by Thatcher and the English is virtually treason at a time when 35% of the Scottish electorate voted C
It was not reasonable for Scotland to imagine that it could be insulated by English taxes form any connection with the markets,. Did they seriously think the English would pay to keep “ History Scotland “ open as a theme park complete with picturesque uncompetitive metal bashing industries.Yes said the BBC. What coverage was given to the burgeoning electronics, financial services and oil associated sectors which have been such a success . None it was all “Industrial wasteland “. Perfidious Albion when they had a special responsibility to be balanced they were the reverse.
I think its low point was the treatment of John Major but this sort of outright ideological warfare is softened recently partly out of fear but also out of a loss of confidence in left solutions . The bias is now more obvious in the dramatic output but it is still there
Birt became a Labour Peer Dyke is solid Labour and whole tribes of BBC illuminatii have commuted between the Labour Party and the BBC often connected to the News Statesman and Guardian especially the former. The new Statesman has been part of the left support for Brown and I expect to see Brown getting a very easy time from an organisation inimical to me as a taxpayer and licence fee payer.
In every way the position of the BBC is untenable . Anti Israel , Pro EU anti Monarchy and Nationalsim and above all a necessary supporter of state provision . Like the rest of the failing services it has not shrunk as might appear but swollen into a megalith whose foot is on the neck of this land. It is an urgent necessity that this organisation is broken up. It is something worse than an evil conspiracy it is “Institutionally” Leftist and incapable of seeing its own problems
Folly Toynbee was head of social affairs at the BBC ? What sort of impartiality is that? Asked to defend themselves they say they are a counterweight to the printed Press , but they are paid for by everyone and the printed Press are in commercial competition( including the Guardian and the Mirror in fact this bias is a myth of the left). It is no part of their remit to balance up the media 'as they see it' which is in fact unbalancing it.
.The DT and Mail detest the BBC and the Telegraph have run two editorials on this fact in the last 3 months for example and it has been a constant theme. How many journalists have migrated from these Pages to positions of power at the beeb .Andrew Marr…lets see editor of the Inpendent .1994 the top woman’s page contributors to the Guardian were Jill Tweedie , Elizabeth Ann Lucy Forgan , Posy Simmons , Mary Stott and Folly Toynbee all ended up in the BBC.
James Naughtie was the Scotsman’s chief political correspondent in 1984 moving to the Guardian . Tom Kelly newsnight producer was head of news in N Ireland is now , or at least was until recently , Tony Blair`s official spokesman. Can I mention again that Mathew Wankonna is married to a Blair spin Doctor as well . D Anconnna is appearing a bit more on the BBC recently have you noticed and this may give us a clue as to why even the right wing press is hesitant in attacking this swollen dispenser of sinecures. Its sheer gravity is a drag on balance. The examples are many many more by the way and the few exceptions , do not deflect the main institutional bias.
Look at the impact Fox News have made taking half the US audience when the old guard shrugged of complaint about their left leaning bias for years.

It will be a delicious irony if its anti national bias ends op leading to a breakup of the organisation itself

LMO said...

Peter Allen used to work for the Independent.So did Naughtie.Jakie Ashley (Mrs Andrew Marr)is ex BBC now working for the Guardian;ditto Polly Toynbee and on and on...Why doesn't somebody compile a list to chart the relationship between left-leaning newspaper journalists and the BBC?

YHN said...

Iain,

Do you have a commercial interest in being nice to the Beeb to declare here?

I know you are not one to put overly highlight these things (Smith Institute/Policy Exchange previously etc)

Iain Dale said...

Newmania, you are a regular reader of this blog. You know perfectly well that I am very critical of the BBC. Another regular correspondent, BJ, who works for the BBC takes me to task for it and thinks I use every excuse to slag off the BBC. Just because I occasionally appear on its airwaves does not mean that I hold back in my criticism.

I have a lot of time for Peter Allen and Jane Garvey and think they present one of the best current affairs shows on the BBC.

Iain Dale said...

YHN< give me a break. It is hardly a secret that I appear on BBC radio from time to time. That has hardly held me back in my criticism of the BBC on this blog, has it?

YHN said...

I wasn't referring to that, I just wondered if you were working on a new potential project for them etc that led to this overly gushing defence of that at this time.

BJ said...

LMO: I'll see your Jackie Ashley and Polly Toynbee, and raise you James Landale (from the Times) and Mihir Bose (from the Daily Telegraph)... and dozens of my less famous colleagues who have worked for the Mail.

Iain Dale said...

YHN, I can assure you that is not the case...more's the pity!

BJ said...

I've been trying to convince the bosses to bring back World Wide Winifred for some time now, Iain. They're having none of it, sadly.

YHN said...

Thanks, I just wondered. Even I would prefer more Dale on the airwaves if it means less of that evangelical nut you thankfully sacked from 18DS. ;-)

Newmania said...

Newmania, you are a regular reader of this blog. You know perfectly well that I am very critical of the BBC.

I know I know ....I couldn’t resist.

Anyone needing to make a living from selling opinions is bound to feel the gravitational effect of the BBC`s £3 billion though and if you are an exception most are not . There is also the Court Jester problem. Simon Heffner was introduced as right wing controversialist. Are New Statesman and Guardian acolytes introduced as left wing controversialists. Actually they are more likely to be conducting the interview so thats a double NO.

Iain Dale said...

Ah, the memories, the memories. BJ, I have an awful feeling I know who you are now...!

mitch said...

Mair on form is excellent. The best they have. He has his off-days but is usually very good.

My concerns are with Naughtie - he's too biased.

BJ said...

You don't I'm afraid Iain. I was still a local hack when Sunday Service was on.... it was a great show though.

Iain Dale said...

BJ, it certainly was. I couldn't believe it when I was asked to cover for Andrew Pierce. I think I did about a dozen programmes in all, and I loved every minute of it.

Anonymous said...

So you consider the licence fee a tax and object to paying for something you don't personally use.

Hmmm...my partner and I have chosen not to have children, yet my taxes pay for schools, childcare, child allowance (paid out to all regardless of financial need)etc for those people that do CHOOSE to have children. Is it fair that we're paying for your kids?

The fee provides 10 radio networks and probably one of the best websites in the world, free to access regardless of if you own a TV or pay a licence. Whatever your views on the news content, you cannot possibly argue that there is bias on their comprehensive website, which has a considerable amount of interactivity and learning aides for kids. And it's free of advertising, unlike 99% of the sites most of us will view today.

What are the alternatives - more Sky News, more Fox News, more NBC? They're not biased at all are they, oh no. Rubbish! It's rolling, sensationalist, tabloid shit, interspersed with adverts for more crap we don't need.

So imagine a BBC given over to the private sector, programming shaped around the advertiser, not the viewer. Imagine that you save your £131 a year on Aunty Beeb's 'tax', only to find you and your family are bombarded by ads. Advertsing works, which is why they do it, and I'm fairly confident the subsequent purchases will cost you a lot more that the 'tax' you objected to.

The licence fee means that there is still a place in our lives where we are not in the grip of the advertisers . The alleged bias of the current affairs output should been seen in the context of the alternatives, and also the rest of the BBC content, which is beyond anything the private sector could ever come up with.

It amazes me that you will pay significantly more per month to the likes of Branson and Murdoch to be fed endless repeats of US TV shows, nothing of educational value, and Bush-loving, flag-flying 'news' channels. And when those two men fail to agree on more ways to screw more money out of you and each other, the programmes and services you're paying for get cut with a few days notice.

Regardless of what you say, the BBC remains one the most trusted brands in the world and is used daily by the majority of the UK population. I will gladly take it's liberal stance on some matters if it means I don't have to rely on the dire alternatives.

Anonymous said...

You're defending an attack that hasn't been made.

Who's "attacking" Allen and Garvey ? All credit to her for being so honest - as she usually is. If you listen to the mp3 you can hear the realisation that she's digging a hole for herself.

The main point - that Broadcasting House was awash with champers on the night of the 1st - remains - unanswered and unanswerable.

Newmania said...

ANON said ...all sorts of the usual stuff

BTW

Is it fair that we're paying for your kids?

Yes but you enjoy a standard of living vastly above those who pay for the rearing of children. Unless you are suggesting that your income could survive the end of the population . “Hard working families?” are in fact the ones financing your privileged and selfish lifestyle which I resent

you cannot possibly argue that there is bias on their comprehensive website, which has a considerable amount of interactivity and learning aides for kids.

But the web site is demonstrably even more biased as in the case of the IRA. In any case the position of the BBC clearly prevents entry into this market thereby stopping the growth of competition . The wish of the BBC to move into and monopolise al new media is precisely because it will otherwise be outflanked by others showing they can do a better job .


What are the alternatives - more Sky News, more Fox News, more NBC?

The two I know are better and as I they are commercial bodies they can do what they like having no special authority. The BBC has a special claim to be speaking with authority. That’s why its bias is so important. Fox in oparticular has been a staggering success and a UK operation would also take a great trenche of those who currently have little choice but to watch the BBC


Advertising works, which is why they do it, and I'm fairly confident the subsequent purchases will cost you a lot more that the 'tax' you objected to.

Note the assumption that advertising is a sort of poison poured into the ears of malleable children . I am not a child ,we need advertising to tell us what we can buy . We also need and have a sophisticated response to it. Advertising is an unalloyed evil in the eyes of socialists and the BBC, who are socilaisticallyy inclined as a state controlled opinion former .





The alleged bias of the current affairs output should been seen in the context of the alternatives, and also the rest of the BBC content, which is beyond anything the private sector could ever come up with.-


1Aha ….so the BBC is correcting our view of the world is it balancing what the left feels is the bias of the printed media .I don`t recall agreeing to that remit It is in anycase only according to its own world view.

2I dispute this . The BBC has not only contributed to a moribund reporting culture but has also dragged arts into the UK into a state so poor that, domestic drama is feared and ignored by the public the second the y have a choice . The printed press is infinitely better so there is no mystery about the alternative and what an improvement it would be














It amazes me that you will pay significantly more per month to the likes of Branson and Murdoch to be fed endless repeats of US TV shows.

But people will, and that’s because it is better. Not perhaps in the opinion of this or that bourgeois self appointed state funded cultural arbiter but better for the people who pay for it . I also happen to think the BBC is a cultural dead weight and it is the superior quality of the US shpws that is telling.Some of the BBC output is so awful you wonder if they write it with word randomisers




Regardless of what you say, the BBC remains one the most trusted brands in the world.


Typical of the dismissive arrogance you will find . I beginto think Anon is a lickle spit hireling defending his bread and butter. Liberalism works better abroad than at home I admit and the world service does little harm having numerous victims and less need to invent them as it does here. This is largely a historical accident though and in any case does little good for us



and is used daily by the majority of the UK population.

.Who have no choice


I will gladly take it's liberal stance on some matters if it means I don't have to rely on the dire alternatives.

Its pernicious and wilful desire to effect the political process so as to preserve its own position is somewhat more sinister than you suggest. It will remain this way until its wings are clipped to the size they were say in the 60s . There is probably a place for a culturally uplifting state controlled chanell but in politics there is not. The reasons are so obvious they scream at you. Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t guess.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 12.31 - Do you work for or have an interest in the BBC by chance?

It was probably unwise to bring the subject of other taxes into this discussion. Whilst I do not have a problem subsidising those less fortunate than myself, I am thoroughly fed up with my taxes being wasted on the feckless workshy, the open palms of 'visitors' to my country and Grabbing Gordons chums in PFI etc I fear you have opened a whole new can of worms!

As I said in my posting at 10.25am it is time for serious reform. Slash the licence fee and cut the services down to a properly financed core. Focus on good programming & factual unbiased news reporting. Set the rest of the bloated organisation adrift. If Jonathan Ross et al want £15million salaries, then let them seek such recompense on the open commercial market. There is no need for a public service broadcaster to compete for ratings - let them go. Get rid of the dire digital channels - most of them are churning out garbage. The website poses an interesting dilemma - free to those outside the UK, yet paid for by those with no choice within the UK. Is that fair?

The BBC is a brand which is now choosing to abuse the trust placed in it for it's own means. It is acting as a commercial organisation but continues to hide behind the mask of friendly public broadcaster. It is time for it to come off the fence and go one way or the other.

Enough is enough.

Rog said...

If the BBC is so bloody great, why are they so against losing the license fee and going to subscription?

Surely millions of Beeb-loving citizens would be only too happy to cough up?

No they wouldn't. They are fully aware the only way they get away with "what they do" (endemic bias and moronification of programming) is via state enabled extortion.

Let's have the choice.

Anonymous said...

Newmania

"Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t guess."

Well try, 'cos it sure ain't the BBC.

"Fox in particular has been a staggering success"

So who do you work for?!

"Yes but you enjoy a standard of living vastly above those who pay for the rearing of children. Unless you are suggesting that your income could survive the end of the population . “Hard working families?” are in fact the ones financing your privileged and selfish lifestyle which I resent"

Jump to conclusion much? You actually enhance the point I was making, which is that there are things in life which we pay for but don't directly effect us if we make certain choices for ourselves. Far from denigrating "hard working families", I am quite content to pay towards the education for their children to be well educated and cared for by society, which will ultimately benefit from that 'investment'.

"Note the assumption that advertising is a sort of poison poured into the ears of malleable children . I am not a child ,we need advertising to tell us what we can buy"

I made no such assumption, advertising is essential to business and for the paying customer. But we need a break from it...name me one journey you've made, a paper you've read, a website you've visited, a TV channel other than the BBC where you haven't been bombarded with advertising. Is this not enough for you? Do really "need" more?

"In any case the position of the BBC clearly prevents entry into this market thereby stopping the growth of competition"

Cyberspace is quite a big place Newmania, I really don't see how the BBC can monopolise it. It is exactly this sort of paranoid, reds-under-the-bed hysteria, ably demonstrated by your good self, that led to my post.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1.25pm

"slash the licence fee and cut the services down to a properly financed core. Focus on good programming & factual unbiased news reporting. Set the rest of the bloated organisation adrift. If Jonathan Ross et al want £15million salaries, then let them seek such recompense on the open commercial market. There is no need for a public service broadcaster to compete for ratings - let them go."

Believe it or not, I completely agree.

As I said to Newmania, I do not work for the BBC or anything remotely connected, I just get sick of the 'sledgehammer to crack a walnut' mentality of those who want the BBC reformed beyond recognition.

Newmania said...

Newmania

anon-"Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t guess."Well try, 'cos it sure ain't the BBC…………………………….
The Labour Party ? Or Public Sector ( same thing) . A gay massage parlour ? I dunno , something bad I `m sure

Anon-Jump to conclusion much? Etc.
So you are suggesting that having state controlled opinions thrown at us falls into the same category as providing schools-an-‘ospitals to ‘ard-working –families. Excuse me for not seeing the point of the remark. In fact the cardinal political tool there is very good reason for not having state control of broadcasting. Perhaps you can imagine why this might be ?


Anon -I made no such assumption, advertising is essential to business and for the paying customer. But we need a break from it………..

And this is a reason for a tax ? Oh do be serious


AnonDo really "need" more?

I watch exactly the amount I want to.

ANON "In any case the position of the BBC clearly prevents entry into this market thereby stopping the growth of competition"Cyberspace is quite a big place Newmania,

How about you hold you breath until google succumbs to competition ? They didn`t have a state funded leg up as well as insuperable economies of scale. I see no possible reason for us to fund the BBC`s all to transparent wish to out spend in cyberspace and cut out the competition. They are misusing public money. The BBC still has a 45% share , though its patronage and influence it influences the politics of this country universally in the following ways
1 Pro EU
2 Anti natonalism
3 Anti Monarchy
4 Pro Multi Culturalism

5 Pro Feminism

Since Burt its has felt free to editorialise and the culture of Liberalism is more dominant than ever. I do not believe it can be reformed . It must have large audiences to justify the fee and yet its only possible role is a small adjunct to the free media . This is the conclusion which it fears and hence the aggressive use of resources to entrench its position which is in tandem with its on going political campaign against the small state. Its there in the output every day and not any more chiefly in the news and current affairs , more in the arts production itself skewed by state funding.

Ralph said...

Iain,

Isn't she suggesting the BBC had a pro Labour bias, not that she had or has one?

Anonymous said...

So you're a homophobic misogynist, intolerant of faiths and ethnicities other than your own, who is happy to pay for the extravagances and luxuries of one elite family and their hangers-on?

Sorry if I've misunderstood, but that's my reading of your post. With that outlook, I am not in the least bit surprised you feel the way you do about the BBC!

If you are sincerely saying, news aside, that you find nothing in the whole BBC output that is worth 37p a day to you or yours, and that you really see "state sponsored opinions" in everything they do, then a sensible debate on this forum isn't going happen is it.

Anonymous said...

Garvey's wonderful gaffe shows just how left-leaning the BBC is.

Can you imagine empty champagne bottles strewn across the corridors of Broadcasting House in the aftermath of the 1992 election? Or the 1987 one?

With the Tories gaining >800 seats in the recent local elections, were the bottle banks near BBC premises bulging with empty champagne bottles? I think not!

So, Iain go ahead and praise Garvey and Allen (I disagree with you concerning their broadcasting skills) but the Tories must reform the BBC upon gaining power.

The licence fee must go.

Anonymous said...

Garvey said on FIVE DRIVEL: "but as I say there have been a few problems along the way over the last ten years".

Yeah - Labour have not been left wing enough for you lot have they? Too chummy with ChimpyBusHitlerMcHalliburton, not brought in the Euro, they've hauled the BBC over the coals concerning Fat Arsed Gilligan's flawed reporting.

Newmania said...

A sensible debate forum,( ugh…) anon , as the BBC might learn , is not one in which everyone agrees with them..

I am not homophobic I do on the other hand disapprove of state requirements for homosexualist literature in schools and a duty for all adoption agencies to consider homosexual friends as equivalent to married couples. The BBC would consider me a most dreadful person but I am in the vast majority.

I am not a misogynist but I do not have quite such a vehemently pro abortion view as the BBC would prefer.

I am intolerant of other faiths and ethnicities to the extent that the English should be the dominant and binding one in England. Both the major Parties would agree but the BBC would not . I have a great disateaste for multiculturalism and find the BBC`s efforts to appease Islam nauseating

I support the continuity and the constitutional place of the monarchy as the symbolic focus of the tribe and the living connection to its past . Again I am in the vast majority although I would probably be in a minority of one at the BBC. I gather that this means little to you.

What happened to the EU ?

37p a day is not the point. The point is a having a malignant nest of unchallenged Liberalism. I cannot see it reforming and it does great damage to the country. Judging from your catechism of politically correct assumptions I am not the least bit surprised you approve of “Progressive “ ,propaganda being pumped into every home twenty four hours a day by the state.

Nice of you to show your true colours. No suprise of course

Anonymous said...

The BBC sucks and has done for a very long time. Does anyone else recall their genuflecting attitude towards the unions in the 70s and the Soviets during the Cold War. What a delight it was not to have the Morning Star cited every day on the Today programme. The BBC's world view was crap then and remains crap now.

David Anthony said...

I thought they did a particularly good job of - playfully - embarrassing John McDonnell yesterday.

Anonymous said...

Newmania
"What happened to the EU ?"

I didn't pick up on that point because I happen to agree with you.
Stranger things have happened

"I am not a misogynist but I do not have quite such a vehemently pro abortion view as the BBC would prefer."

You said pro-feminist. Different agenda.

"I support the continuity and the constitutional place of the monarchy as the symbolic focus of the tribe and the living connection to its past"

I have no problem with the Royal family, I did once, but grew out of it. I was simply pointing out your 'tax' priorities may not be as impartial or as widespread as you would believe. Those that resent paying for the BBC can go elsewhere for their broadcasting...listen to independent radio or use the internet for free TV [insert 18DS advert here!]. Those that resent paying for a monarchy do not get that choice and are reminded of that every time they take a coin or note from their pocket.

I also happen to agree with you on the appeasement of Islam and other faiths that require 'special' treatment in a land that gives less sufficient rights to it's own culture and people. I'm for an English Parliament too. Actually, you and I probably wouldn't disagree on a lot of things to be honest, but I think your more extreme views should be challenged, even if I am in the minority on this forum.

I get the impression you do appreciate some of the beeb's content, and you'd be a fool not to, but your problem seems to be with a perceived current affairs bias. I have posted other comments where I've expressed the same sentiments, so we are not at odds as you think.

My problem with your posts is that you seem to see the whole of the BBC as a communist tool, a propaganda weapon for some as yet undiscovered Big Brother sect. Without diverting into some nostalgia countdown, I remember the BBC for what it did for me, the learning, the exposure to lives I'd never see, the laughs, the dramas and the knowledge that what you'd just seen on the news wasn't edited to give equal airtime to new cars or fridges. You could argue it is the difference between Blue Peter and Magpie, but there was a place for each.

There still is. I'd hate to think that your pride, or that of any BBC resentee, prevents you from enjoying some of the best quality programming in the world. The BBC has earned a heritage and a reputation that is second to none on a global scale. Sure the true Englishman in you can take some pride in that?! The BBC was never all things to all people, but it was, and hopefully shall ever be, part of our fabric and identity.The same arguments for maintaining a monarchy can easily be applied to keeping this old Aunt alive.

Anonymous said...

"old Aunt" LOL. How many old aunts do you know that can hose money around the way the Beeb has done. e.g. Jonathan Ross.

tory boys never grow up said...

I have no problem at all with biased journalists or journalists who do not hide their political views. It is unrealistic to expect any intelligent person who is involved political journalism not to take a position (and believe me there are plenty of BBC journalists who support all the major parties)

However what I have a problem with is journalists who pretend that they do not have a political bias; those who feel they have to take a contrary view to their own to demonstrate a lack of bias; and those who lack the basic professionalism to make it clear when they are reporting and editorialising or to ask the questions that their viewers/readers (of differnt political views to their own) want to be asked.

Believe me there are people of all political perspectives who believe that the BBC is biased (and this is the main defence the BBC employ to such criticism). What I would like to see is open and honest bias and some basic professional journalism rather than the current dog's breakfast that we getting.

joe bonanno said...

If you are sincerely saying, news aside, that you find nothing in the whole BBC output that is worth 37p a day to you or yours.
*****************************************

Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.

Or two week's 'wages' for a single mother on income support

Anonymous said...

A fellow anon...

"old Aunt" LOL. How many old aunts do you know that can hose money around the way the Beeb has done. e.g. Jonathan Ross.
May 15, 2007 9:31 PM

See my 1:59 PM post.

Anonymous said...

"Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.
Or two week's 'wages' for a single mother on income support"

Hello, welcome to the year 2007.

Anonymous said...

"Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.
Or two week's 'wages' for a single mother on income support"

Hello, welcome to the year 2007.

wrinkled weasel said...

As was widely reported, a vile reptile called John Sweeney totally lost control during the making of the BBC's "flagship" programme Panorama, whilst interviewing a Scientologist.

You can find it on youtube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkOcK3rZHls

The BBC has "severely reprimanded" him.

If you watch the clip, you may find yourself asking why he was not instantly dismissed.

The putative moral crusade that the BBC has embarked upon over the past few years will thankfully result in its demise as a user of public money.

The clip is an example of a BBC employee who not only lost his temper, but revealed his less than neutral position. The whole thing would not have come out had not the people he was interviewing had the sense to use their own team to film him - something he seemed to object to.

As many have commented here, the BBC has a clear agenda on such topics as homosexuality, Christianity, abortion, Israel and Islam etc, etc, etc. I object most vehemently for being forced to pay for a service that preaches to me.

The clip reveals that Mr Sweeney not only sees himself in the role of an evangelist, it reveals that he is a nasty, perverted, southern evangelist who tolerates nothing but his own distorted beliefs.

wrinkled weasel said...

correction..the link to the "Sweeney loses it" piece is

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI

Newmania said...

Group hug ?

Anonymous said...

wrinkled weasel Good point.

Scientology may very well be an evil cult for nutters but they were right in what they said: the Panorama boys were obviously there to do a hatchet job on Scientology, not to impartially 'investigate' it. Pathetic Sweeney obviously couldn't handle being on the receiving end of his own treatment.

Fact is the bbc is a state-funded propaganda channel with a leftoid agenda intent on attacking the West (and a couple of other things). Large numbers of beeboids need carting off to the Tower and put to the axe as the traitors they are. Bunch of tossers.