The BBC has been running with Saint Vince’s latest diatribe against the evil banks. Don’t get me wrong, as a businessman I have plenty of dealings with banks and they are certainly no angels but to suggest, as the BBC repeatedly does, that they are the source of all evils is malicious and playing into the Labour copybook. Anyway, the BBC invited CBI Director-General John Cridland onto the Today programme today and Evan Davies decided that rather discuss the issue of banking regulation he would instead assault the integrity of the CBI itself, suggesting on several occasions that it was a/ A mouthpiece for the banks and b/Divided against itself. I thought Mr Cridland did quite well in response but it was the sheer inappropriateness of the line of questioning that appalled me. Give it a listen here and you will know what I mean. The BBC still rejects the complicity of the Labour Government in bringing about the financial meltdown and instead chooses to assault the banks and anyone who dares defend them.
Archives
- May 2013 (53)
- April 2013 (90)
- March 2013 (106)
- February 2013 (83)
- January 2013 (86)
- December 2012 (66)
- November 2012 (127)
- October 2012 (98)
- September 2012 (110)
- August 2012 (107)
- July 2012 (151)
- June 2012 (122)
- May 2012 (151)
- April 2012 (105)
- March 2012 (111)
- February 2012 (102)
- January 2012 (110)
- December 2011 (106)
- November 2011 (131)
- October 2011 (131)
- September 2011 (121)
- August 2011 (140)
- July 2011 (138)
- June 2011 (105)
- May 2011 (100)
- April 2011 (77)
- March 2011 (124)
- February 2011 (85)
- January 2011 (117)
- December 2010 (94)
- November 2010 (105)
- October 2010 (144)
- September 2010 (147)
- August 2010 (153)
- July 2010 (128)
- June 2010 (105)
- May 2010 (100)
- April 2010 (83)
- March 2010 (103)
- February 2010 (103)
- January 2010 (116)
- December 2009 (118)
- November 2009 (123)
- October 2009 (131)
- September 2009 (154)
- August 2009 (135)
- July 2009 (111)
- June 2009 (97)
- May 2009 (114)
- April 2009 (101)
- March 2009 (110)
- February 2009 (107)
- January 2009 (116)
- December 2008 (75)
- November 2008 (85)
- October 2008 (131)
- September 2008 (112)
- August 2008 (70)
- July 2008 (74)
- June 2008 (95)
- May 2008 (60)
- April 2008 (55)
- March 2008 (54)
- February 2008 (61)
- January 2008 (31)
- December 2007 (18)
- November 2007 (32)
- October 2007 (60)
- September 2007 (74)
- August 2007 (61)
- July 2007 (51)
- June 2007 (21)
- May 2007 (20)
- April 2007 (24)
- March 2007 (15)
- February 2007 (24)
- January 2007 (53)
- December 2006 (20)
- November 2006 (38)
- October 2006 (47)
- September 2006 (35)
- August 2006 (44)
- July 2006 (36)
- June 2006 (41)
- May 2006 (28)
- April 2006 (18)
- March 2006 (25)
- February 2006 (35)
- January 2006 (28)
- December 2005 (66)
- November 2005 (28)
- October 2005 (39)
- September 2005 (36)
- August 2005 (19)
- July 2005 (23)
- June 2005 (21)
- May 2005 (30)
- April 2005 (35)
- March 2005 (36)
- February 2005 (36)
- January 2005 (42)
- December 2004 (14)
- November 2004 (33)
- October 2004 (21)
- September 2004 (39)
- August 2004 (24)
- July 2004 (32)
- June 2004 (27)
- May 2004 (15)
- April 2004 (30)
- March 2004 (39)
- February 2004 (32)
- January 2004 (51)
- December 2003 (49)
- November 2003 (43)
- October 2003 (34)
- September 2003 (38)
Search B-BBC






I didn’t mind Evan Davis’s initial question to Mr Cridland regarding whether the CBI was a paid mouthpiece for the banks. It was a reasonable question and one which Mr Cridland dealt with well. But then Mr Davis kept harping on about when the point had been answered and it was no longer relevant to the matter at issue.
I just wish the BBC were normally so assiduous in asking guests whether they are mouthpieces for other organisations. I mainly catch BBC current affairs driving to and from work. Many is the time I have wished I could google interviewees to find out what their true agenda is and what pertinent details the BBC is keeping hidden. Almost invariably they turn out to have an agenda that leans to the left. It’s now at the stage where I ask myself this about every guest.
‘Many is the time I have wished I could google interviewees to find out what their true agenda is and what pertinent details the BBC is keeping hidden. ‘
A topic, coincidentally, that is cropping up a lot these days, across a fair few ‘objective’ media outlets.
http://order-order.com/2011/08/31/sir-simons-special-interest-silence/
The odds of any ‘news’ piece being anything other than pure advocacy, for profit or agenda purposes, especially across the BBC/Graun axis, are about nil.
Hardly a single guest, ‘expert’ to vox pop, turns out after a quick Google to be as independent as the nation’s propaganda treasure makes out.
When Newsnight tried to pitch a Graun editor’s missus as a ‘mum’ who spoke for the nation on a topic hubs was stealth twisting to feed the breakfast headlines, I realised that near anyone that graces the BBC green room can be presumed suspect until well and truly proven otherwise.
Not a great rep for the world’s ‘most trusted’ news org.
Yes, the BBC did this yesterday, in fact. The News Channel dedicated a good chunk of the day hyping up the housing report, and two out of the three people they spoke to about it (not counting the nasty Tory MP) had provable far-Left agendas which the BBC hid from the public, instead introducing them as innocent, unbiased commentators. And I say only two out of three because I didn’t google the third one.
I do wonder if the BBC has started doing this more, or if it’s simply that we are becoming wise to it. I suspect the latter.
Davis ought to have spent more time considering the credibility of the FSA first. I won’t hold my breath.
Remember Gordon Brown was once praising the banks and their policies so presumably was the BBC.
“During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential. And it is part of the greatness not just of Lehman Brothers but of the City of London, that as the world economy has opened up, you have succeeded not by sheltering your share of a small protected national market but always by striving for a greater and greater share of the growing global market.”
The “greatness” was such that it collapsed..