There’s been a lot of talk about the overly aggressive and personal questioning of Boris Johnson by Eddie Mair on the Marr show the other day. To be honest, I see no problem in presenters having a go at the political class – so long as the venom is spread equally! And by the same token, I see no reason why the political class can also not have a go at the indiscretions of political presenters – Andrew Marr being a case in point. I wonder how the BBC would feel if her serial adultery was brought up, live on air?
Politicians will not bring up Andrew Marr’s serial adultery, because the BBBC will spin it and say it has nothing to do with it. Boris should pet the snake for the next while, then, when he has a chance, cut it’s head off. I mean its money off.
‘I see no problem in presenters having a go at the political class – so long as the venom is spread equally! ‘
Hence, though agreeing in principle, there is already a problem.
None with commercial media, as you pays yer money and you takes yer tribal skew.
However, the compelled funding BBC is a different beast, and any who deal with the complaints system will know that you tick the bias box and it gets sent to Hugs’ ’email to nowhere’ file. Which is why venom, spread evenly or their own unique direction, really is not for BBC interviewers to be injecting into their impartial, professional, limited crowd-pleasing career choices.
When you get aged sages like the Graun’s Michael White crowing about how they and the BBC have acted together to attack an ideological foe, and sees nothing wrong with that to the point of abusive defensiveness, there is something rotten afoot…
MichaelWhite @MichaelWhite 5h
Combine Eddie Mair’s BBC Boris-bashing with Mike Cockerell’s BBC film and you may spot http://bit.ly/X7xZHu BoJo’s Achilles Heel
I would hate to see Boris PM, he’d be even worse than Cameron and more corrupt.
It may be worth noting that the principle beneficiary of the Eddie take-down of Boris Johnson is his adversary David Cameron. Perhaps the BBC attack was encouraged not by the left but the “conservative” party. Am I wrong?
Yes, I think you’re wrong. Cameron doesn’t benefit from destroying Boris as much as Labour might do. The Beeboids love Boris because he makes good copy, and he’s amusing. But they hate what he represents: a possible populist keeping the hated Tories in power after 2015. If he could beat Comrade Ken in London, anything is possible. They wouldn’t have commissioned a documentary about him hashing over all his ancient sins if they felt his star was on the decline.
There’s no way Boris is going to take over from Cameron before the election, and that means with the new rules Boris wouldn’t get a shot until 2020 at the earliest. Perhaps as in the MacAlpine debacle they couldn’t keep their powder dry.
I wouldn’t have thought so either, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty who do.
I respect what you say, David. And (believe it or not) I read and digest what you say, Colditz. But someting isn’t right here.
Eddie Mair like all presenters are merely mouthpieces – or as one producer in a drunken state once told me “horsemeat”. Flavours of the month. No presenter (not even Paxman) would have dared to conduct that interview in the manner it was done without some pretty heavy muscle to protect him. I just sense the decision to attack Boris was made at a much higher level. Mair (a likely assassin as he is angling for the Tonight job) was let off the leash and told “Don’t worry, old boy. We’ll see you right.”
There must be many politicians worthy of a take down. Why Boris? Why now? Would the BBC risk the wrath of the Tories at this delicate juncture?
There was a Panaroma interview with Harold Wilson I can never forget conducted by three presenters – one of whom (James Mossman) asked Wislon questions about the British involvement in Vietnam which were very pointed indeed and put the Prime Minister on the spot. Mossman was actually admonished on air by Robin Day. Soon after Mossman was booted off Panorama and demoted to an arts programme called “Review”. That’s how quickly a career can end if important people are embarrassed.
No, something else was in play here. Not just Mair’s ambition, an overzealous producer or a display of machismo by the BBC.
By the way, Colditz, I wouldn’t put too much store in Robin Day’s feisty relationship with the Powers-That-Be. He was part of the power structure – hence his argument with Mossman on air.
Boris wasn’t asked about his private life. He was asked if he was sacked by his party leader because he’d lied to him about his private life. That’s when it crossed over from private to public interest.
The BBC doesn’t cover or ask questions in political interviews about private lives.
Andrew Marr’s private life or Eddie Mair’s sexuality for that matter have nothing to do with their jobs as interviewers. Their role is to ask the questions and hold to account. Boris seems to agree.
You have yet again shown a failure to grasp a basic concept.
Ohhh, I think they do. If that had been Marr in the chair asking Boris questions about his affairs viewers might just have thought him a tad hypocritical, and therefore less credible as an interviewer.
But then socialism would appear to be a hypocrisy-free zone as far as the BBC are concerned (you know, the likes of Abbott, Hodge etc never once challenged for the ‘do as I do, not as I say’ conflicts between their political and private lives).
Again, he didn’t ask about his affairs.
It’s not hypocritical because his private life has nothing to do with his role as the interviewer, which is to ask the questions in the minds of informed viewers. His own views/behaviours shouldnt be relevant.
There’s always a danger in saying the BBC ‘never’ do something.
Diane Abbott being questioned about those ‘
‘do as I do, not as I say’ conflicts’:
Oh, and if Andrew Neil had sent his kids to private school, should he not ask the question?
I would guess Neil is fairly open about sending his kids to private school, and not a transgression like Marr’s really, is it?
So…..look forward to links showing Abbott, Hodge, Livingstone, McShane etc getting a similar grilling.
Anyway, nice to see a new poster on here – along with the week’s other new posters of course (cough, cough).
Ecclesiastes 4:10
‘ For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falls; for he has not another to help him up.‘
Not an issue chez Aunty, as she seems to have perfected Clone Warfare.
Bollox.
The role of a BBC interviewer is to ask questions – AND GIVE SOME TIME FOR ANSWERS
The role is NOT to peppershot a lot of accusations without allowing time for reply.
The role is NOT to declare someone to be “a nasty piece of work”.
I had no problems with the interview itself, apart from the ‘nasty piece of work’ question, which I do agree was wrong.
I did want to correct the error though that he was questioned about his private life.
If you saw the interview you must have seen that Mair was not giving BJ time to answer Mair’s statements and questions – on issues that went back some 20 years.
As Mair said – he was attacking BJ’s integrity. It was a hatchet job, pure and simple, with Mair interrupting every attempt to reply.
But then – Mair is a nasty piece of work.
colditz, are you seriously suggesting that pressing – “with the greatest respect” – a sitting Minister on a single policy issue is the same thing as digging up old sins and hurling a personal insult?
Must be one of those six impossible things you believe before breakfast every day.
Can you provide any evidence that Harman has been called a ‘nasty hypocrite’ for sending her son to a selective grammar, and daughter to the London Oratory. An oversubscribed catholic school.
Or the fact that she has a second home in Suffolk, that most enriched and vibrant county in the South of England
Both run counter in spirit to the Quisling Party’s attitude to selection; belief that failure to deliver equality of opportunity/outcome is a product of noisy middle class parents using the schooling system to advantage their precious offspring; or that she has a second home in a prime ‘white flight’ area.
Humphries/Mair: ‘your party advocates one thing but when it comes to you and your family you do the direct opposite – you nasty little hypocrite’.
Hang on, colditz, I thought you didn’t believe I lived in the US. Have you changed your mind since I offered a wager on it? Harman’s foibles have been well-documented on this blog, so anyone on the planet could have read it. In case you weren’t aware, some British newspapers have this thing called a “website”, where one can read articles on demand, from any internet access point in the world. Not everyone is as parochial as you are. You didn’t even know that the BBC shows news broadcasts in the US.
You can keep pretending that calling someone “a nasty piece of work” is the same thing as giving an attacking interview “with all due respect”, but everyone can see right through you. You’re not fooling anyone.
I think the Useless has got the final sentence from Humphries wrong. It has hi saying ‘Harriet Harman thank you very much’, they must have missed the line saying ‘Harriet Harman – your a nasty bit of work’.
Bullshit colditz…read on eh?
Great ad hom, Herr Colditz, except “hod” and “brick” should be the other way round.
Incidentally, you aren’t one of the Magdeburg Colditzes, are you?
One hod short of a brick eh?
Hope you`re not in constructing anything other than straw men to yell at.
As I`ve said elsewhere-you`re not a nice bloke, and your frequent jibes at mental illness might get you into trouble, when Leveson gets round to you.
I sense you`re rather hoping the rest of us will be in gulags by then…yet you`ll not scoot off and do something useful for yourself.
Why ever not?…no…no reply wanted, honest!
‘failure to grasp a basic concept’
Going well so far?
And what the BBC doesn’t ask questions about but does cover anyway can also lead to a rather embarrassing series of events when it comes to Newsnight/BIJ exposes, as I recall. Holding to account-wise. With, what was it, a bit of an internal dust around and a bunch of redactions?
Again, that appeared somewhat unidirectional politically.
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth
But for the last, for some, there are always House Rules and FoI lawyers.
Surely it is not in an interviewers remit to say on air that someone is’ a nasty piece of work’. Eddie Mair ought not to have overstepped the mark. I’m surprised that in the spirit of Leveson the BBC aren’t issuing very large apologies and suspending Eddie for three months without pay.
In any event I don’t think that the documentary, as opposed to the interview, will have done Boris much harm.
All the stuff the BBC managed to rake up was old news which had been well ventilated years ago. The phone call tape , even if obtained legally, seems not so different to hacking , but perhaps the BBC are above such unfair comparisons from an ordinary person like myself.
We were never told exactly how Boris misrepresented history in the Times about Piers Gaveston ,so I assume that it was nothing significant or else the BBC would have majored on it. Also if Max Hastings was happy to give him a job at the Telegraph it can’t have been very serious.
As to the stuff about his adultery , as folks say about ,let him without sin cast the first stone. Lying to your leader is a bit more serious but if you add all these three together you don’t get anywhere near Eddie Mair’s ‘nasty piece of work ‘ do you.
Oh I forgot to add that if misrepresenting history was a crime then BBC employees should be fined enough to pay off the national debt. They play fast and loose with the facts to suit their own liberal left narrative.
I hope that Boris does become PM and demonstrates that our nuclear deterrent does work by vapourising the BBC.
Oh I see, John Prescott larraping his secretary,over a table at Admiralty house, is private, whilst Boris and his flings are public. Think I’m getting the hang of this now!
And Ken Livingstone comapring a Jewish reporter to a Nazi prison camp guard. Nasty piece of work? Nah, get him on at any and every opportunity to spout his BBC-approved political bile.
There’s quite a bit of BBC News coverage of aspects of Prescott’s affair actually if you care to look.
The question wasn’t about Boris’ affairs. It was whether he’d lied to his party leader about it, which he was sacked for.
and Mair gave BJ no proper chance to answer the question – or rather, the assertion.
You surprise me Colditz. I never thought you would be one to believe everything you read in the Mail. You’ll be voting for Cameron next.
So I suppose Prescott had the first lie free affair in history?Beside the unhealthy boss, subordinate relationship. Come off it, we all know he was given a free ride by all the press ( sorry).
The test for the BBC will be a similar grilling of a potential future Labour part leader. What about the mantra-spouting and puke-inducingly earnest Chukka Ummuna for starters?
BBC/Labour fear Boris’s universal appeal and seeing Cameron on shaky ground at the moment they are starting their character assassination early. Expect ‘nasty piece of work’ to surface in future BBC/Labour discussions about Boris, framed with a giggle and a ‘well I don’t think it was meant seriously but you never know’ nudge and a wink.
London mayor Boris Johnson says BBC presenter Eddie Mair did a “splendid job” in questioning him about his “integrity” during an interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21926377
Can’t you recognise irony ?
What BJ was saying in the street iunterview was that Mair behaved as he would expect a BBC hack to behave. Maybe the message was too subtle for you.
Mair’s behaviour was a travesty of good journalism.
…It was pricking this pompous buffoons bubble
You really show your innate or brainwashed hatred or fear of Boris has nothing to do with what you know about the man.
Pompous? You should look up the word in the dictionary – he’s the very antithesis. His charm and appeal is precisely because he comes from a background that would usually breed that type of individual, yet everything he does, and the way he does it is the complete opposite.
The ‘Buffoon’ is his very effective way of disarming opponents, under which is a very intelligent man. You should only be such a buffoon.
Unfortunately….
Wonder why the documentary and interview didn’t include this piece – for balance?
‘Knight on a shining bicycle’: Boris Johnson saves film-maker from girl gang attack
Ask Ken Livingstone.
Think you`ll need an “-ed” on the end of that verb of yours to give us the impression that you`re literate.
You know Ed Miliband, Balls and now Mair.
That kind of “ed”…not the abbreviation for education in your case sadly…
If an interview is conducted in a detached, calm, skilful, professional and impartial manner I can make up my own mind if an interviewee is a nasty piece of work or not.
To ask someone if they are a nasty piece of work is something which usually happens in an acrimonious argument, and so demonstrates Mair’s amateurish and unskilled approach and his obvious personal distaste for the behaviour of his interviewee.
Just another example of the modern BBC’s poor standards.
‘If an interview is conducted in a detached, calm, skilful, professional and impartial manner I can make up my own mind if an interviewee is a nasty piece of work or not.
Totally agree. And a point ignored or being now avoided desperately by the ‘Gotcha’ Glee Clubs from here to the entire Graun senior staff promoting this still.
To clarify, I’d have to rewatch to make sure, but I don’t think the ‘killer’ phrase was a question, though it may have had a mark to try and make it so semantically at the end.
My recollection was a bald, personal accusation.
Not for an impartial, professional interviewer to make.
You are a joker colditz.
This interview merely showed up how far apart Harman was from Frank Field at that time-THAT was the context for the row, not the idea of giving Harman a hard time.
It was Frank Field who got banished to the outer darkness for his honest appraisal of the problem that Blair told him to sort…but Brown could not stomach the findings.
So Field went, never to return…whatever happened to Harriet then colditz?
So-typical you-you take a text out of context-then make it a pretext for your imaginig that the BBC is even-handed.
Obtuse and quite a nasty piece of work with your grease guns a blazing, shooting ball bearings…careful you don`t slip eh?
Presumably one of those mid-Staffs ones you wish for the likes of us.
By the way, I was being sarcastic about Harriet….it`s a new word, but someone will help you with it!
Yes, look at Harriet now – in a dead-end job, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or something.
OMG! Colditz in find of the century. Yes, folks, he’s found not just one, but……..hmm, yes, it is just one – never mind, let’s continue – example of a Labour minister being aggressively challenged on Today!
Harriet Harman was pressed by John Humphrys to say whether the lone-parent benefit cut was designed to force single mothers into work. The Secretary of State for Social Security refused to answer the question at least four times and during the exchanges Mr Humphrys interrupted her several times and talked over her’.
Sounds to me like par for the course for every Tory interview I’ve ever heard on that lamentably biased programme.
But, of course, dear Harriet was interviewed in a different time – 1997, in fact. Unless Colditz can come up with at least – um, let’s see, and let’s be generous – 10 similarly challenging interviews over the following 13 years, let’s just assume situation normal i.e. massive anti-Tory bias.
The floor, as always colditz, is yours……
I have been following this blog for some years now, and I feel compelled to make a few observations about it’s current status.
It may just be my PC, but the text is in a font that makes it almost impossible to read.
percentage signs and TM signs appear instead of punctuation
The summary box on the right show threads that do not appear on the left….and more.
If it is my PC, can anyone please advise how to rectify this, I have looked under the hood and tried to no avail.
My other observation is that there appears to be a number of “Hired Guns” trolling on an almost incessant basis, and who appear to be dead set on wrecking this site to put off regular readers and contributors. They are easy to spot and IMHO should be blocked immediately Mr Vance.
I suspect that as the popularity of this blog grew, certain vested interests decided to do something about it; Just a thought.
“I suspect that as the popularity of this blog grew, certain vested interests decided to do something about it; Just a thought. “
There’s a few of us who have come to the same inevitable conclusion. I don’t know how much tax-payers’ money this “vested interest” is being wasted on, no-doubt, over-inflated salaries but it certainly seems there is at least one team of them at work.
“being wasted on” should read “wasting on”.
Nobody is hired to bother with this blog. They’re here for their own ideological purposes, only tangentially connected to supporting the BBC. Most are adults with jobs and a life, and at least one is a student. There might be a Beeboid or two lurking occasionally, but they’re not paid to do that, either, unless it’s a complaints drone looking to see if Guest Who published another response from them, which isn’t the same thing.
We used to get real, serious engagement from BBC employees, but not for a long time.
‘Nobody is hired to bother with this blog.’
One must defer to such certainty.
‘…unless it’s a complaints drone looking to see if Guest Who published another response from them…’
Actually, I merely pass on what I see here and there, as do others:
It’s good to share though, even if the BBC can on occasion seem less than keen.
Is that specific incident why some complaints apparatchik cut you off by saying they no longer had to deal with you because you made the complaint public?
Wasn’t me actually.
And I recall a few others here (Lunchtime Loather & Jeff Waters?) who incurred the wrath of the expediter for simply asking questions the BBC could not answer and hence cooked up reasons to ban them… all the way to the Trust. Nice outfit.
I have myself of course also had or had shared with me (and shared here) some instances where the cleansing light of exposure has sent the BBC scuttling to mummy for sanctions, yes.
They like holding people to account publicly.
Them being held to account, in any way, at all, not so much.
And in yet another unique, they are fully supported in such hypocrisy by the establishment authorities. The BBC employees of the BBC Trust can say the BBC is right, based on no more than belief in face of fact and outright lies in face of evidence, and that… is that.
And people wonder how Savile happened, and will again.
Seems a perfectly reasonable response to someone who wastest public funds in that way.
‘Seems a perfectly reasonable response to someone who wastest public funds in that way.
Well I can’t accuse that of being a total cut and paste from every CECUTT reply, as they can usually get the spelling correct.
Otherwise, word for word.
David, it’s the incessancy of it that puzzles me.
Even a saddo with no life could be as big a twat as colditz, but since that twat has landed on this site he/she/it has stuck like shit to a blanket.
I find it difficult to believe that he/she/it can be driven by ideology alone to be THAT incessant.
I don’t find it difficult to believe at all. The personal is political, and people can get very emotional when something on which they base their self-worth is called into question. It’s especially tricky when political opinions are based on emotion instead of reason.
Having said that, consider the fact that neither is anyone here paid by Murdoch or the Mossad, etc., yet saddos like myself spend ridiculous amounts of time and effort here.
What puzzles me is why they’re here at all and not distributing pearls of wisdom on major sites with real impact, or one of the zillion other blogs that aren’t of the Left or are critical of the BBC instead.
‘..consider the fact that neither is anyone here paid by Murdoch or the Mossad, etc., yet saddos like myself spend ridiculous amounts of time and effort here.’
If I may, there are some key differences. You and most others are here because we want to be and see a value in the contributions/ing.
With few exceptions the currently highly active naysayers often express the view that they don’t like it, or find it irrelevant.
Yet for some reason remain or rotate in ever-more bizarre permutations to clog things up.
The suggest incredible levels of masochism, amazing loyalty to a corporation who would sell them to a slaver for an extra rating or licence fee… or some coordination.
I take issue with many ideological sparring partners on all topics across the blogosphere, but this bunch are darn near camped here. Enough to usually snag a ‘get Alan’ first shot or rally the troops for a human wave attempt as on the recent Craig/Sue Got Harried thread.
‘What puzzles me is why they’re … not distributing pearls of wisdom on major sites’
The pretence here is consistently a desire for truth, justice and the way of media nobility, but near zero ever go near where the BBC clearly has been shown to be in error.
Yes there can be a valued factual correction and, rarely, a counter opinion of value not with ‘you lot’ and an ad hom kicker. But not much.
Most are spoilers, and dedicated ones beyond any reason I have seen sensibly articulated.
I agree, acquiesce, concur.
In other words, you’re also puzzled as to why they’re here and not spending the same energy on other targets.
‘Yet for some reason remain or rotate in ever-more bizarre permutations to clog things up’.
In a nutshell.
And boy, are they great ambassadors for the BBC (not).
Why are you so certain that no one is hired to bother with this blog sir?
I have no evidence to the contrary, and am aware its odd sometimes tomask someone to prove a negative, but why wouldn’t the bbc organise a hit squad?
Well if they aint hired then they are just a gaggle of stalkers who coincidentally all decided to defend a multi billion £ corporation purely for the joy protecting strictly come mincing and good old uncle jimmy’s memory !
sad methinks !
I’m certain because actual Beeboids used to engage here regularly, of their own free will. This site was even mentioned in Ariel at one point. They discussed real issues of bias and the editorial process, among many other things. The current crowd of defenders of the indefensible bear no resemblance to what actual BBC people have said here. The idea that the BBC is suddenly paying people to call me a racist or say that nobody in Britain cares about what Johnny Foreigner is up to (like colditz did recently) is simply not credible. The question isn’t why wouldn’t the BBC organize a hit squad, but why would they?
There might be one or two actual Beeboids lurking for some reason, but they’re not the ones fighting about ideology or calling people names.
Having said that, one of the strongest defenders of the BBC, a producer who used to comment here under the name “John Reith”, actually accused some of us of being paid by the Israeli government to defend it against BBC reporting. That was equally loony.
In any case, can you imagine the outcry from the NUJ if it was discovered that the BBC was paying a couple of people to say stupid things here while laying off hundreds of production staff?
As I said, there is no evidence. Do you honestly believe the bbc would fear an NUJ outcry? Would they conceive of even getting caught out?
Yes, I know to you it may seem like some kind of grand conspiracy theory, a la the moon landing was faked etc, but there ya go. Your faith in bbc management integrity sits above mine.
And your faith in their competence sits above mine.
One reason is that they are so protected by their Royal Charter that they have no fear because even the most powerful in the land are powerless.
They’re entrenched in a bunker that is currently impenetrable. They know it and we know it.
The only solution left to Parliament is to cut off the money supply but the power they now wield is big enough to sink any political party.
And that is the scariest part of this drama. They are probably the most powerful organisation in this country and out of control.
‘I salute your perspicacity
Lucky for you use of such words is given dispensation when used by the home team.
(Darn it, does that count as feeding… or is it more of a snack?)
I’ve outed you as an ignorant knob, that’s all.
Oh so you are a dick then ? glad that’s out in the open !
Leave the insults to colditz, he’s one of our greatest assets.
You`ve got your faults alright-but if you own a cat, there may yet be hope for you.
Sadly a lot of what you say apart from that , is all too plausible.
“Hired Guns” trolling on an almost incessant basis, and who appear to be dead set on wrecking”
The Not So Magnificent Seven?
‘We must make them welcome, and place flowers in their gun barrels, even as they still yet accuse the hosts and their friends of attacking boorish, uninvited guests with poisoned barbs’.
The person who comes out badly from the Boris v Eddie interview is Eddie Mair. He comes across as a hectoring unpleasant bully. We all know that Boris is a serial adulterer with buffoonish tendencies. Calling him “a nasty piece of work” was really quite shocking, even by Beeb standards.
When Cameron loses the next election I fully expect to see Boris become leader of the opposition. Even life time Labour supporters have said they would vote for him.
And the connection to the BBC and perceived bias is?
Quite right to ask.
And Prof. Dandy of Fleet St & The Cheam Enquirer would be demanding a steward’s enquiry, so kudos on the restraint too.
But DavidP has already covered those who post solely to generate (or set up) responses. BBBC no more has O/T House Rules than it does moderation.
Now, as you have raised relevance, what about the precedent set by you and your fellows on occasion?
Not sure what you mean by “you and your fellows”.
Then I fear you will evidently remain in the state of bliss your condition is complemented by.
Thanks for enlightening me………….
Don’t expect Billy Bragg to cover this song, but it would be interesting to see if the BBC would broadcast it in the interest of balance.
Like most, I don’t, for one minute have a problem with the BBC putting politicians through the ringer, but it has to be remembered that by law (statute) they have a clear obligation of impartiality (BTW: take a look at Emily Maitless’ attempt last night to see how far the BBC have strayed away from that obligation). Let’s wait and see how Miliband copes when it is his turn, or Burnham, or Brown (but somehow I think it’ll be a long wait!)
With his ‘Nasty piece of work’ jibe, Mair, crossed the line. Even many Boris hating Guardianistas and lefty commentators agree, but where we part company, is that they are happy Mair did so. The BBC are equally happy, declaring the ambush a ‘good interview’ – and so doing prejudging any complaints that will be winging their way to New Broadcasting House.
What I think, though, adds to the offence, is the BBC’s repeated airing of the confrontation on it’s news channels, bulletins and on radio, simply as promo for the BJ documentary scheduled for later that evening, and worse, releasing still photographs to the press showing Johnson’s reaction immediately after the interview. There is a smug, self-congratulatory, choreography about the whole set up – and I do mean set-up.
Let’s hope that is a dose of premature congratulation – it’s time Ofcom stepped in and reminded the BBC of its Charter obligations.
If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy, bias or commercial references in BBC programming, please make a complaint directly to the BBC.
The BBC Trust regulates these areas rather than Ofcom
That’s as it should be.
The BBC have failed to fully investigate or deal with many of the most serious allegations. The Trust is indivisible from the BBC and as Savile shewed, they have failed in their duty to hold the BBC to account, which is why Ofcom are currently considering a number of complaints.
One day the BBC and the Trust will face a judicial review into their handling of accusations of wrongdoing.
(and BTW why should anyone complain to the BBC about this, when they have already made their mind up – the matter is settled; ‘it was a good interview’)
‘If your complaint relates to matters of due impartiality, due accuracy, bias or commercial references in BBC programming, please make a complaint directly to the BBC.’
Blimey, cutting and pasting your last cookie cutter response to a CECUTT complainee is refreshingly honest, but possibly not serving your position of impartial commenter too well.
‘The BBC Trust regulates these areas rather than Ofcom’
The BBC Trust does indeed. And being these areas are about the BBC, those sharing the same name and paymaster and culture puts the notion of ‘conflict of interest’ at a truly new and unique level.
For the rest there are redactions and Hugs’ on-call FoI exclusion team.
Best use of licence fee-payers funds evva!
‘it’s time Ofcom stepped in and reminded the BBC of its Charter obligations. ‘
I was just pointing out that these are not areas which are the responsibility of OFCOM. I don’t know what the rest of your commens mean I’m afraid.
‘I don’t know what the rest of your commens mean I’m afraid.’
That’s a shame. No problem.
Lack of comprehension on a selective basis appears a pervading malaise in some quarters more used to broadcast-only engagement.
Edward Mair could claim that he was “only obeying orders” from BBC superiors …
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/03/itll-take-more-than-this-to-stop-boris/
As always, the comments can be more interesting, especially those defending the BBC/Mair there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21840600
Nasty Buddhist picking on the poor Muslims in Sri Lanka- apparently they don’t want to give up their culture to the parasitic threat that is ISLAM…..
I’m surprised no one in this thread has mentioned the Jeremy Paxman / count Dracula OOps Michael Howard & the Derek Lewis interview.
“Did you threaten to overrule him?” Howard apparantly had not, although he asked whether he could.
12 times Paxo asked why on earth the slippery politico didn’t give a proper answer is I expect beyond most of us.
But that in part is the point, if Howard had answered instead of obfuscating then we wouldn’t remember the interview and he wouldn’t have suffered the damage.
So we ask for a similar hatchet job on a Labour MP, does anyone seriously think if this had been done to BLiar he would have put in such a poor performance as Boris did? And don’t forget that there has to be material in someones past to dredge up, any professional politician should have been well prepared for questions likely to be raised by a hostile interviewer.
Boris simply allowed himself to be torn to shreds because of his failure to prepare for questions most of which were in the public domain already.
Was he actually given any advanced warning that this was the line of the interview as I’m sure he says he was asked on to talk about the budget and given current events I believe him a dam sight more then the BBC !
When you have skeletons and they’re dancing round the room rather than in the closet a professional politician would have already pre prepared a set of answers for the inevitable time they are dragged up. The old adage to fail to prepare is to prepare to fail is appropriate here.
You think Clinton or BLiar would have been caught out like this? Far too professional and slick despite their policies.
Rubbish. The “skeletons” are not dancing around the room – they are issues from many many years ago. As Boris Johnson has been elected Mayor of London twice since then, they can hardly be regarded as politically relevant. except by a nasty piece of work like Mair.
And Mair’s focus of them was certainly not balanced. For instance, Mair took one obscure issue about BJ’s journalism – his over-sandpapering of a Piers Gaveston quote. 95% or more of the populace don’t even know who Gaveston was. Whereas Cockerill’s programme touched on the Gaveston incident but spent a lot more time suggesting that BJ had been a damn good journalist – if erratic – at the Telegraph and the Spectator.
‘spent a lot more time suggesting that BJ had been a damn good journalist’
—-
There you go…. BBC balance.
If interesting which aspect of which programme the BBC has been harping on, and getting its press complements to big up, for days before, during and after.
“Rubbish. The “skeletons” are not dancing around the room – they are issues from many many years ago.”
Well they’re not exactly in the closet hidden away are they?
The point I’m making is that Mair did not turn up anything new or hidden, only what was already known.
I’m not sure if they’re not politically relevant, he was sacked for changing the quote, which some might argue shows someone unreliable with the truth. There’s no way as some have done, that this can be minimised, the Times doesn’t sack its hacks over minor issues.
Then there’s the issue of giving an address to well known criminal Darius Guppy, could we really have a prime minister who was prepared to have someone beaten up by a criminal acquaintance?
You think this would have happened to a professional politician? No way Margaret Thatcher would have been caught like this! Mair would have been on his knees begging forgiveness by the time she finished with him!
He must have been expecting what Graham Linehan referred to as an “ambush” interview. The documentary was pending, which is probably why he was asked on the show in the first place. No way was Boris caught completely by surprise.
Did Paxman call Howard a “nasty piece of work” or similar insult? There’s hostile, and then there’s name-calling. Paxman couldn’t stop calling Conrad Black a convicted felon when Black made his recent return to society, but that’s mostly because he is one and was being a &^$* about it.