What an inspired appointment !
“The BBC is facing fresh concerns about political bias after appointing an outspoken left-winger as the editor of Question Time. The corporation yesterday announced that Glasgow-based Nicolai Gentchev has been handed the role after the previous editor quit over the decision to move the show to the Scottish city. But last night it emerged that the BBC employee had written a series of book reviews and articles for left-wing publications such as Socialist Review and the International Socialism Journalism.”
Gosh, do you think that this appointment of Comrade Gentchev might effect the careful balance achieved by Question Time? 😉
Any Tory who goes on Question Time now deserves what they get. Come to that, they deserve what they get anyway because they should have tackled BBC bias years ago.
My concern is not for the Tories but for the effect on the opinions of the general population who still believe that what they hear from the BBC is impartial.
If the BBC were to admit they are totalitarian Leftist this would not only undermine the justification for their tax payer funding, but MUCH MORE importantly (Leftists after all will always find a reason why it is important for the BBC to be Leftist) it would undermine the effectiveness of their Leftist propaganda.
A suitable strand title to consider the Yesterday in Parliament review on Today which concerned itself with questioning of the new Chairman Chris Patten.
When asked about BBC bias he said when listening to reporters such as Nick Robinson, Robert Peston and Jeremy Bowen he did not detect any bias!
My wife lying beside me wondered why I suddenly burst out laughing!
I give full credit to the BBC for appointing somebody who makes no secret of his admiration for a country which arrested, starved to death, or executed its political opponent, as the editor of one of the few programmes on the BBC which still gives people permission to question Leftist lies. I wondered how much longer Question Time would last.
At least the bad old days when a “scientifically selected” audience of predominantly Left of centre political activists, and guest speakers heavily weighted to the Left is now over. In BBC New Britain the Leftist tax funded elite no longer feel the need to disguise their contempt for freedom of speech.
Chant togther. No Cuts! Higher Taxes! Bigger State! All worship the great all knowing Leftist establishment. Abolish all incorrect thinking. March towards the great bankrupt future.
Note that the Conservative MP the Hon Philip Davies says exactly the same things that are said here about the bias of QT.
I think the coalition leadership is left wing biased as well so they will do nothing about it,
More form the CSMonitor on the NPR’s “exposure”. Strange there’s little debate here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0309/Before-
NPR-scandal-a-warning-about-elite-liberals-compassion-turns-to-coercion
try that link again
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0309/Before-NPR-scandal-a-warning-about-elite-liberals-compassion-turns-to-coercion
Perhaps we should all “bask” in the new supremos impartiality then:
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj69/gentchev.htm
It is a Mrs Merton-like question but…..BBC what first attracted you to the anti-capitalist, anti-welfare reform, Soviet admiring, Gentchev?
“BBC bias is getting worse – Trotsky would fit right in”
(by Ed West)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100079571/bbc-bias-is-getting-worse-trotsky-would-fit-right-in/#
Thanks for the link. West is excellent here. This quote he features from Trotsky sounds like it came from a BBC News production meeting.
The question of Great Britain is far more conditional; it depends on the tempo at which her revolutionary development proceeds. Should the “Government of Workers and Peasants” triumph on the European mainland before British imperialism is overthrown – which is quite probable – then the European Federation of Workers and Peasants will of necessity be directed against British capitalism. And, naturally, the moment British capitalism is overthrown the British Isles will enter as a welcome member into the European Federation.
The only thing missing is something about making sure the comfortable, superior lives of the nomenklatura (e.g., the Beeboids) are protected.
Looking at the knee-jerks, who seem to have been on standby, this has been anticipated by those who possibly still see Mr. Gentchev as a close as they can get to genetic impartiality these days.
Mind you, a poster has suggested the BBC has opted for the Black Maria/ Hunt the Queen of Spades option and is trying to make themselves unsellable.
Like that ‘soil yourself’ advice they give wimmin reporters when getting raped in usually super welcoming parts of the Middle East.
As ever, I say how come we never hear about our unbiased state broadcaster employing people who think gun ownership should be compulsory or that income tax is a tool of Satan? Wouldn’t a truly impartial broadcaster be as likely to hire far-out right-wingers as Marxists? Where are they?
Maybe they’re not applying for the job? Or do you imagine that the BBC just goes around and foists jobs on people with the correct political views..?
Ask yourself – why are they not applying for the jobs Alfonso? If the BBC were truly impartial it would attract people from all walks of life with differing views. Why are all BBC staff from the leftist camps?
The BBC is supposed to be impartial (“its in their genes”). In the world of political correctness every organisation must reflect the ethnicity of the country, this is one of the BBCs core values. Why can they, then not apply this to views? Not all the people in the country are Labour supporters, not everyone had a middle class upbringing, not every one is anti-conservative, anti-Isreali or anti-Christian. Not evrryone supports the CAGW theory – do I need to go on?
Sorry Alfonso but your argument does not ring true.
It sure seems like that’s what they do in the US, Alfonso.
QT: Lets be frank, its a show made by, aimed at, and for the entertainment of overgrown socialists who wish to relive their student bar debates.
Step back and you can see that QT like so much of BBC news and current affairs output is now an environment abstracted from reality where a particular set of worldviews can be safely aired and pushed on a regular basis without cost or complicated consequence.
Not that I’m against such shows in principle. Afterall the BBC should cater for a broad range of the nation’s minority interests – such as traction engine enthusiasts, folk dancers and Muslims.
All I’d ask is that these shows are properly flagged up as being skewed to a particular viewpoint and are more in proportion to the size of the minority. There is simply too much leftwing dabate churned out ‘across the BBC’ (as they like to put it).
A Coalition Government boycot might be the way to deal with QT. I know that won’t happen.
Normal service has been resumed.
David
Perhaps you think there should be a blacklist of names whose political views mean they’re not suitable for work at the BBC?
That sounds both impartial and unbiased.
See my reply to your post above. No one talks of blacklists. The BBC should represent the country – all views of the licence payers. Or is your argument that all BBC employers should hold the same views? Is that really your idea of impartiality?
Do you think that the BBC employ people like Mr Gentchev without knowing anything about him. OK lets not have a blacklist lets have imaprtiality – therefore to balance Mr Gentchevs’ appointment, the next person employed by the BBC should be a far right national front supporter. Do you think someone like that would get the job if they applied?
I disagree. I think the BBC should represent the British nation in the sense Disraeli used the term. That is it should represent our national, historically rooted character, institutions and values and not simply what a current majority think. The one man who stands up for the British or at least English, historical nation speaks for it better than 90% of the population if they have betrayed it.
“No one talks of blacklists.”
Well what exactly is the point of this blog post then? The word ‘blacklist’ is not used, but the argument is clearly that Gentchev’s political views mean he should not be allowed to do his job. That’s McCarthyism.
“The BBC should represent the country – all views of the licence payers. Or is your argument that all BBC employers should hold the same views? Is that really your idea of impartiality?“
My argument is that the BBC should give jobs to those applicants most suited to doing them. You don’t seem to understand what impartiality even means.
“Do you think that the BBC employ people like Mr Gentchev without knowing anything about him.”
I expect they know what his skills and abilities are and employ him based on that, rather than what his political views are.
“OK lets not have a blacklist lets have imaprtiality – therefore to balance Mr Gentchevs’ appointment, the next person employed by the BBC should be a far right national front supporter. Do you think someone like that would get the job if they applied?”
Do you think that writing reviews for left wing magazines is equivalent to being a member of a fascist political party? And again, you’re suggesting employing people based on their political views.
“And again, you’re suggesting employing people based on their political views.”
No – you are.
I agree with Alfonso Paulista that somebody who explicitly aligns himself with a party who believes there is no such thing as truth, only propaganda in the service of class struggle, is a perfect choice for the editorship of a political discussion programme on the BBC. OK. I think it is absurd that somebody should have to believe in free speech just because they happen to be employed by the BBC. What next? Blacklists of homophobes, racists, and sexists just because they have to have the “wrong” sort of political views! You Tory scum do not even understand the word impartiality!
Joh Horne Tooke
I’ve already stated that I think the BBC should employ people based on their skills and abilities and not on their political beliefs. There’s simply no point in trying to discuss the matter with you if you’re going to essentially claim that black is white.
I agree with Alfonso Paulista that Horne Tooke is a blatant racist for suggesting that black is white. It is quite inappropriate to bring in skin colour into this debate. I also agree with Alfonso that political views are entrirely irrelevant to political journalism. I mean it is absurd to suggest that just because The Guardian is full of Left Wing Journalists that it is an anti-Tory paper. I am sure I could find people who read the Daily Worker who find it too Right Wing and that they should be all shot. This tells me that it is politically balanced. So long as people are Socialists it should not matter what political beliefs they have – especially when they are public schoolboys.