Tony Newbery, of Harmless Sky, who is quietly doing brilliant work about BBC bias, tipped me off last night about an item on Today’s business news yesterday morning. It is a gem. First, the Guardian had already led on the story (one BBC box firmly ticked!); second, it involved a dodgy capitalist (who as a bonus was daring to exploit fossil fuel); and third it allowed the use of an “expert” who actually is a militant greenie anti-capitalist.

The story was that Tony Hayward, former chief executive of BP, has formed a company called Valleras and has secured £1.3bn of backing from a range of sources including the Rothschilds. It has very enterprisingly launched a reverse take-over of a Turkish company called Genel which has the rights to extract oil in Kurdistan, estimated to be the world’s sixth largest (and hitherto unexploited) oil field.

My instinct is to say…fantastic! Thank goodness someone in Britain has not thrown in the towel under the deluge of EU regulation and is showing a flash of the spirit that built an empire. But not, of course, the BBC. You could hear the disdain in presenter Adam Shaw’s voice that the new company might soon join the FTSE 100, especially as it was run by an executive who – as was rammed home with relish – had been associated with the gulf oil spill.

But the most questionable part of the whole exercise was that the woman chosen by the programme to react to the news – and introduced on air as only a “San Francisco based oil industry analyst” was Antonia Juhasz, who in fact is a hellcat hell-bent on destroying the oil industry. That’s not difficult to prove, because Exhibit A is her book called The Tyranny of Oil: the World’s Most Powerful Industry and What We Must Do To Stop It. With such neutral credentials, Mr Shaw asked the said Ms Juhasz several times what she thought of Mr Hayward’s return to frontline oil exploration. It doesn’t take much imgination to work out what was expected of her, and she duly delivered; essentially it boiled down to that Mr Hayward was a nasty, vicious crook who should not be allowed near an oil well and must be held to account for the “catastrophe” and “disaster” of the gulf oil spill. Mr Shaw uttered not one peep of disagreement.

Of course, the BBC and Mr Shaw got exactly what they wanted. But a very serious point of journalistic conduct is raised here, in that without a shadow of a doubt, the deliberate omission of Ms Juhasz’s highly partisan standpoint was blatantly dishonest, even by the BBC’s gutter standards.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. London Calling says:

    Ms Juhasz: …”2010 Chevron annual shareholder meeting… was arrested and charged with criminal trespass and “disrupting a meeting or procession”

    A career anti-capitalist. Just the person to share her views with us, courtesy of the BBC.


  2. Roland Deschain says:

    Looks like you’ve got them bang to rights there.  Has a complaint been made to the BBC?  I’d love to hear their weaselly justification for this one.


    • hippiepooter says:

      To: [email protected]
      CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


      Dear Mr Shaw,

      Was it you who had this person on yesterday on your Business News slot at 08:40 to criticise Tony Hayward’s oil venture in Turkish Kurdistan?

      M/s Juhasz is author of ‘The Tyranny of Oil: The World’s Most Powerful Industry and What We Must Do to Stop It’, and ‘The Bush Agenda: Invading One Economy at a Time’.

      You presented this hard left political activist merely as an “oil industry analyst” as if she was some impartial observer.

      It is extremely unethical that the listener was left in the dark over the hardline partisanship of your guest.  If you were responsible for booking her you should be sacked for your patent dishonesty and bias.

      Fortunately for yourself and the rest of your biased left-wing colleagues on TODAY, your appalling bias is shared by the BBC’s Head of Editorial Standards David Jordan, who worked as producer with John Humphrys on one of the most obscenely biased programmes the BBC has ever inflicted on the British public, ‘On the Record’.

      Until Parliament acts outrageous bias such as you or your producer were guilty of yesterday will continue unabated.

      Sincere regards,

      Graeme Thompson


      • Jeremy Clarke says:

        Not wishing to quibble, hippiepooter, but might it have been wiser to keep your complaint more specific?  
        A simple complaint, namely that Today introduced a political activist and anti-oil-industry campaigner as a disinterested ‘oil analyst’ without qualification, would probably have sufficed. Widening your attack probably isn’t helpful.  
        It is dishonest of the BBC to do this, of course; this is like calling George Galloway a ‘Middle East observer’ or Johann Hari an ‘interviewer’.  
        In fact, this is the sort of bias-by-omission that does with aplomb: this interview with SWP nutter Chris Bambery (a ‘political analyst’) is a little beauty
        It may have been an oversight on Today’s part but I doubt it.


  3. Philip says:

    It’s instructive that they went to San Francisco (the beeboids’ spiritual home and much- preferred choice over Salford for relocation, I hear) to reinforce their visceral anti-business bias.  
    I’m sure I needn’t ask whether there was a balancing viewpoint presented.  
    Great piece, Robin – I too am delighted that the much-maligned Mr Hayward is back to work.


  4. Glen Slagg says:

    BBC editorial bias is beyond parody. 
    I am particularly enraged by their enthusiastic endorsement of the man made global warming scam. I often wonder if any of these morons have ever considered how their lives would be affected if their dreams of green nirvana were to actually come true. How would they get down to Tuscany five times a year? By donkey? 
    I work in the fascinating world of science and am sometimes obliged, due to lack of money, to be involved in “climate change” related projects. It was whilst working on one of these projects, recently, on a ship, approx 10,000 miles from my home, a Grauniad reading co-worker remarked at how depressed he was to be at sea for weeks on end. I said (ironically) “Cheer up, we’re saving the planet!” to which he replied non-ironically “Yes, so that the Big Corporations™ and Big Oil™ can destroy it again”. Now, hang on mate…….you’re working in a well paid job, funded by the taxpayer (including Big Corporations™) and to do that job you fly for 18 hours in an aeroplane owned by a Big Corporation™, filled with Jet-A from Big Oil™, to join a state of the art research ship, built by a Big Corporation™, filled with equipment made by Big Corporations™ and fuel from Big Oil™. So Dear Lefty twat, (rhetorical question) what is the alternative to these things? Are you prepared to live in a mud hut as a subsistence farmer with no electricity or running water? Are you prepared to die because your neighbour covets the nice food you have grown in your garden?
    Of course not. People who decry the production of oil and Big Corporations™ are either mad (they actually think that mud hut life will be fulfilling) or thick as shit, because they don’t really understand what they are wishing for. I suppose that the third alternative is that they are being cynically manipulative, living high on the hog whilst suggesting that others should live an austere and miserable existence. I can’t decide whether the third alternative should be called “Gore-ism” or “Toynbee Syndrome”.


    • Grant says:

      Sums up the hypocrisy of Lefties perfectly !


    • jarwill101 says:

      Glen, ‘mud hut life’ reminds me of the episode of The Comic Strip when a group of witless trendies attempted to return to Stone Age life, building huts in the grounds of a modern steel & glass university. Needless to say, it wasn’t long before the ‘progressive’ regressives were creeping off to reconnect with their creature comforts.
      The beeboids wouldn’t last 5 minutes in such a brutal, decapitalised world, they’d either pine away for their cosy little former lives, or be annihilated by rampaging scrotes. To even imagine this kind of brutish world as somehow being an improvement serves only to highlight the utter decadence, the crass stupidity of the ‘Khmer Vert’ beeboid ‘thought processes’. Wankerism of the highest order.  


    • Millie Tant says:

      They already have us living in near-darkness so we might as well be without electricity. First the lightbulbs, next it will be the fridge I suppose.  The mud hut cannot be far off.


  5. Gerald says:

    Adam Shaw should be replaced immediately by Leslie Curwen.

    She has done the financial slot several weeks recently and puts Mr Shaw to shame. She reports, Mr Shaw often grinds his axe.

    Even better would be for LC to replace the present token woman presenter on Today. Her countless interjections during the no win no fee item today made it totally disjointed and prevented the interviewee from any opportunity to make clear his point(s)


  6. RGH says:

    The BBC has absolutely no right to present people like Juhasz as an expert on anything.

    Her take on the world is quite simple.

    She KNOWS better than anyone, ever, ever has done before, about just about everything there is to know and if it is not known she knows it anyway.

    That’s what her mates think who make sure she always has non-profit money available to further her non-profit calling to just be there making a non-profit noise.

    The problem is that for the leftie/liberal , her noise is mesmerising.

    The left  are suckers for the style of emotional victimhood. If you FEEL that something is wrong, go for it. It is the intention not the truth that matters. Activism. 

    Juhasz is not an ‘oil analyst.

    She is a polemicist.

    The BBC should not give folk like this woman any room to prattle through its media

    Case in point.

    Juhasz says the gulf oil is still there, lying at the bottom of the Gulf. She KNOWS it is there. A million gallons of oil can’t just disappear, she says.

    It has long since been converted through the food chain.

    Crude oil, Ms Juhasz, is bacteria food. It is not refined, it is a natural product which has voracious takers particularly in sub-tropical waters.

    It has gone, turned into protein. Gone.

    Congratulate the engineers who fixed the leak at great depth in the open sea.


    • Glen Slagg says:

      “It has gone, turned into protein. Gone. “ 

      Much to the disappointment of the eco-loons, I imagine. 
      I was going to post something on how this was an eco-disaster that never was – I don’t really have any evidence for this but  whilst I vividly remember the devastation caused to the beaches of Brittany by the Amoco Cadiz(?) sinking, I have seen very little from this disaster, despite the usual doom and gloom tendencies of our glorious meejah. Anyway, to try and find evidence to back up my assertions, I just searched around and was led to some really dodgy greenie sites. I have to say – hilarious! You only have to read the comments to get a feel for the towering intellects that are drawn to eco-lunacy. One of the sites asserts that “this is a global disaster that will lead to the total extinction of thousands of species”. To back this up, a graphic is shown of how oceans currents will move the oil out into the Atlantic. I think that the original purpose of the graphic (published by NOAA, I think) was to show how the oil will disperse – the greenie takes it as how the oil will “spread all over the world”…”causing the extinction of  countless species…..”. In the world of Eco-Nuttery, oil is some sort of radio-active poison, created in the laboratories of Big Corporations to further their dreams of destroying planet earth……as opposed to an entirely naturally occurring substance which has, rather conveniently, allowed most of us to lead comfortable and fulfilling lives.
      Unfortunately, our national broadcaster is fully signed up to the Eco-Twat world view.


  7. cjhartnett says:

    Hats off Robin to you and to Harmless Sky.
    Could not be an easier line could it?
    1. Agitprop using big words from the Grunges ” Environmentaal supplement”
    2. Buttonhole a villain as they see one.
    3. Have their talking head on the Toady show to present it as a news item.
    4. Ring round for the useful idiot to parrot what the BBC wants to hear for its listeners.
    “If you`re going to San Fransisco…make sure to ask some slimeball where`s the mosque with a turbine in its hair”
    Get out of Vietnam whilst you`re at it! You m***fkas!”


  8. Gerald says:

    Rasther reminiscent of World Service in the early hours reporting on Saint Obama’s plan to reignite the U.S. economy. Somehow they got hold of an erudite unemployed U.S. lady who was about to “get on her bike” and move to a lower unemployment area to comment. Gushingly favourable. Unfortunately the interview ran on too long such that it became readily apparent that she was an Obama supporting Democrat!

    The BBC can be expected to use this wonderful idea as a stick to beat the government with. I believe in the “small print” of the World Service item they did let slip that it was to be funded by CUTS elsewhere in the budget. Now which non-essential part of their economy will they be made in without cutting unemployment?

    Smoke and mirrors?

    P.S. I believe that tax cuts are also part of the wonder plan!


  9. hippiepooter says:

    RH forgot to post the link.  It’s not on the ‘listen again’ page, but it is on iplayer (2:40:00)

    Given the extremist political activism of M/s Juhasz, it is a biased outrage of sackable order that the listener wasn’t advised of the intense partisanship of this lady.  Strewth, in 2006 she wrote a book ‘The Bush Agenda: Invading One Economy at a Time’.  America has lost trillions in deposing Saddam and attempting to bed democracy, and hasn’t taken 1dollar of Iraq oil money.  Such is this political extremists’ credibility.

    If it had been Today’s ‘gay’ favourite oil boss Lord Browne pushing this venture, I doubt TODAY would have been mentioning about the cost cutting safety measures he insisted on at a BP US oil refinery that led to the deaths of a considerable number of workers (read about it in Tom Bowers’ the squeeze and can’t be bothered link hunting.  However, here is a Guardian piece by Tom Bower that says Browne laid the foundations for the Gulf disaster with his penny pinching over safety:- .  Like I said, if PC friendly Browne was leading this Kurdistan venture, no way would one of had a hard left political activist on TODAY given a free ride to slag him off.  Quite the opposite. )


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Given the extremist political activism of M/s Juhasz, it is a biased outrage of sackable order that the listener wasn’t advised of the intense partisanship of this lady. ‘

      I recognise (if not accept) that any hint of objective balance is now near impossible with BBc ‘guest’ selection.

      However, it is truly professional insult to accuracy injury that in not being satisfied with a partisan rigging… excuse me… rejigging… of this order, the merest hint of integrity did not creep in by way of putting their lady’s credentials in at least some kind of context.

      Maybe they feel it is simply redundant now? 

      Josef didn’t intro Adolph, with a cheery ‘And here he is, to share his vision, the deranged crackpot you’ve alllll been waiting for!!!! Oh, and he’s a murdering Nazi, too, FYI.’

      That would be fine, if I didn’t a) have to fund it and b) feel it was stuffing the country’s chances of assessing news and hence issues reality 24/7.


      • hippiepooter says:

        They wouldn’t introduce David Vance in a piece on BBC impartiality as a ‘media analyst’.


  10. Louis Robinson says:

    I have read the Wiki bio of M/s Juhasz closely and would like to know: has she ever had a real (productive) job? Where does her money come from?


    • Glen Slagg says:

      Given that one of her many glittering awards was:

      The Sentinel, “For those who have engaged in a lifelong activism.” Awarded by the Nevada Alliance for Workers Rights, October 25, 2004.”

      I would say: No, she has never had a real job. And she probably has “issues”.


  11. London Calling says:

    She is a Shami Chakrabati lookalike, with an nasal American accent:

    She is basically a left-wing academic neo-facist with a string of fancy self-appointed policy institutes. Not “You don’t like Oil, then don’t buy it” but “The World’s Most Powerful Industry–and What We Must Do to Stop It

    The Tyranny of Oil

    No, more like the tyranny of the likes of Antonia Juhasz.


    • hippiepooter says:

      The tyranny of overgrown spoilt brats running amok with sugar daddy money from the likes of George Soros and the Ford Foundation.  Henry Ford, remember him?  The Hitler supporting putz whose foundation now funds every looney tunes form of leftism that subscribes to anti-Semitism.


  12. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Nice one, Robin.  It is seriously getting to the point where it’s a giveaway when the BBC doesn’t declare the partisanship or special interest of a guest. 


  13. hippiepooter says:

    The ‘complaint’ was aimed more broadly afield.  It was a could peg to hang the fact on that such outrageous bias will always continue until Parliament acts, given the ‘impartiality’ credentials of the BBC’s Head of Editorial Standards.  
    I never waste my time making complaints to the BBC when someone as thoroughly bent as David Jordan is responsible for ‘standards’.


  14. Reed says:

    Once again we see the inbuilt dishonesty and hidden agenda at the core of the BBC. The BBC is not hideously white, it’s hideously leftist and unscrupulous. If they were to implement a ‘declare your interest’ policy, they would be well and truly buggered, as their deception would be laid bare for all to see.