‘Policy Exchange’ were constantly referred to as a right leaning think tank, or even as a think tank ‘close to David Cameron’ this week by the BBC.
The IPPR today, at least on the radio, have had no such label attached to them…that of being Labour’s pet think tank…wonder why when you look at their new thoughts on petrol pricing:
‘Labour wonk-shop IPPR have declared war on the Sun‘s Page 3 girls as they publish a report claiming that the government’s bleeding of motorists via high fuel taxes is just a “myth“. Earlier this week the Sun girls jumped on board the Taxpayers’ Alliance campaign to freeze fuel duty by showing their support at petrol stations up and down the country. Now IPPR has hit back, laughably arguing that the Chancellor “should make every effort to avoid further delays in fuel duty increases“.
Will’s argument is unconvincing and not likely to be taken up by the Labour Party. “Vote Labour for higher petrol taxes” is a CCHQ dream slogan…’
The BBC don’t want you thinking Labour want to price you out of your cars…even if the BBC green Marxists do.
In fact I can’t find the story on the BBC website…it was mentioned on the radio…but not on the web…except for this:
-
Huffington Post UK / NEW 5 hours ago… fuel duty increases and prioritise spending on public transport, a think-tank has urged. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said…
A curious omission you might think.
I, too, heard the constant reference earlier this week to ‘Policy Exchange’ being a ‘think tank close to David Cameron’, and immediately thought of the BBC’s absolute indifference to ‘linkages, leanings, or Left-wing tendencies’ of any think tank…….but particularly IPPR.
Again, when any right-wing politician is interviewed on the BBC and any reference is made to IPPR or its ilk, there should be no hesitation in responding with an immediate riposte that they were being asked to respond to an ‘known, left-wing, policy group’…. and then saying what they need to say. The right in this country doesn’t just have to counter what the left has to say, it has to counter built-in biases from the BBC, and the sooner they learn this lesson, the better. If the BBC won’t do it, then they need to make it bloody clear that the BBC is, in effect, hiding the political source of such reports and analyses, and the political tendencies/leanings/bias of these organisations.
I once heard Emily No-Mates describe MigrationWatch as being “far right” before launching into a sneering and belicose attack on the ever so patient and polite Sir Andrew Green.
Emily probably has never got over the fact should couldn’t be a super model. She has horse face probably why.
Better than being a horses arse.
‘Emily No-Mates describe MigrationWatch as being “far right”’
It would probably soon descend into a ‘but you started it’ slanging match, but an invitee who feels such branding is unfair or attempted as a way to pre-define the discussion direction, really should first counter with something like ‘If the left wing BBC seeks to define any discussion in such terms we can, but maybe it would be better to discuss the issue based on the substance and facts of the issue without being framed before we start with your own clear institutional prejudices as a supposedly objective organisation?’
I agree completely with your sentiments, but, as you say, the interviewee would last approximately 5 words into that reasonable approach before being cut off at the knees, and probably the microphone as well. The BBC absolutely hates being labelled as anything but scrupulously unbiassed in all it does. The interview would then descend into a farce, almost certainly with the interviewer talking solely to the political opponent who invariably seems to be there when a government representative is being quizzed – as opposed to the clear field so often given to any Labour spokesperson on a topic – at which point they are invited to take unchallenged charge of the microphone for 10 minutes and say anything they like.
I seem to recall Guido Fawkes did something along these lines to Princess Nikki, who did not take it well at all. I’m not sure if Guido has been asked back on since.
Another curious omission on the part of the BBC is the non-reporting of Aliaksandr Barankov, the Belarusan held in an Ecuadorian jail and about to be deported to Belarus where he will almost certainly be murdered by the regime.
Fortunately Sky News, which regularly wins “News channel of the year” has had Dominic Waghorn on the ground in Quito to report the facts.
Assange: Ecuador Accused Of Double Standards
http://news.sky.com/story/975389/assange-ecuador-accused-of-double-standards
The Mail’s also got it.
Are you watching, Julian Assange? Belarus dissident who was granted asylum in Ecuador says he will be killed as country is poised to send home
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191500/Belarus-dissident-granted-asylum-Ecuador-says-killed-country-poised-send-home.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
And so has the Brisbane Times.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/ecuador-to-treat-belarusian-same-as-assange-20120823-24p2m.html
In fact many news outlets are covering it.
BBC – zilch.
In fact if you google “Aliaksandr Barankov” you’ll see thyat just about every Western Hemisphere news outlet is reporting the case, except, of course, the BBC
In a few days time they will stealth edit one of their pages from today or yesterday, so that when accused of not mentioning it they can say there it is. It will be on too late for it to be news so will be missed by their regular zombies.
Speaking of whom, the flock appears to be on extended leave, along with Nick, Paul, Steph, etc.
It is on the BBC; you just need to know where to look, because for some reason they have been reluctant, or slow to make connections others have managed.
Quite recently, I am sure this is the mob the the EU gave a grant of £700,000. Yes, that’s our taxpayer money going to a labour think tank. (yes I know ‘labour think tank’ is an oxymoron, but it seemed to describe them)
Well ,all their policies tank so why shouldn’t their thoughts?