Quite a few people have picked up on Grant Shapps comments about spreading the Licence Fund around a bit more.
A good portion is already doled out to Channel Four, but of course that is merely the BBC’s inbred cousin with fewer inhibitions and a disturbing tendency for showing off in the rudest way possible.
Hardly a balance considering together they pretty well dominate political broadcasting in this country.
It didn’t take long before the BBC struck back in its report…11 lines in and they came up with this:
A BBC spokesman said transparency and freedom from political pressure were key to the BBC’s future.
Clearly trying to paint this purely as ‘political interference’ rather than a measured and appropriate scrutiny of the BBC when it has shown itself to be out of control over the last year. The BBC weren’t so keen on ‘freedom from political pressures‘ when it jumped aboard the Leveson band wagon and joined in the highly political attempts to stop Murdoch buying up BSkyB.
The trouble with that position is that the BBC plays politics itself, it inserts itself into the political arena not merely reporting but attempting to pressurise politicians to change policies by painting them in as bad a light as possible as often as possible…it is almost a political party in its own right….even admitting as much during Thatcher’s era when it positioned itself as the ‘official opposition’ because Labour were so dire.
At the very least the BBC has become the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party when it comes to undermining welfare reforms…the ‘bedroom tax’, or knocking any economic success…the ‘wrong sort’, questioning employment rates …a ‘puzzle’, or attacking ‘rotten’ free schools.
Last week we had a minor classic of an example of the BBC trying to influence events and policies as Mishal Husain (Husband, Meekal Hashmi…an ‘active Lib Dem’) was interviewing William Hague who was talking about peace talks on Syria in Geneva next month.
Husain seemed intent on a particular point…getting Iran into the peace talks……
She asks: What about Iran where there are positive signs as far as the leadership (?) are concerned? Is that the key? [to the peace talks]
Hague says: If Iran could play a more constructive role it would be helpful…and if it accepted the same criteria for the negotiations as all other parties did……
Husain goes on: So are you inviting the Iranians to Geneva then…it would be the obvious thing to do if you’re serious about bringing them into the fold and using their influence.’
Hague’s answer was essentially ‘no’...unless Iran entered into negotiations starting from that common basis, which they haven’t so far agreed to.
However the BBC news bulletins straight away began reporting that Iran was likely to be included in the talks.
And yet that wasn’t what Hague said…he came into the interview with no such intentions and you could tell from his answers that he had no intention of inviting Iran if at all possible.
This is the BBC making up news as it goes along, creating stories that it then headlines….this ‘Iran to be invited to peace talks’ was a story purely created by the BBC.
Maybe it was Husain, first week in the new job, trying to make a splash.
What was also of interest was this from Husain:
‘…the pressure has been taken off Assad, he’s very comfortable…more comfortable than ever before since this conflict began’
Well yes….he’s pretty much safe now from military action to topple him by the US et al.
Essentially because Miliband ducked the military option:
MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
David Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.
The US said it would “continue to consult” with the UK, “one of our closest allies and friends”.
France said the UK’s vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.
Russia – which has close ties with the Assad government – welcomed Britain’s rejection of a military strike.
Will the BBC be asking Miliband to explain how he has allowed Assad to stay in place and reinforced both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the region?
Not so far.