Author Archives: Ed Thomas

Credibility Gap

By | | ,
12 Comments

The BBC and the Government are constantly on the look out for good news about the economy, while bad news is given the heave ho. For the BBC, this is big news, this, not so much. Then you have fatuous features like this one.

My point is that it doesn’t do any good to demean journalism for political purposes. Gordon Brown doesn’t do himself any good pretending that his actions aren’t dictated by his need to avoid responsibility for past mistakes. He’ll be far better off when he follows Susan to the Priory. The BBC does no good pretending that the crash isn’t a crash but merely a hiccup in domestic demand which is being overcome pronto. It’ll be far better off when it’s being looked after by someone who understands the media in society, like Simon Cowell. Denial is the way to turn a crisis into a greek drama.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

All about Gordon

By | |
16 Comments

I do recommend the BBC’s reporting on Gordon Brown’s statement of angst. It’s a merciful sight shorter than the Guardian’s version.

Quite why we need to be subjected to Gordon’s musings on his public persona I don’t understand. There seems to be some suggestion that Gordon deserves a right of reply against his critics. It’s as if the BBC thinks that all the British public has been viewing is the coverage of one Guido Fawkes Esq. It’s really a terrible situation. The BBC and Guardian seem to think Gordon’s had a hard press. In fact, he’s had a risibly easy one. The BBC and Guardian seem to think that the scrutiny of his personality has been too intense. In fact, Gordon has been waging personality politics and character assassination cabinet throughout his unelected tenure- unimpeded until the aforementioned Fawkes exploded a bomblet under Damian McBride.

Even the article which they are now using to promote Gordon’s version of events only draws upon Labour sympathisers as sources. Tony Wright (Labour) MP is given the final word, saying that “any PM” who had to preside over Britain through the economic crisis would be unpopular. I strongly disagree- there are many examples of crisis hit countries with popular PMs- but where is the dissenting voice against the Brownian emotional appeal? I think Gordon is extraordinarily lucky that no major media outlet is linking up the dots between the 40% of the world’s o.t.c derivatives trade that Gordon boasted was in British hands in 2006, and the economic crisis which the collapse in credit and demand has caused world-wide (helpful article here). I think the public can join up the dots, but our media has too many interests entwined with presenting the economic crisis as originating elsewhere (the USA if pressed to be specific). This applies in spades to the BBC, whose commitment to the NewLabour project has been unimpeachable since Broadcasting House was littered with empty champagne bottles in 1997.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The audacity of distraction

By | | , ,
69 Comments

On the day when the unemployment figures surpass those of any time since “things could only get better”, the BBC have found the perfect story to fill the space and relegate jobs to a lower position on their UK news webpage: racism in Belfast. Normally this would be somewhere tucked into the N. Ireland backwater pages, but somehow this time it’s really critical.

What was fascinating, as I took a glance at the ONS June update on employment was a rather startling figure concerning employment of “British borns” versus overseas workers. I don’t pretend to be able to contextualise this thoroughly, but it does bring perspective on the Romanians in Belfast story. Here goes:


“The number of UK born people in employment (not seasonally adjusted) was 25.28 million in the three months to March 2009, down 451,000 from the three months to March 2008. The number of non-UK born people in employment (not seasonally adjusted) was 3.81 million, up 129,000 fromthe three months to March 2008.”

Needless to say, this was not in the BBC report on the jobs news, which was stuffed with “not as bad as expected” voices.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Establishment

By | | ,
4 Comments

It seems to be the word here at the moment, but it most certainly applies to this “profile” of the new Head of M16 Sir John Sawyers. So boring, from the Pierce Brosnan comparison through the description of him as “astute”, “effective”, “effusive”- sorry that last one describes the tenor of the article rather than the man- it is simply nothing more than p.r. Embarrassing stuff from Laura Trevelyan.

On a related note, the BBC’s chief Sir Michael Lyons is fighting against the proposal to share BBC funding. I think this proposal at this stage is just a ruse to put off the evil day when the BBC has to manage with less or none of the Licence money. The Labour party and the BBC are never really off the same song sheet. This story is reported by the Times, which has its own agenda against BBC exceptionalism, but hypocritically also against the free internet, as is shown by its vicious campaign against the blogger NightJack, among other things.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Lacking perspective: who here is establishment?

By | | ,
25 Comments

I read with interest a BBC article about Lord Rogers’ anger with Prince Charles for an apparent intervention into an architectural tendering process for Chelsea Barracks. He alleges abuse of position which calls into question the constitutional position of the Monarchy. Kind of an overreaction one might have thought, from a man surely aware of the undemocratic vagaries of planning processes.

Having only a fragmentary knowledge of architecture I did a bit of looking round and found, lo and behold, that Rogers A) is one of NuLab’s favourite architects, B) was responsible for the Pompidou centre (knew I knew him from somewhere; the only good thing about the PC I understand is that it is in Paris, and mercifully remarkably well hidden), and C) had a long-term feud going on with the classical architect, Lady Thatcher’s favourite, Quinlan Terry. According to Roger Scruton, “No one has been more malicious in the attempt to deprive Terry of work than the great guru of modernism, Richard Rogers”, and “When at last Terry fought his way through to a public commission in London — the new infirmary at the much-loved Royal Hospital in Chelsea — and had obtained all the necessary consents, Rogers had the impertinence to write to the Deputy Prime Minister asking him to call in the plans.”

Let’s be clear about this: Lord Rogers is the establishment man in this story; any other perspective is studiously ignored. The Prince is branded, Terry is ignored. Rogers’ own ideology and associations are unexamined. The BBC could scarcely be more biased. They must think it is all ok.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Stability Monkeys

By | | , ,
29 Comments

The BBC is a firmly ideological organisation. One way you can see that is that the messages they purvey rarely change, even though they may evolve somewhat.

Take the Iranian election this week. The BBC’s John Simpson said when Ahmedinejad was elected in 2005 that Iranian politics was “complex and sophisticated”. The invitation to consider his election as an expression of an intelligent electoral system was clear.

Now, following the latest election in which Mahmood strengthened his position with suspicious symbolic perfection outlined by Amir Taheri here, Simpson describes Iran as “a relatively sophisticated country”. Relative to what he does not say. As I did before, in 2005, I invite you to discover some examples of this “sophistication”, all of which documented by Amnesty International (for which I hold no uncritical admiration) since Mr Simpson voiced his view of Iranian “sophistication” in 2005.

Simpson, now apparently ensconced in Iran as he used to ensconce himself in Iraq when he befriended Saddam’s ministers, makes the case for stability:


“it certainly is not in the outside world’s interest to have a long period of disorder in Iran. Political chaos in a leading oil-producing country would do more economic damage to Western countries.”

In so doing he makes the case for Ahmadinejad’s continuing in office, and breaches the code for impartiality. But that is more or less a stable state with the BBC, isn’t it?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Campaign journalism

By | | , , ,
42 Comments

When the BBC claim impartiality, it follows that they claim to be a timeless, apolitical entity reflective of truth. I couldn’t help thinking about that when I looked at the BBC website this morning and saw the lead stories on the World and UK webpages. On the former, France and Italy were being taken to task for falling off the Bono Africa charity bandwagon. On the latter, a young woman accused of child indecency was being paraded before the public eye.

It seems to me this is activist journalism and trial by media. I don’t know why a person simply accused of a crime is pictured, named, aged and specified in this way by our national broadcaster. I do not think it would have happened in the past. As for Bono’s media bonanza, the BBC loves to talk about aid but it is less keen to scrutinize trade, especially of agricultural produce. Protectionism is rife in Europe, and not absent in the US. “Naming and shaming” “guilty” aid reneging countries is in my view just a circus of smug sentiment. How about scrutinising the manifest inefficiencies and incapabilities of our bureaucratic EU in spreading and growing wealth?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Bias Never Pays in the end

By | |
21 Comments

Last night was a great example of where deceitful politicking gets you, yet so far the BBC have learnt little. Today they report that “The BNP won more than 120,139 votes in the Yorkshire region, slightly less than in 2004”. This detail obscures the fact that their share of the vote increased (which they don’t mention). It’s the wishful thinking that finds this kind of reporting satisfying, and fails to represent the political issue fairly, which has given the Labour-sympathising, Toynbee-Alibai-Brown promoting BBC the bad name it has, and contributed to the rise of the BNP for saying “what you will never hear” on the BBC.

Thanks to the commenters who reported on BBC bias through the evening. The comment thread makes interesting reading.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Framing the debate

By | | ,
14 Comments

In the great BBC interview bias debate, we’ve already identified one factor, what has been called the “interruption coefficient” (by commenter Ctesibus). There are other factors though of course; one that usually strikes me is what I could term “framing”. The opening 1 minute and 30 seconds of this interview with Conservative Caroline Spelman were conducted by John Humphrys analysing the local elections results WITHOUT mentioning the expenses scandal, while claiming that the Conservatives had failed to meet expectations at a time when Labour were at a low ebb. Actually, before the election I can recall the BBC intoning hypnotically that all politicians were in the doghouse together. Now that the Conservatives pass an electoral test, suddenly the expenses scandal disappears from their thinking and the Conservatives have allegedly disappointed.

The rest of Humphrys’ interview too was dripping with oleaginous cynicism directed against Conservatives- insinuating that the Conservatives would be punished at the General election, that Spelman was dishonest (“come on, you’re a politician”), that Brown had the new Cabinet behind him (Humphrys fluffs this hilariously as he realises he’s spouting more than his usual nonsense quotient) and that David Cameron would get his comeuppance soon over expenses.

All of this Spelman sailed through with the fair wind of success behind her, but Humphrys’ framing of the discussion was a persistent effort to mitigate bad news for Labour. For now, it has failed, but to the truly ideological every little counts.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Quotables

By | | ,
41 Comments

Cameron to Hugh Edwards: “Even the BBC… will have to say these are good results” (smirk)

Nick Robinson (on a day when Labour failed to retain a single county council): “Gordon Brown is stronger than he was, but not by much.”

Gordon: “I will not waver… I will get on with the job”

The job being what, exactly? Add your faves below.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.