pathetic BBC attempt to rebut claims of Labour bias
Discussion
Newsnight ran a Dragon's Den-type political discussion called "Political Pen". All four "dragons" were or had been affiliated to Labour. This attracted criticism to nobody's surprise. Here is the BBC's credibility-stretching (to the point of no return) response.
(the panel was
Digby Jones former business minister who never actually joined the Labour party,
Greg Dyke former Labour donor, then Lib Dem donor now working for the Tories chairing their review on creative technology,
Deborah Mattinson employed by the Labour party - but her contributions to the Pen are not from a party political point of view - (yeah right) and
Matthew Taylor former Labour strategist.)
So not a bunch of Labour types at all, thus proving that the BBC is utterly unbiased.
(the panel was
Digby Jones former business minister who never actually joined the Labour party,
Greg Dyke former Labour donor, then Lib Dem donor now working for the Tories chairing their review on creative technology,
Deborah Mattinson employed by the Labour party - but her contributions to the Pen are not from a party political point of view - (yeah right) and
Matthew Taylor former Labour strategist.)
So not a bunch of Labour types at all, thus proving that the BBC is utterly unbiased.
The fact that it was the Torygraph which chose (IMHO quite rightly) to expose the MP's expenses scandal should never be forgotten by anyone - right wing, left wing or middle of the road.
There are other, truly scandalous issues that are yet to be fully spelled out to the great, mouthbreathing masses and the BBC fking about like this does not help matters.
Next on mywish hit list are:
There are other, truly scandalous issues that are yet to be fully spelled out to the great, mouthbreathing masses and the BBC fking about like this does not help matters.
Next on my
- Magnitude of waste & bearaucracy in the public sector.
- Public sector pensions - spelled out in simple terms (i.e. what proportion of a private sector salary would need to be sacrificed to net similar retirement benefits) so the average Joe realises how crap a deal he's getting by comparison.
- Remuneration and governance of the big insurance and pension firms (who look after our investments) and the companies they 'invest' in.
Edited by Digga on Wednesday 8th July 11:03
I think this quote from the 'Have your say' section sums it up for me.....
Have your say said:
First, we must try and ignore your sneering dismissal of a very fair criticism as "predictable". Has it not occurred to you that it is predictable because it is obvious?
Second, let's try and dissect your statement. You actually admit that all four of your panellists have established links with the Labour party, and all four have, in some way, been EMPLOYED by the Labour government.
Do you really, honestly, genuinely not seen any problem here? If not, ask yourself - why not?
Why didn't an editor - just one editor - just one single editor - on Newsnight - say Hold on, this is wrong, we need at least a semblance of balance? Why didn't this problem of imbalance occur to you before?
THIS is your problem. You are so mired in Establishment liberal-left groupthink you can't even SEE when you are being screamingly biassed.
You need to change - before you are privatised. This privatisation will happen, unless you are very very very careful. In a climate of swingeing public sector cutbacks, under a Tory government, selling the BBC is a juicy prospect. Trust me, this is now a possibility.
You are signing your own death warrant. Next time, THINK.
Second, let's try and dissect your statement. You actually admit that all four of your panellists have established links with the Labour party, and all four have, in some way, been EMPLOYED by the Labour government.
Do you really, honestly, genuinely not seen any problem here? If not, ask yourself - why not?
Why didn't an editor - just one editor - just one single editor - on Newsnight - say Hold on, this is wrong, we need at least a semblance of balance? Why didn't this problem of imbalance occur to you before?
THIS is your problem. You are so mired in Establishment liberal-left groupthink you can't even SEE when you are being screamingly biassed.
You need to change - before you are privatised. This privatisation will happen, unless you are very very very careful. In a climate of swingeing public sector cutbacks, under a Tory government, selling the BBC is a juicy prospect. Trust me, this is now a possibility.
You are signing your own death warrant. Next time, THINK.
Zod said:
Newsnight ran a Dragon's Den-type political discussion called "Political Pen". All four "dragons" were or had been affiliated to Labour. This attracted criticism to nobody's surprise. Here is the BBC's credibility-stretching (to the point of no return) response.
That is not the BBC's response — it is the response of the editor of Newsnight, using a blog.Parrot of Doom said:
Zod said:
Newsnight ran a Dragon's Den-type political discussion called "Political Pen". All four "dragons" were or had been affiliated to Labour. This attracted criticism to nobody's surprise. Here is the BBC's credibility-stretching (to the point of no return) response.
That is not the BBC's response — it is the response of the editor of Newsnight, using a blog.Secondly, who give's a fk about the distinction and how does that change the more important fact that this sort of quasi-political broadcast is being made at taxpayer's expense?
Parrot of Doom said:
Sigh.
You may sigh PoD but the matter of the fact is that people do not differentiate between the BBC as a corporation and the people who work in the corporation, like the producers. There may be two different messages, but people are unable to see that.The big problem is that the BBC is meant to be impartial, yet fails to be. So whilst this producer may not represent the official views of the BBC, they aren't that different at the end of the day to the average person.
The line is blurred, and the BBC does not feel inclined to sort things out.
tinman0 said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Sigh.
You may sigh PoD but the matter of the fact is that people do not differentiate between the BBC as a corporation and the people who work in the corporation, like the producers. There may be two different messages, but people are unable to see that.The big problem is that the BBC is meant to be impartial, yet fails to be. So whilst this producer may not represent the official views of the BBC, they aren't that different at the end of the day to the average person.
The line is blurred, and the BBC does not feel inclined to sort things out.
As I said, employment law recognises this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff