Undecided and Uninvited - Biased BBC

Undecided and Uninvited: "I may have been a bit slow to realise this, but as soon as one becomes associated with a particular cause, one alienates people.

It is a mistake to assume that reasoned argument will win anyone over. People make their minds up for all sorts of reasons - then say “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

The more rational you are, the more people use distancing strategies to avoid being seduced by your reasonableness. They marginalise you, label you, and grossly exaggerate your position to avoid accidentally considering any of your points.
This principle works both ways. I confess I’ve caught myself doing it, remonstrated with myself, and carried on regardless.

Questioning the wisdom of pandering to Muslims puts one into the dreaded position of Islamophobe.

On the Sunday programme R4 (31:06) I had to listen to Ed Stourton asking a group of Muslims about their voting habits. One was from the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation I thought had been deemed unrepresentative of the ‘Muslim voice,’ but no matter. The MCB fella said their aim was fighting Islamophobia and mobilising the Muslim vote, though he was also anxious to point out that there is no such thing as a Muslim vote, apart from successfully ousting Oona King that time.

The conversation turned to ‘cavassing’ Muslims and encouraging them to get out and vote. There is a tickbox system to aid selection of your candidate. A helpful suggestion came from Ed Stourton.. ‘What,’ Muslims must ask, ‘are your views on foreign policy, and do you support Israel?’
‘Posh Ed’ presided benignly over a mutually assured consensus that no Muslim should entertain the idea of squandering their vote on anyone who supports the Zionist entity.

Fighting Islamophobia evidently entails embracing a little antisemitism. This reminds me of another incident that erupted on the internet that also revealed Muslim cognitive dissonance.

It involved the last minute withdrawal of an invitation to Douglas Murray to speak on a panel at the NUS conference at Gateshead.
Douglas Murray is an outspoken opponent of radical Islam, and an advocate of Jewish issues. Therefore, he has alienated quite a few.

The Federation of Islamic Student Societies (FOSIS) refused to participate in the conference unless Douglas Murray was disinvited.

Although Douglas Murray’s friendship is invaluable to supporters of Israel, especially when such eloquent champions are few and far between, the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) felt, on balance, that the chance to expose the hypocrisy of FOSIS before an NUS audience was worth the regrettable loss of his participation.
So they withdrew the invitation, whereupon he publicly criticised the UJS for being cowed by the Islamic Students’ demands.

According to the UJS, in the event, the FOSIS rep was well and truly defeated and exposed as a fool and a hypocrite; not a terribly difficult a task given that they host extremist Islamist speakers such as Anwar al-Awlaki at universities, and justify it on the grounds of ‘free speech,’ an argument that self destructs as soon as FOSIS is seen refusing to appear near Douglas Murray.

The argument is about whether it was worth jeopardising the ongoing backing of Douglas Murray, and sacrificing the opportunity to have him speak at the conference, for the sole benefit of exposing FOSIS to a comparatively limited audience. Past performance indicates that FOSIS itself is unlikely to change, and the ephemeral UJS triumph at the NUS conference seems to have evaporated.

It’s unlikely that Douglas Murray would retaliate by withdrawing his backing, but those who appreciate Douglas Murray’s friendship and support, and see its value in the context of the bigger picture, are concerned that the UJS were rude, misguided and unappreciative.

Antisemitic radical Islam infiltrating Britain’s academia is of no interest to the BBC it seems. There was a programme on R4 about rehabilitating radicals, but they are invariably regarded as the exception, not representative of the real Islam, and as misfits and outsiders.
Events suggest otherwise. That they’re not an exception, that they are representative, and they're gaining ground.
So if you haven’t already made up your mind, ask your prospective candidates whether they support Israel, and if not, don’t give them your vote.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

LET'S KICK UKIP... - Biased BBC

LET'S KICK UKIP...: "For an example of BBC bias at its sneery, snidey best, have a listen to The World This Weekend here - the relevant item is at about 35 minutes into the programme and is by a reporter called John Manel. His target was alleged flaws in UKIP's immigration policy. He claims basically that the party is so stupid that it doesn't know what it is doing. In order to set up his premise, he talks to a chap called Will Sommerville, who he describes as follows:

Will Sommerville has worked as a civil servant in the Cabinet Office on immigration, for the left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, and for the Commission for Racial Equality. He is now a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, based in Washington DC.

Who better to give and independent view of UKIP policy? Mr Manel's next tack is to sneerily talk to party figures and he edits the whole sequence into something which - hey presto! - Mr Somerville then says won't work. And in a final twist of the tale of bias, Mr Manel frames his reporting to suggest that this particular UKIP member is so venal and naive that he won't apply the policy to his own family; in other words, that old chestnut - if all else fails throw in ad hominem attack, especially if it is on someone who the BBC perceives to be right-wing.

This was a particularly biased report aimed at showing that UKIP are stupid, nasty, xenophobic racists. That's the BBC's default approach to the party. In coverage of UKIP so far, the leopard hadn't shown his spots; but it was only a matter of time before reports like this surfaced.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

FACTS FOR THE MEMORY.... - Biased BBC

FACTS FOR THE MEMORY....: "

Here is an interesting exchange you should read....

On 7th April on the TODAY programme, champing
at the bit to link David Cameron to Richard Nixon for his use of the phrase
‘the great ignored’, M/s Berg falsely claimed that Richard Nixon coined the
phrase “The silent majority”.

The phrase 'the silent majority' was
actually coined by De Gaulle's Prime Minister Pompidou after De Gaulle called
parliamentary elections in 1968 and saw his party achieve the first absolute
majority in the history of the French Republic (clearly not something the BBC would wish to link David Cameron with).
The compiler of our B-BBC digest
Graeme sent a complaint to the BBC
8th April and copied it to the Conservative Party. He received a reply
15th April from BBC Complaints
Correspondent Liam Boyle which compounded falsehood upon falsehood.

See
Graeme's response below:

Dear Mr Boyle,

Thank you for your email.

Firstly, I note that when I submitted
my complaint via your website no reference number was generated or automated
email acknowledgement sent. This is very bad practice for dealing with
complaints and is an indication of the bad faith in which an endemically biased
BBC acts.

What, in my view, starkly
characterises the bad faith of today's BBC
and its contempt for democratic values is your following direct
falsehood:

Sanchia Berg's report
for the 'Today' programme on April 7th did not claim

that President Nixon coined the phrase the 'silent majority'

Sanchia Berg's exact words
once more: "Over 40 years ago Richard Nixon
coined a new phrase 'the silent majority' ... "

I transcribed these
words carefully from the recording you carried on your website. Of
course, you only carry these recordings for 7 days. I wonder if it is a
coincidence that you only respond to my complaint with this direct falsehood
after this recording has been removed?

Fortunately, the recording still comes
up under a search (see below) and I was able to confirm the 100% accuracy of my
transcription. As someone who adheres to the democratic standards the
Gramscian BBC has such contempt
for, I do not use the word "lie" to describe your direct falsehood as
I do not have the incontrovertible proof necessary that it
was intentional. However, on the basis of the systematic bias of the
BBC over the years I have every
reason to believe it was.

http://www.google.es/#hl=es&source=hp&q=sanchia+berg+%22the+silent+majority%22&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=eb46abfb6321b77e

Mr Boyle, you're dealing with someone
who as a Tribunite member of the Labour Party in 1979 thought the only real
bias at the BBC was towards the
left and was against it as it was bad for democracy. I am absolutely
certain that Mr Cameron does not have the moral bottom to deal with the threat
the Gramscian BBC poses. I'm
sure you can continue to pursue your subversive ends with such patent
falsehoods with impunity till the Gramscian left has finally brought down
British democracy, which I'm sure it will. What you will
never escape though is that there will always be people like
me willing to remind you what your moral choice in life says about
you as a human being.

God bless,

Graeme...

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

FISHY.... - Biased BBC

FISHY....: "Here we have the BBC's Richard Black in the oleagenous, snake-oil-salesman mode he adopts whenever he seeks to tell us that he's listening to sceptics. He tries to convey that the Oxburgh report into Climategate had an important core message; that it's vital that climate scientists ensure that their work is accompanied by suitable warnings about its limitations. Yet he omits to tell us the most crucial fact in this particular equation - that in reaching their conclusions, Oxburgh and his fanatic cronies chose just 11 papers as a 'representative sample' to verify whether porkies were being told. And when asked, the Royal Society (the body which was behind the enquiry) come up with completely fishy explanations like this about how these papers were chosen. As Bishop Hill points out, it's a bit odd - to put it mildly - that the 11 were exactly the same as those also chosen by the House of Commons for its recent Climategate report. These people obviously think we are total, utter imbeciles.

Such contradictions are clearly far too complicated and too inconvenient for Mr Black to even consider.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

£1.6m for 18 new BBC bosses as it 'cuts costs' - Daily Mail

£1.6m for 18 new BBC bosses as it 'cuts costs': "
One of the executives is being paid between £310,000 and £340,000 a year, and two between £190,000 and £220,000."

Yes, you heard right: BBC sends thousands of staff on course to teach them how to LISTEN - Daily Mail

Yes, you heard right: BBC sends thousands of staff on course to teach them how to LISTEN: "
The BBC has been criticised for using licence fee payers’ money to send staff on a course to teach them how to listen."

Unreliable Sources by John Simpson | Book review - Guardian

Unreliable Sources by John Simpson | Book review: "

Peter Beaumont finds partial truths in a BBC veteran's tale of his trade

Anyone who has been a journalist knows that whatever admiration one's efforts attract tends to be balanced by hatred and condemnation from another interested group. Ours is a Manichaean universe. This has always been the case, but what does seem to have changed recently is how visible those discontented with what is sneeringly known as the mainstream media (or 'MSM') have become.

For those on the further edges of both left and right, the MSM is usually defined as the problem. For tea partiers, we are too liberal and in hock to government, while for those who subscribe to Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's Manufacturing Consent, we are too right wing and equally subservient to power.

So when Nick Davies's attack on the state of British journalism, Flat Earth News, was published two years ago, it plugged into a widespread sense of discontent with the MSM, which had been exacerbated by the misreporting of the run-up to the war in Iraq. While I didn't agree with everything he wrote, Davies did diagnose many of the modern media's failings and his coining of the neologism 'churnalism' seemed especially accurate.

He argued that there had once been a better era for reporting, before hacks became chained to the wheel of 24-hour news. This is an idea that John Simpson, the BBC's veteran world affairs editor, examines in Unreliable Sources. His survey of 20th-century reporting seems to confirm most of what critics of the MSM claim. From the Boer war onwards, he depicts egotistical and often unscrupulous hacks, many of them servile before power or even secretly working for it, such as the Times colonial editor, Flora Shaw, who was a go-between in the planning of the Jameson Raid of 1895-96.

When he offers 'extraordinary' exceptions, two are American – Ed Murrow and Martha Gellhorn – although he seems to forget that the latter, a friend of his, was capable of a famous fabrication, falsely placing herself at the scene of a lynching.

There are a couple of problems with this weighty volume. The first isn't confined to Simpson's book but to the broader issue of media criticism from Chomsky onwards, which has argued that journalists tend to self-regulate what they report to please authority, an assertion that has only ever been at best partially true. For what it fails to distinguish between is the degree to which journalism sets out to influence the society it operates within and the degree to which it is an inherent reflection of cultural norms and values.

Simpson, for instance, describes the media representations of the sieges of Mafeking, Ladysmith and Kimberley in the Boer war. But his assertion that 'Mafeking ensured that the mass of newspaper readers regarded the war as part of the nation's imperial adventure, rather than something questionable and potentially disastrous', while reflecting how we might see it today, ignores how contemporary readers would have felt about empire. It is a mistake he makes more than once, compounding the book's peculiarly ahistorical feel. In his conclusion, he says the media at the beginning of the 21st century are recognisably the same as those which existed at the beginning of the 20th. Is this really the case?

The second problem is related. The scale of his book, which tries to span two world wars, the end of empire, Northern Ireland, the Falklands and Kosovo, means it is difficult to marshal a cogent argument save that a lot of rum things go on in the media. Hardly a startling revelation. The drawbacks of this approach are particularly noticeable in later sections, where he is selective in presenting his material. His depiction of the Blair government's attempts to control the media over the Kosovo war, for example, is crudely stripped of explanatory context and the war is turned into a simplistic tale of gung-ho misreporting and government misdeeds.

Isn't he guilty of what he lambasts others for – misrepresentation? For if his subtext is that honest, passionate reporters have to struggle against vested interest to tell what they see, he has written out of his history an awful lot of them. In the case of Kosovo, this means the likes of Tim Judah, Anthony Loyd, the late Kurt Schork and photographers Ron Haviv and Andrew Testa. All have been edited out of history to make a better story. But that's journalists for you.

• History
• War reporting
• BBC

Peter Beaumont

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Jeremy Hunt: Tories would scrap BBC Trust - Guardian

Jeremy Hunt: Tories would scrap BBC Trust: "

Shadow culture secretary reinforces Tory pledge to get rid of BBC Trust if his party wins the general election

The shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has today reinforced the Tory pledge to look immediately at scrapping the BBC Trust if his party wins the general election.

Hunt, in an interview on The Media Show on BBC Radio 4, also gave a clear indication that under a Tory government the BBC should expect a freeze on its £3.4bn licence fee for the next period from April 2013.

In its election manifesto yesterday, the party promised to give the National Audit Office 'full access' to the BBC's accounts in order to make the corporation more accountable for the way it spends the licence fee.

Last year Hunt said that the BBC Trust, which replaced the corporation's board of governors in 2007, had to change and that the Tories were considering 'ripping up the charter' ahead of its expiration in 2016 to achieve its plan.

'We looked at that [ripping up the charter] and decided to stick with the current charter,' he said. '[However] we want to make a start on reforms that can be made now... like the name.'

He added that the BBC would benefit from a new system whereby director general Mark Thompson would have some form of non-executive chairman, or similar figure, to support his decision-making.

'I don't think the structure works at the moment,' he said, arguing that the BBC Trust is conflicted as cheerleader and champion of the corporation. 'What the viewers want, the people that pay the licence fee, is a body wholly independent they can complain to if they are not happy with something [the corporation] has done.'

When asked about freezing the licence fee Hunt gave a clear indication that the BBC could almost certainly rule out a rise from the Tories in the next settlement.

'We are not ruling out any options at all,' said Hunt. '[However] it is unlikely that the BBC would be able to argue for a rise in the current climate.'

Hunt also said that the Tories' long-overdue creative industries review, headed by former BBC director general Greg Dyke, was unlikely to emerge before the 6 May election. However, he added that some of the ideas that had 'arisen' from the review have, and would, emerge during the Conservative election campaign.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly 'for publication'.

• BBC
• BBC Trust
• BBC licence fee
• Conservatives
• Television industry

Mark Sweney

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

MOVE ALONG THERE, NOTHING TO SEE.... - Biased BBC

MOVE ALONG THERE, NOTHING TO SEE....: "The BBC is very keen to tell us in detail why Lord Oxburgh and his panel of cronies have exonerated in a rushed report the University of East Anglia climate change fabricators. Their reasons for the whitewash - which can be paraphrased as the need to perpetuate the lies - are trumpeted loudly, while the sceptic community gets, as usual, only a nodding mention, 74 words out of 760. Here, for the record and for starters, are some of the concerns of 'sceptics' that the BBC has chosen not to tell us. They are from Steve McIntyre, of Climate Audit, the man who for almost a decade has been painstakingly revealing the tricks and lies of those who have been so rapidly absolved:

The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.

They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)

They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Letters: Spoiling the joke about Down's syndrome - Guardian

Letters: Spoiling the joke about Down's syndrome: "

Comedian Frankie Boyle's favourite catchphrase appears to be 'Ah, but it's all true, isn't it?' He reportedly said as much to a woman in the audience at his Glasgow show who objected to his routine about Down's syndrome (Report, 9 April). Sharon Smith, the mother of a Down's syndrome daughter, had become upset that he thought it hilarious that Down's syndrome people die 'early'. (Still, it's all true, isn't it?)

It depends how you define 'dying early'. When I was growing up, I was told my sister, who has Down's syndrome, would not live much beyond 20. She's now approaching 50. Since the early 80s, the life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome has more than doubled and is now put by some estimates as high as 60. That's because they now receive decent medical and social care. Still, I don't want to spoil the joke. That would just be me being politically correct and we all know where that leads.

Colin Richardson

London

• The experience of Sharon Smith reminded me of a similar occasion some time ago when Julian Clary used people with learning disabilities as a target. When compering Have I got News for You, he referred to '… the village idiot who collects the trolleys at your local Tesco'. I wrote to the BBC to complain and said I had known a number of people who, having survived hospitalisation and other forms of exclusion, were holding down permanent jobs very successfully. The BBC replied that comedy was subjective and the question of which groups should be immune was a matter for personal judgment. I sympathise with Mrs Smith's view that Frankie Boyle's style was 'childish playground stuff'. But it is also a form of denigration which thinly disguises a hatred of difference. Compared with the controversial and irreverent humour of, say, Richard Pryor, it is – to use Elvis Presley's phrase – 'about as funny as a turd in a punch-bowl'.

Dr Alan Phipps

Manchester

• Down's syndrome
• Frankie Boyle
• Learning disability
• BBC
• Elvis Presley

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Radio 5 Live criticised over Rage Against The Machine swearing - Independent

Radio 5 Live criticised over Rage Against The Machine swearing: "

BBC station Radio 5 Live has been criticised by the broadcasting watchdog for letting the US band Rage Against The Machine swear four times on the breakfast show before they were faded out by a producer.

"

MORE BBC BIAS... - Biased BBC

MORE BBC BIAS...: "I notice that in pursuance of its dream of a 'hung Parliament' the BBC's Today reporter Kevin Connolly claims that such an event could represent a 'huge opportunity' for the DUP. Gosh, how exciting and what a good reason to vote for them, right? Well, it could do if they were ever there but as Mr Connolly should be aware, the DUP's attendance record at Westminster is appalling. Worse, DUP leader Peter Robinson has stated that should he be returned (I am running against him) then he will continue to double job, instantly ruling himself out of two-thirds of votes. I will be contacting the BBC about Mr Connolly's biased coverage (again) this morning, but as of yet they do not respond. It's a disgrace the way in which the BBC is interfering in the NI aspect of the General Election and spinning for the establishment.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

ANY COLOUR YOU WANT... - Biased BBC

ANY COLOUR YOU WANT...: "...so long as it is black. Yes, Henry Ford's maxim still directs much of what the BBC passes off as 'debate'.



Last night, here in Northern Ireland, Irish republican terrorists detonated a car bomb outside MI5 headquarters at Holywood just outside Belfast. Plus ca change? Irish republican terrorists have been doing this for decades. But through the pervasive prism of the 'peace process' - to which the BBC is ideologically committed - there are now 'good' and 'bad' terrorists. Hence IRA commander 'Butcher Boy' Martin McGuinness is a good guy, and those behind last night's bombing are the bad guys. Today sees Policing and Justice powers devolved here, a key IRA demand, but the orthodoxy perpetuated by the BBC is that this is a good thing. So, just before 8am, the BBC Today invited two Police Officers on to discuss this. Both were 100% supportive of the idea that Police and Courts now answer to IRA commander McGuinness. I could have given the BBC names of dozens of Police Officers revolted at this idea but curiously, they could ONLY find those who agree with the rancid deal. Where is the debate, where is the varied opinions, where is the representation of the outrage that many people in my community feel about this?



As you may know, I am standing for election in this General Election and so I have been canvassing opinion on the ground. Many people are nauseated by the idea that an IRA terrorist in the shape of McGuinness gets to appoint the Attorney General and gets to select the person who will appoint future judges. But were one to listen to the BBC as an alleged impartial reporter of facts, none of this would be obvious. That deception, of course, is part of the toxic BBC remit. Pravda but in HD.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

SO COMPLEX.... - Biased BBC

SO COMPLEX....: "I caught an interview on Today this morning at 7.34am with Jo Webber, deputy director of the NHS Confederation. The issue for the BBC was why the % increase of pay awards for NHS bosses was so much higher than for nurses. Ms Webber kept repeating how 'complex' a job it is to run an NHS Trust, she must have used the word at least a dozen times! At no point did the BBC interviewer ask her should we not therefore simplify this complexity so reducing costs. The impression left was that only the most highly skilled management can run an NHS trust (Equivalent to a FTSE 250 company and less well paid, she claimed)) and that they do so from a vocational yearning!!Just so much nonsense and, as ever, the BBC shies away from challenging NHS orthodoxy.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Stephen Glover: Press battle lines are reset – but who gets the BBC's vote? - The Independent

Stephen Glover: Press battle lines are reset – but who gets the BBC's vote?: "

From the moment he was elected Tory leader in December 2005, David Cameron developed a new media strategy.

"

Carbon credit documentary should not have been shown, BBC admits - Guardian

Carbon credit documentary should not have been shown, BBC admits: "

Corporation acts on Observer investigation into secretive trust  linked to socialite Robin Birley that funded film on his carbon credits firm, Envirotrade

A BBC documentary about socialite Robin Birley and his carbon credits business venture in Africa should never have been broadcast, an internal inquiry by the corporation has found. Millions of viewers were misled because the sympathetic documentary shown on BBC World News failed to declare that it was financed by a secretive trust that was linked to Birley.

The BBC acted in response to an Observer investigation into Birley's 'philanthropy capitalism' venture in Mozambique. Taxpayers' money was used to subsidise poor farmers there to protect forests and plant trees that absorb carbon dioxide. Envirotrade, Birley's company, then sells 'carbon credits' to celebrities and businesses wanting to offset their emissions. Customers who used Birley's venture to offset emissions included the agency that handles Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

Rockhopper TV, the production company that made the documentary, knew but did not disclose to BBC executives, of links between Envirotrade and the Africa Carbon Livelihood Trust, which funded the making of the documentary. Had it done so, Taking The Credit, the documentary, would never have been shown, the BBC ruled, although it also claimed the programme was balanced.

Birley set up and funded the Mauritius-based trust but would not say who its other donors are or how much Rockhopper was paid to make the programme. Envirotrade saw it as a 'marketing' opportunity.

A BBC statement said: 'As a consequence of this case, [we] will work closely with Rockhopper to ensure that robust compliance measures are implemented … Until the BBC is fully satisfied that these measures have been put in place, no Rockhopper programmes will be acquired or commissioned.'

Rockhopper, which is run by Richard Wilson, a former BBC environment correspondent, and ex-Sky News presenter Anya Sitaram, told the Observer that every indication suggested that the trust was independent.

However, the inquiry found there was a 'conflict of interest [that] risked bringing the BBC's editorial reputation into disrepute' because the trust's managing director, Charles Hall, is also chief executive of Envirotrade.

The BBC's own compliance failures have not been made known because the corporation refuses to release its report into the Rockhopper affair, adding to concern that a wider problem exists over commercial sponsorship arrangements on its international channel.

Birley founded Envirotrade in 2002 with a South African, Philip Powell. A year later, the European Commission awarded a €1.5m (£1.3m) grant to Envirotrade and Edinburgh University to pilot a forest project at N'hambita, Mozambique. However, in October 2007, the EC suspended its last €450,000 payment for the project and concluded the following year that unsubstantiated claims were being made about its environmental impact. The suspension was still in force when Rockhopper filmed with Birley in Mozambique last August. By then, a second team of experts working for the EC had just returned from the project. Their report was more positive than the first, but continued to find 'major drawbacks' with the implementation of an aspect key to N'hambita's survival – the sale of carbon credits. Viewers of the documentary, which was shown last October, were not told about these criticisms.

Envirotrade says it has sold £1m of carbon credits. However, the EC's criticisms could mean at least £150,000 are unverified and may have to be paid back. Charles Hall, Envirotrade's chief executive, told the Observer: 'The business model for Envirotrade frankly remains to be proven. The fact that this can be made into a sustainable business on the basis of selling carbon offsets remains to be seen.'

It has also emerged that Envirotrade's London arm is insolvent and owes £800,000 to its parent company in Mauritius.

Hall revealed that the N'hambita project needs an immediate £1m injection from Birley. However, Birley, who says he has already put in more than £1.5m, has given no legal undertaking to provide these extra funds.

Sitaram, executive producer of the documentary, said that had Rockhopper known about the EC's criticisms it would not have touched the project. However, six weeks before broadcast, Fern, a climate campaign group, outlined these criticisms in an email exchange with the programme's researcher.

• BBC
• BBC Worldwide
• Carbon offsetting
• Mozambique

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Hilarious, Jonathan Ross? It wasn¿t for me and my wife, says Andrew Sachs - Daily Mail

Hilarious, Jonathan Ross? It wasn¿t for me and my wife, says Andrew Sachs: "
In an interview, Ross said the notorious incident - in which he and Russell Brand left obscene messages about Mr Sachs’s granddaughter on his answerphone - was ‘fun’."

GREEN INSANITY - Biased BBC

GREEN INSANITY: "The election continues, with all three main parties steadfastly refusing to discuss properly their insane, bigoted advocacy of massive new taxes on energy. Meanwhile, the BBC continues to report the agenda of greenies with relentless bias. Take this story about greenie fanatics stopping the import to Kenya of GM maize on the ground that it might contiminate the soil. Such supersititious rot would put Matthew Hopkins (the Witchfinder-General) to shame, but the reporter doesn't waste an ounce of effort looking for alternative views. Tens of thousands are at risk of starvation in Kenya because of cyclical drought, but the BBC has green issues to pursue and that is all that matters.

Anyone who has visited Africa knows that one of the main problems of the continent is inadequate power supplies. As well as endless power cuts, tens of thousands of Africans die every year through house fires that are caused because they don't have access to electricity and use crude torches instead. So when the World Bank decides to help (and act sensibly for once) with the building of a major new power plant, it should be unqualified good news. Not for the BBC; its main concern in its reporting of the topic is what 'environmentalists' think.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Jonathan Ross: 'Sachsgate was hilarious and I can't wait to leave BBC' - Telegraph

Jonathan Ross: 'Sachsgate was hilarious and I can't wait to leave BBC': "Jonathan Ross has described the 'Sachsgate' affair as 'hilarious'
fun and claimed that the BBC bosses who failed to stand by him were
pandering to politicians."

Tom and Jerry could never be made today because of health and safety rules - Telegraph

Tom and Jerry could never be made today because of health and safety rules: "Classic children's cartoons like Tom and Jerry could never be
made today because of health and safety rules, according to the creator of Bob
the Builder."

Complaints BBC's interview with Elle Macpherson was 'advert for her lingerie' - Telegraph

Complaints BBC's interview with Elle Macpherson was 'advert for her lingerie': "The BBC is investigating complaints that an interview with Elle Macpherson was
effectively an 'advert' for her lingerie collection in Paris."

Comedian Frankie Boyle confronted for mocking Down's syndrome victims - Daily Mail

Comedian Frankie Boyle confronted for mocking Down's syndrome victims: "
The Scot, formerly a panellist on BBC quiz Mock The Week, devoted five minutes of a live stand-up show to a foul tirade against those with Down's syndrome."

RELENTLESS! - Biased BBC

RELENTLESS!: "I had the misfortune to ensure 60 minutes of the BBC 'Today' bias this morning and believe me, it's just not good for your health! Between 7am and 8am, there was a stream of anti-Conservative propaganda spewing from the State Broadcaster and I speak as someone who is not a Cameron Conservative but believes in the need for balance!



The farce started with Stephanie Flanders going over to Dublin. Apparently there has been a recession there (!) and Steph went to have a chat with Brian Lenihan, the Finance Minister. In his first sentence, Lenihan explained he was a Keynsian (BBC tick) but because Ireland had no access to easy funds, tough decisions had to be taken (BBC sad). Stephanie explained that if the scale of these cuts was replicated in the UK, it would mean tens of thousands of job losses in the public sector. Oh no. Stephanie didn't ask if the cuts were working.



This set up the next item which was...cue drum roll ..Tory plans for 'efficiency cuts' in the public sector. BBC produced an academic professor to point out just how dreadful this would be. Plus ca change?



Then, a break from undermining the Conservatives to go to South Africa for the funeral of 'notorious white supremacist' leader Eugene Terreblanche. I found this guy to be a pretty repellent character BUT then again BBC silence on the murder of 3000 white farmers since the notorious ANC came to power in 1994 hardly provides balanced debate, does it?



Anyway, we all know whites are bad so back to some more Conservative bashing concerning their voluntary national citizen service scheme. Sanchia Berg made plenty of mention of 'people with posh accents' telling da yoof what to do. That pesky Etonian Cameron, eh?



Then, across the Irish sea to my part of the woods where Kevin Connolly talked uncommon nonsense for 5 minutes, pretending we now live in a land of milk and honey in which the 'constitutional question' is settled. I am inviting Kevin to come an interview me so an alternative view can be heard, I bet he won't. Will keep you posted.



Moving on this time across the pond, we had a bit of Obama worship and in particular on his cunning plan that "could" lead to tough new sanctions being imposed on Iran, sometime, in the not too distant future. Possibly. Maybe, Bet the Mullahs are panicking about that. Again, no counter voice protesting Obama's total failure to grasp the nettle on this issue! On the other hand, he does bully Israel and that is always worth a BBC bonus.



Finally, and exhausted, I listened to a tribute to Sex Pistol's manager, Malcolm McLaren who has died aged 64, Wish the BBC had played 'Pretty Vacant', it would have summed up the last hour of bias, drivel, propaganda and faux comment. No future for you?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

NEWSNIGHT DISGRACE - Biased BBC

NEWSNIGHT DISGRACE: "Anyone watch Newsnight? Paxman interviewed Labour apologist Liam Byrne on the matter of the Conservatives £6bn savings vs Labour £15bn. Byrne just bluffed it and castigated the Tories. Probably as one would expect. But then, by way of 'balance', a businessman was in the studio to respond, It was suave Dragon's Den star James Caan, and yes, he agreed with Labour and suggested that the Labour NIC hike next year was 'no big deal'. Fair and balanced - both sides supporting Labour,

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

A TAXING PROBLEM... - Biased BBC

A TAXING PROBLEM...: "It seems to me that like Labour, the BBC does not understand why an increase in NIC is a tax on jobs.Perhaps Statism erodes the capacity for clear economic thinking but I listened in amazement to the BBC 'Today' interview with Sir Stuart Rose, he of M&S fame. When Rose pointed out that the NIC increase with Brown and Clegg think so virtuous is a direct impediment to business growth, he was ignored on the substance of that argument and instead presented with the Labour attack line that IF government does not jack up NIC it will have to increase VAT. A false choice and talk of reducing Government efficiency was dismissed. Rose rightly pointed out that if VAT did rise, it would be a tax on consumption and therefore one has the choice to avoid it by limiting expenditure whereas an NIC increase hits all, this was met with silence. Then, most disgracefully, Humphrys suggested that Rose was saying these things because he would be offered a peerage to the Lords. Rose denied this but the impression was aimed at listeners, not Rose. More BBC attack dog stuff dressed up as news.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Inconvenient Tale - Biased BBC

Inconvenient Tale: "Please put the pressing issue of UK politics to one side for a moment to read the latest post on Robin Shepherd’s blog. It’s aimed at the BBC because of something they're currently ignoring.
Robin says he has reason to believe that BBC editors sometimes read his blog, and I sincerely hope they do. Whether they still read this one I know not. In case they do, I’ll reiterate here that Robin poses a challenge to the BBC. It’s a pigs will fly sort of a challenge, but never mind.

The story involves rape, a television series, Palestinian prisoners, and the IDF.
All subjects that would normally be of great interest to the BBC. So why isn’t this one? Read on....

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Here is the news... - Biased BBC

Here is the news...: "The pretence of impartiality has been scrapped in the last-minute scramble to change minds before Labour faces the electorate next month.

Well, actually that's a paraphrase of the introduction to this article. No mention of the fact that Labour has a large majority and that it has no need, based on this, to scrap anything. The correct reading of events must be that they are trying to disrupt Conservative campaigning by changing some of the talking points relating to tax, for instance the cider tax and the broadband tax. Notice in the article how the 'experts' magically align themselves with the Government policy while the Conservatives are depicted as spoilers. Repeat after me, Beebies: Labour has a majority and has no need to scrap anything; the Conservatives have no power to scrap this stuff; any such action we can presume is dictated by the drive for Labour presentation at the elections. Fair dos, eh?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

ELECTION OVER? - Biased BBC

ELECTION OVER?: "Based on BBC GE coverage, two things strike me.



1. It's going to be a hung Parliament.

2. Most people are bored with it.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

COME WHAT MAY - Biased BBC

COME WHAT MAY: "It may be a general election, and we may be emerging from the coldest winter in thirty years. But hey ho, this is the BBC, and there's always a global warming scare story around somewhere. Today, it's that old canard, 'early spring'. The fanatics at the Woodland Trust have done a bit of cod research to back up their prejudices, and Richard Black has swallowed it hook, line and sinker, as usual. If he'd spent two minutes searching the internet, he would have found this excellent piece, filed yesterday, which urges strong caution and points out that all such claims are fraught with problems. It lays bare how warmists, led by the BBC, have been pushing relentlessly this seam of scariness for more than a decade. But never let the facts get in the way of a good scare story, Richard, eh? And certainly never quote anybody who might disagree with your moonshine.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

BBC should be held to account, MPs say - Telegraph

BBC should be held to account, MPs say: "The BBC's insistence on financial secrecy in the way it spends billions of
pounds of public money 'beggars belief', according to an influential
committee of MPs."

Letters: Today needs a new tomorrow - Guardian

Letters: Today needs a new tomorrow: "

What Ceri Thomas does not seem to get is that to be an effective interviewer it is not necessary to behave like a bully (Comment, 6 April). On many occasions I have been driven to turn off, or down, an interview on the Today programme because of John Humphries' or others' aggressive and loud interviewing. They demonstrate an inability to listen or let the interviewee answer the questions. They repeatedly interrupt, preventing a full response. They seem to want to be the focus of the interview, rather than the person being interviewed.

Listeners are not, as they seem to think, stupid. We are perfectly able to discern when someone is prevaricating. Thomas's patronising comments about women interviewers show he fails to understand that macho posturing does not serve the listener, or the subject in question. He obviously learnt nothing from the superb interview given by PD James last year when she edited the Today programme and, with her calm, determined and discerning questioning, tied the head of the BBC up in knots. More women (or men) like this please.

Sally Barnes

London

• Listening to the macho men on the radio sharpening their wits as they set the parameters and define the issues of the election campaign, it must have occurred to much of their audience that it's time for a change. A clutch of mainly male commentators has ruled the airways for too many years. They are unelected, yet collectively display the arrogance of power; speak as from some unassailable moral high ground; undermine any lingering respect we may have for the great officers of state; make a point-scoring game of debates on pressing national issues, presumably hoping to gain kudos for an assertiveness bordering on aggression and, of course, neither their fat salaries, expenses or pension arrangements are put up for public scrutiny.

Sue Hopkinson

Ullapool, Ross-shire

• BBC
• Radio 4
• Gender
• Women
• Equality

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Open the books, furious MPs tell 'reluctant' BBC - Daily Mail

Open the books, furious MPs tell 'reluctant' BBC: "
The Public Accounts Committee is furious that the broadcaster has not opened up its books so that licence fee payers can see how their money is being spent."

Ceri, it's simple: ask more women on air - Guardian

Ceri, it's simple: ask more women on air | Bidisha: "

I also work for a BBC radio programme, yet my department has gender equality. The BBC's Today programme should take note

Poor Ceri Thomas. Verily, he squirmeth. Watching him wriggle makes me feel like a strapping schoolyard brawler poking a weeny worm with a stick. Is it the worm of discrimination, being poked by the stick of justice? Hmm – you can see why my prose never made Book at Bedtime. Anyway, I write in a spirit of absolution. Thomas is a victim of circumstance. He happens, through a stroke of bad luck which must agonise him, to manage a show which has one woman presenter out of five and 10 woman contributors out of a hundred. It makes me sad. But it makes me happy that he's 'working on it'.

Let Queen B help.

To get more women on your show you need to invite more. Invite half, since that is a fair representation of us in the population. Defenders of the status quo speak as though this is a difficult procedure, logistically complicated, psychologically taxing, physically a little nauseating and philosophically complex. It's not. Research who you want and then contact them. Do not wait for Mercury (planet of communication) and Uranus (planet of sudden change) to be in alignment with Aries (sign of energy).

Equality happens when the participants in a team value it and act on it. I currently present The Strand for the World Service. We have total sexual equality and a cultural diversity which make me want to kiss the marble steps of Bush House in tribute every time I go to work. We've achieved this by facilitating it. Same goes for Front Row, various Beeb radio arts shows and the few documentaries I've been privileged to work on. The same goes for countless producers I've met. It is endorsement from the top – the editors and execs – that is needed.

Thomas talks defensively about 'the re-emergence of bull-headed sexism', as though this is what Today has been accused of. It isn't. Bull-headed sexism is easy to fight because of its blatancy. Far more pernicious is an unconscious and generalised misogyny which is prevalent in organisations and industries of all kinds. The public absence of women is enforced automatically and attempts to change are resisted with spurious arguments fuelled by basic unwillingness. It makes no difference whether the perpetrators are male or female. If they have no politics they will not do anything to challenge the status quo. Additionally, women in these organisations are in a tricky position: if you speak up, you jeopardise your position.

Should Thomas be feeling unconfident in the face of all this, let me urge him to valour. If he employs so very few women in such a very obvious way, on such an important show, he is seeming to hint that he does not like women. If he did, he would be able to stomach more than one at a time. It must torment him to be misrepresented like this, so no doubt any changes will be dramatic and happen swiftly. We women are the single biggest group in the world. Ceri Thomas, you have the power to change the world of Today, and we will make you a hero for it. Be not afraid.

Hope that helps.

• BBC
• Equality
• BBC World Service
• Radio 4
• Gender
• Women

Bidisha

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Elderly eggs thrown at Martha Kearney - Guardian

Elderly eggs thrown at Martha Kearney: "

Not even a day into the general election campaign, and Monkey has already seen the first egg thrown at a politician. Not actually thrown today, we hasten to add, but a video clip of a poultry (but not paltry) missile aimed at the then Liberal leader David Steel in 1987. It missed. But who did it hit? None other than Martha Kearney, now better known as host of BBC Radio 4's World at One and former political editor of Newsnight. Her pained 'Argh!' as the egg strikes about four seconds in is a cause of concern - and hilarity - in approximately equal measure.

• BBC

Monkey

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Silent Witness - CiF Watch

Silent Witness: "

Sometimes, what is not reported in the media can be as enlightening as what is. So when the Guardian chooses to virtually or completely ignore a particular story, a certain insight is provided into the workings of the editorial decisions made by that organisation. As we are only too aware, two recent incidents produced a plethora of articles in almost comic proportions on the pages of the Guardian and CiF: the expulsion by the UK of an Israeli diplomat over the alleged forging of British passports and Joe Biden’s decision to be insulted by the workings of an Israeli planning committee. To be honest, I lost count of the precise numbers of articles on these two subjects at some point, but both issues were done to death from any and every possible angle with speculation often rife.

Between the breaking of these two stories another incident occurred which merited only one fairly laconic Guardian article: Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan threatened to expel 100,000 Armenians from his country as a reaction to the decisions by the US and Sweden to describe the World War I killings of Armenians as genocide.

Just Journalism’s Michael Weiss has a very interesting article on this subject on Standpoint, in which he writes:

One would have expected The Guardian, which indeed reported on the nonbinding resolution passed in early March by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee recognizing and condemning the Armenian genocide, to be all over this story. It certainly was incensed at Downing Street’s sheepish reaction to theft of UK passports in the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, widely assumed to have been carried out by Mossad, and now the cause of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s expulsion of Israel’s Mossad representative at the Israeli embassy in London. Britain may not have a large Armenian diaspora but it has got a large and vocal Kurdish one, and the Kurds, too, have had their difficulties as an ethnic minority in Turkey. Also, is Turkey not a Nato ally and a perennial candidate for admittance to the European Union?

The entire article is well worth reading and can be found here.

Another story which does not seem to have received any attention at all from the Guardian is that of Muhammed Al Farmawi, aged 15, who was reported by the Gaza Health Authorities as having been killed by the IDF on March 30th during ‘Land Day’ protests in Rafah, despite the fact that Israel denied all knowledge of the incident.

“Gaza – Ma’an – A child was shot and killed east of the Yasser Arafat International Airport in Rafah on Tuesday, medics said.

Muawiya Hassanein, director of ambulance and emergency services in Gaza, said Muhammad Zen Ismail Al-Farmawi, 15, was shot dead near the southeasterly border by Israeli forces”

Then, four days later the same boy miraculously reappeared, alive and well.

“It turns out Al-Farmawi was among 17 Palestinians detained by Egyptian forces shortly after the infiltrated the Egyptian side of Rafah via one of Gaza’s numerous underground smuggling tunnels. The detainees, among them 12 minors, were returned to security forces at the border on Friday. They had been questioned about tunnel locations, leading to at least three closures, Egyptian security sources said.”

Should this latest incident, like others before it, raise questions regarding the credibility of official Palestinian sources and their reports of casualties at the hands of Israel? Should it be a lesson to those so eager to believe accusations of Israeli wrongdoings without sufficient proof? Of course it should, but the public apparently only has ‘the right to know’ what the Guardian’s editors want them to know and therefore on some subjects, our journalist witnesses to the events of the world prefer to remain silent, whilst on others they indulge themselves in media gluttony.

Tagged: Comment is Free, Guardian, Obsession "

BBC set for soaring headlines as choppers take off - Guardian

BBC set for soaring headlines as choppers take off | Media Monkey: "

Newscopter alert: Both Sky News and BBC News scrambled their helicopters to follow Gordon Brown's five-minute trip from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. With the general election ball now officially rolling Monkey expects more footage from the news choppers. Oh and of course the obligatory story in the Daily Mail about the cost to licence fee payers of the Beebcopter.

• BBC
• Sky News
• TV news
• Television industry

Monkey

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Selective feedback - Biased BBC

Selective feedback: "According to the BBC, Ed Balls 'received a standing ovation - unusual for a minister at a teachers' conference - as he outlined the increased investments in education since 1997.'

Wow. Good to know. Those investments wouldn't have included massive pay increases for teachers, would they? I believe they would (not that the BBC would ever spell it out). And who wouldn't give an ovation when the pay concerned was theirs?

The Beeb seemed to think that Balls' challenge to the Conservatives to match his spending plans for education was a solid punch.

On the other hand the BBC consider it just not worth remarking that one of Britain's most celebrated recent war heroes wanted to 'knock out' Gordon Brown, so angry was he made by Brown's disrespect for the armed forces.

I guess Balls' jab just seemed more punchy, from a certain point of view. (thank to Hippiepooter and others for pointing out the Beharry omission)

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Ooops. BBC Retracts Misleading Report - Biased BBC

Ooops. BBC Retracts Misleading Report: "It seems some people DO have success when it comes to having their complaints upheld by the BBC. As long as they belong to the anti-Israel brigade.

Should a report that shows anti Israel campaigners in a poor light accidentally slip through the net, the BBC Editorial department will leap into action.

Nobody can interrupt a meeting or performance and come out smelling of roses.
Certainly Tony Greenstein and Deborah Fink’s display of exhibitionism that ruined the Jerusalem Quartet’s performance at the Wigmore Hall was counterproductive in the extreme. I hope their ‘cause’ suffered a setback of disproportionately greater magnitude than the distress their disruptive outbursts caused to the musicians and the audience that had hoped to enjoy the performance.

On the other hand, a meeting that took place at the School of Oriental and African Studies last year in which the guest speaker was Bongani Masuku, 'a man condemned as an inciter of hatred against Jews by the South African Human Rights Commission,' was ‘disrupted’ by a question from Jonathan Hoffman about the morality of hosting such an event and inviting such a speaker, a hullaballoo ensued, which, unlike the one at the Wigmore Hall, was reported on the BBC website.

In the confusion it is alleged that racist taunts were hurled at Mr. Hoffman. “Jew-ish” and some such. Whatever they were, the threatening atmosphere that was engendered simply because of a question that went against the grain, was undeniable. If you can bear to look at the video, you’ll see that when Mr Hoffman asks “Why do you interrupt me?” The woman behind him can clearly be seen wagging a finger and saying “Because you’re a Jew!”

Some furious lobbying by organisations such as “JustPeaceUK” were instigated, in order to get the BBC report amended to what they considered was a TRUE representation of what had taken place, and to omit the bit about the racist taunts.

They succeeded; not only was the web report amended, but the original reporter was reprimanded, and the editor wrote:

“After publication it quickly became clear that there was more to what had happened in the meeting than was apparent from the video and Mr Hoffman’s allegations. As soon as that became clear the story was amended to reflect the differing views of those who had been at the meeting.
It is regrettable that the original story did not reflect a wider range of views and the journalist concerned has been made well aware of the requirement to do so in the future.
Yours Sincerely
Hugh Berlyn
Editor
News and Sport Interactive
BBC England “

Concert disrupter and anti-Zionist campaigner Tony Greenstein proudly declares the success of their lobbying on his website under the heading
“ BBC - Hoffman Lied When Claiming He was a Victim of anti-Semitism.”

Not only that, but the Head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel has written apologising profusely and promising to take further action. We must wait with bated breath to see what that will be..

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Martha Kearney should stick to the Queen's English - Telegraph

Martha Kearney should stick to the Queen's English: "Telegraph View: Listeners of The World At One do not appreciate
Americanised lazy talk."

TARGET THE TORIES! - Biased BBC

TARGET THE TORIES!: "With the likelihood that Gordon Brown will FINALLY call the General Election tomorrow, the BBC are lumbering up for the final round of 'Save Gordon.' Last evening, I listened to the BBC Radio 4 between 10-11pm and there was the concerted witch-hunt against Chris Grayling and also an attack on George Osborne. It's going to be a tumultuous four weeks as the BBC seeks to damage the Conservatives as much as possible which I would hope David Cameron will remember when he gets in power. The malignancy of the State Broadcaster needs excised once and for all.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Grayling - Biased BBC

Grayling: "
Radio Five Live whipped itself into quite a frenzy over the Chris Grayling rumpus. Stephen Nolan could hardly contain himself when the story broke during his show last night, admitting to the senior programme editor of Channel 4 News today that he was 'ready to burst' waiting for the boxing to finish (not a pleasant image - can't get Mr Creosote out of my mind for some reason).


Five Live's political reporter Chris Mason shared Nolan's enthusiasm:



Anna Adams ('Interactive Reporter, BBC News') was so excited she posted her first tweets in over a week. The story remained Five Live's top headline until midday today (even the breaking news of three car bombs and dozens dead in Baghdad was deemed a lesser item on the 11am and 11.30 am bulletins). Unsurprisingly, the Tory Party's widening lead in the opinion polls was not considered very newsworthy.

The fervour shown for this story by the Beeb (and particularly Five Live) suggests that there are a number of BBC journalists simply itching to give the Tories a good kicking. Unfortunately for them I don't think most people are particularly bothered one way or the other by Grayling's views on gays and B&Bs. Still, no doubt there will be other opportunities to stick the boot in between now and election day.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Stomach turning - Biased BBC

Stomach turning: "From today's Telegraph

The editors and presenters on Radio 4's Today programme have been told they must interview representatives of the BNP, Ukip, the Green party, SNP and Plaid Cymru on the same show, the morning after the debates.

Sources said this will leave almost no room for serious discussion of how the mainstream leaders performed.

One source said: 'We're all spitting feathers here. This is further proof that the BBC's obsession with 'compliance' is destroying its news coverage and journalism.

'The only result of this directive from Mark Byford and the rest of the overpaid detached senior management is that listeners will simply switch off in droves.

'The idea of having to interview the Ukip leader Nigel Farage – let alone Nick Griffin – is turning people's stomachs.'

No Alka Seltzer needed for the leaders of the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, just the BNP and UKIP. So even the party that came second in the European elections is beyond the pale as far as sophisticated metropolitan BBC journalists are concerned. Too stupid to know that UKIP's leader is Lord Pearson, not Nigel Farage, though. (H-t John Anderson in the comments).

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Happy Easter, Papa - Biased BBC

Happy Easter, Papa: "I hold no brief for the Pope; I am a Protestant if anything. However, I do recognise when the forces of Progressivism see an opp for agitation, and that time is now. As a Briton, I don't really give a damn about the proclivities of papists. If guilty of a crime, let 'em go to jail. If not, let them be like every other oddity up with which we put. I cannot think of any justification for the BBC's intense interest in the Catholic church and child sex. Can it be that there are limits to tolerance? How borgeois! Or is it just al Beeb seeking to stick it into another institution of western civilisation? As a reader/viewer/citizen, I just find their scrutiny bizarre, three days running by my count. Why are the Beebies so obsessed with Catholic child sex?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"