Sunday, 4 March 2018

Where's Max?

One of the examples of BBC bias used by Stephen Glover in his recent column I say this in sadness, but unless the BBC gets its act together it may not be here in 15 years was the BBC's Max Mosley coverage (or the lack of it):
The third example of bias came yesterday after the Mail revealed how Max Mosley supported the revoltingly racist far-Right in the early Sixties, and apparently concealed this fact when successfully suing the now defunct News of the World in 2008 for describing his orgy as Nazi-themed. 
You'd have thought this was meat and drink for the Beeb, especially after Channel Four News brilliantly eviscerated Mosley. But for several hours it was shtum. When Labour announced it wouldn't be accepting more money from Mosley, the BBC carried a brief story on its website, but still ignored it on its news bulletins. 
Was it fear of the tycoon that held Auntie back? Or was she unwilling to pick up the story because it had originated in the Mail, which her left-leaning journalists regard with suspicion? Either way, it was another instance of disgracefully inept journalism.
Well, today, Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell made life very difficult for Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson over Max Mosley by telling Sky News that Mr. Watson should consider returning Mr. Mosley's £540,000 donation - the headline for which could be: Labour Shadow Chancellor Chucks Labour Deputy Leader Under a Bus over Max Mosley Racism Claims

It's obviously a newsworthy political story, and even the Guardian is now reporting it in great detail. But so far the BBC is staying shtum, again. 

Will they report it? And if they do, how will they report it? And (if they bury it in the deeper recesses of the BBC News website) will anyone notice?


  1. The BBC has a serious problem with the Mail - another steaming load of bias on the BBC's part. Roger Bolton on Feedback (AKA "BBC Ads with a bit of Complaints from Both Sides") today referred to its correspondent Quentin Letts as "not everyone's cup of tea" and a "controversialist". Most people would think his comments common sense, not "controversial". As for "not being everyone's cup of tea" you could say that about any commentator in the press... but I bet Bolton never introduces Polly Toynbee as "not everyone's cup of tea".

    1. Well spotted. Roger Bolton strikes again!

      Yes, that is exactly how he chose to begin the segment:

      "Now that professional controversialist and Daily Mail columnist Quentin Letts isn't everybody's cup of tea"...

      How would Roger like it if HE was introduced like this?:

      "Now that professional BBC arse-licker Roger Bolton isn't everybody's cup of tea".

      I suspect he'd think that he wasn't being fairly introduced (despite him actually being a consummate "professional BBC arse-licker"!).

    2. Bolt-on need never be objective again. Just screw on Roger and your programme is fully biased and will pass inspection by Ofcom.

    3. Isn't Bolton just putting in the groundwork for his defence against the rabid 'no platformers'? We have seen before that any suggestion that there is an alternative point of view to AGW,say, no matter how caveated, ("I'm just the messenger"), floods the published 'mail bag' the following week with vitriol.

  2. #bbceditorialintegrity means the bbc does not always have time or space to cover stories awkward for bbc friends or bbc narratives