Saturday 21 March 2015

Some of the news that's fit to print

Sticking with matters party political, it's always interesting to see which political stories the BBC chooses to report - and which it chooses not to report.

The lead story in this morning's Times was: 
One of Labour’s biggest private donors is a wealthy hedge fund boss whose identity the party has repeatedly refused to reveal. Martin Taylor, who has held at least one private meeting with Ed Miliband, has been unmasked as the mystery benefactor who has given the party almost £600,000 in three years. The revelation will provoke accusations of hypocrisy against the Labour leader, who has attacked the Tories for being “the party of Mayfair hedge funds”. 
The story was swiftly taken up, around 12 hours ago, by the Herald ("Labour donor unveiled as millionaire hedge fund manager"), the Financial Times ("Labour's 'mystery donor' revealed as hedge fund manager)" and the Daily Telegraph ("Hedge fund manager revealed to be top Labour donor"). The Daily Mail joined in around 10 hours ago ("Hedge fund chief revealed as Red Ed's £600000 donor"). The Daily Express joined in 4 hours ago ("Revealed: Mystery £600000 Labour donor is hedge fund manager Martin Taylor"). The Huffington Post reported the story 3 hours ago ("Hedge Fund Manager Martin Taylor Gave £600000 To Labour"). The Sky News website published it over 2 hours ago ("Labour Received £600k From Hedge Fund Donor"). The Independent arrived within the past hour ("Labour 'open to the charge of hypocrisy' after failing to divulge hedge fund manager’s donation") - though, actually, they had another version of the story earlier in the day. 

You will, however, look in vain for the story on the home page of the BBC News website. Or on their Politics page (where yesterday's UKIP scandals remain a main story). The BBC have simply chosen not to make it a story, for whatever reason. 

Ah but, they have sort-of reported it somewhere (if you look carefully): in their daily paper review, where the Times and its lead story can't be avoided. So that's all right then.

[P.S. Today mentioned the story in one of its three paper reviews. And that was it.]


  1. What the BBC sees as news and what it sees as rather getting to be a thing now, isn't it?

    The crafty part is it is almost impossible to quantify (acknowledging your skills in this regard) or, if laid out, easily to wave away by pointing vaguely elsewhere of simply denying it.

    1. '...sees as...' had what I thought was a crafty [space] between it and... '..rather getting...' to make a graphic point.

      Seems this blogging software is less tolerant of empty voids than BBC editorial:(

    2. This blogging software is about as subtle as an Orla Guerin report from Gaza:-

  2. They don't report it because it might give permission for prejudice against Miliband and Labour. Actually, we have the same situation in the US media with regard to wealthy political moneymen. There's an endless stream of bile poured out in the press and blogosphere, and even by sitting politicians, against the Koch Brothers, when their political spending is a drop in the bucket compared to that from all the billionaire Democrats, plus the Hollywood multimillionaires. But somehow that's not what gets reported.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.