I am sure the glasses are chinking at BBC Central as they celebrate and congratulate themselves on defeating the enemies of PC globalism at Stoke.
Whatever one thinks of UKIP, the BBC has failed to live up to its "impartiality" requirements in the Stoke by election by focussing negative reporting on that party. We can imagine how the BBC would have gone after the story of the Labour candidate's misogynistic posts (for which he apologised) had they been written by Paul Nuttall. But they weren't, so they didn't. But boy did they push the Hillsborough line, day after day with innuendo piled on allegation on top of a thin layer of fact. It probably did make the difference on the day.
And now the BBC are trying to capitalise on their victory. On the Radio 5 Live midday news, after some stuff from Corbyn, there was a brief quote of Nuttall saying UKIP were "going nowhere" (a rather ambiguous phrase! - I am sure he said a bit more than that) followed by THREE - yes 3 - vox pops (in a "news" summary, remember) from Stoke with all three following the same line (that UKIP were a one man band/one trick pony and were now irrelevant). Talk about bias with a cherry on the top! Could they find no one in Stoke to say Nuttall had been treated unfairly and UKIP would bounce back...clearly not!
It's clear what the BBC policy is: destroy UKIP as a political force, keep Labour afloat, until a suitable left of centre leader can be found, more to the BBC's liking than the old style Trot, Corbyn and then boost the new Labour leader so they represent a credible alternative in 2020.
Only prob for the BBC is that there is no credible alternative leader yet identified for Labour. Be sure when they find him or her you will know about it as they will be given the BBC Boost treatment.
Is this the alt-story where UKIP are badly served by the reportage of negative publicity? They seem to do a great job of generating that themselves without the help of any journalists, BBC or otherwise.
That's naive. I am not excusing UKIP for self-inflicted wounds but there was plenty of negative stuff on the Labour candidate, it's just that was passed over by the BBC. We've seen the same thing re the USA. It's true there plenty of negative stuff to report about Trump that he's generated himself, but that was equally true of Clintby the MSM (she still is), and by the BBC in particular.
It's not naive. UKIP claim to be something different - different from the "political establishment", a party for the "people". Whilst I may agree that they receive slightly disproportionate focus re: negative publicity, it's not entirely unearned given such a claim. We can't ignore either, if we're critics of bias, that UKIP have received plenty of airtime from the BBC in which to press their case and become "a political force".
"It's clear what the BBC policy is: destroy UKIP as a political force, keep Labour afloat, until a suitable left of centre leader can be found, more to the BBC's liking than the old style Trot, Corbyn and then boost the new Labour leader so they represent a credible alternative in 2020."
How does the destruction of UKIP as "a political force" (with 1 MP, you could argue it chews up a substantial amount more media spotlight than it warrants) solely benefit Labour? It's not going to do the Conservatives any harm either.
A party 'of the people' has the flaws of the people. They don't have media schooling and PR/spin merchants and pals in the media to present the right 'face'.
"A party 'of the people' has the flaws of the people. They don't have media schooling and PR/spin merchants and pals in the media to present the right 'face'."
1) Are you suggesting that the average person makes claims as ridiculous and disturbing as Paul Nuttall? 2) Are you suggesting that UKIP don't have spin doctors and are an organic grass roots movement?
Surely for a party to represent the "people" we want them to be honest and transparent, rather than just another bunch of bullshit merchants.
Well, R4 News at 9 am this morning LED with comments from David Milliband. Remember him? No, not really, but the BBC do.
So, yes BBC desperate for a more electable Labour party and are, and have been casting around for a Corbyn alternate for the last year or so.
But BBC is in a panic, the ground has moved beneath their feet and they are falling and failling around.
Yes, BBC has been virulently anti UKIP for years. Never given them or Brexit a fair hearing. Acted unprofessionally and undemocratically in my view. But now their anti-UKIP propaganda is turning-out to be of most help to the Tories! Delicious irony.
Whilst I agree with you in part - any accusations levelled at UKIP that the BBC give them too much coverage because they only have 1 MP should be put in the following context;
UKIP got 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 election Lib Dems got 7.9% and 8 MPs SNP got 4.7% and 56 MPs
It's not an accusation and I didn't and don't discount the notion they did well in the popular vote. But they ended up with 1 MP, which doesn't make for much of a "political force".
Actually they ended up with no MPs as a result of the popular vote. Carswell(?) defected, and may find he doesn't get elected next time around because of it.
"How does the destruction of UKIP as "a political force" (with 1 MP, you could argue it chews up a substantial amount more media spotlight than it warrants) solely benefit Labour? It's not going to do the Conservatives any harm either."
Well I think you are being naive again. The BBC couldn't care less who delivers their agenda as long as it is delivered. They aren't committed to parties but policies: PC multiculturalism, no borders globalism, and extreme feminism among them.
It's naive to talk in terms of UKIP's media "share" - most of their share on the BBC is given over to negative investigations, negative analysis and negative interviewing. That said UKIP's share of the vote fully justifies it being given more attention than the Lib Dems.
"The BBC couldn't care less who delivers their agenda as long as it is delivered. They aren't committed to parties but policies: PC multiculturalism, no borders globalism, and extreme feminism among them."
There was me thinking they were a State broadcaster, with a penchant for slavishly promoting the Monarchy, who could have their chain yanked at any time by the prevailing Government of the day. Turns out they're agents of radical international communism or some such. Perhaps it's naivety or perhaps it's just your own bias leading you to those conclusions?
"It's naive to talk in terms of UKIP's media "share" - most of their share on the BBC is given over to negative investigations, negative analysis and negative interviewing."
Their message was received loud and clear. It's all publicity, and publicity which served them well in the popular vote.
"That said UKIP's share of the vote fully justifies it being given more attention than the Lib Dems."
Wouldn't argue with that. Perhaps we should be more concerned with the ever-increasing creep of polarization in the media writ large (and the media writ large) than solely concentrating on the BBC, for whom - as a State broadcaster - you should naturally and intellectually expect a degree of bias. All of our political overlords and wannabes need to be subjected to scrutiny, whether or not they're giving the messages you wish to hear.
To be fair on this blog, and most who come here, I think we'd be perfectly happy if they weren't giving the message we wished to hear. As long as they also did - if that makes sense.
Brexit is the existential issue for UKIP. Now that it's - allegedly - in motion, they don't have much of a reason to keep going. The constant own goals don't help, and they don't have the ground game the others have, which does matter. Nuttall's recent idiocy did for him, probably.
Unless Theresa May's mask slips to reveal Tony Blair wearing a skin and leopard-print heels, and arranges for a Brexit so soft a thousand and one EU mandarins could sleep on it every night without complaint, UKIP has no reason to exist, regardless of internal squabbling or media attacks.
All the schadenfreude over UKIP's losses are coming from people who hate them anyway and I'd bet most of them have always said UKIP is worthless, mad, self-destructive, etc. For them, UKIP has been on the brink of disaster from the moment Farage signed the form bringing the party into existence.
I think is potentially more to UKIP. For one thing they could pursue constitutional reform to set us up as a referendum-based democracy like Switzerland. I think the key issue is whether May is really intending to pursue the sorts of policies that her hero Joseph Chamberlain would pursue in the current era. If she is, then that would make UKIP redundant. However her Industrial Policy and her investment decisions so far don't inspire confidence.
"There was me thinking they were a State broadcaster, with a penchant for slavishly promoting the Monarchy, who could have their chain yanked at any time by the prevailing Government of the day. Turns out they're agents of radical international communism or some such. Perhaps it's naivety or perhaps it's just your own bias leading you to those conclusions?"
I never suggested the BBC were promoting international communism - that's Corbyn and McDonnell's schtick and the BBC don't support that. The people who run BBC policy are themselves wealthy, and move easily within the global elite. They promote mass immigration, political correctness, relativistic multiculturalism, globalism, free trade, and transnationalism. They use the monarchy to promote their policies, but ultimately they have no attachment to monarchy.
"Their message was received loud and clear. It's all publicity, and publicity which served them well in the popular vote."
UKIP was kept off our screens until their huge success in the European Parliament elections made it impossible for the BBC to suppress them. It then became all about negative reporting.
"Wouldn't argue with that. Perhaps we should be more concerned with the ever-increasing creep of polarization in the media writ large (and the media writ large) than solely concentrating on the BBC, for whom - as a State broadcaster - you should naturally and intellectually expect a degree of bias. All of our political overlords and wannabes need to be subjected to scrutiny, whether or not they're giving the messages you wish to hear."
BBC have a legal responsibility to be impartial - one they consistently ignore. As Clockworkorange pointed out most of us here are not demanding to hear a single viewpoint. We are arguing for a range of opinions to be heard.
I think that is exactly the point. We want to hear both sides of the argument. A little more straightforward reporting too, without the opinion of the broadcaster would not go amiss.
The problem is that, more often than not on important issues, the BBC views one side of the argument as coming from Coco the Clown, or "opponents of the consensus".
"... the media writ large" ... the problem for us Brits is that the BBC dominates the media in the UK, squeezes out competition (70% of news), attacks the competition ("therightwingpress"), lives parasitically on the competition (newspaper reviews) ...
As for "All of our political overlords and wannabes need to be subjected to scrutiny" ... is obvious, but the BBC itself is uniquely free of accountability. It doesn't answer to voters or license fee payers. It's charter is longer than 2 parliaments!
I am sure the glasses are chinking at BBC Central as they celebrate and congratulate themselves on defeating the enemies of PC globalism at Stoke.
ReplyDeleteWhatever one thinks of UKIP, the BBC has failed to live up to its "impartiality" requirements in the Stoke by election by focussing negative reporting on that party. We can imagine how the BBC would have gone after the story of the Labour candidate's misogynistic posts (for which he apologised) had they been written by Paul Nuttall. But they weren't, so they didn't. But boy did they push the Hillsborough line, day after day with innuendo piled on allegation on top of a thin layer of fact. It probably did make the difference on the day.
And now the BBC are trying to capitalise on their victory. On the Radio 5 Live midday news, after some stuff from Corbyn, there was a brief quote of Nuttall saying UKIP were "going nowhere" (a rather ambiguous phrase! - I am sure he said a bit more than that) followed by THREE - yes 3 - vox pops (in a "news" summary, remember) from Stoke with all three following the same line (that UKIP were a one man band/one trick pony and were now irrelevant). Talk about bias with a cherry on the top! Could they find no one in Stoke to say Nuttall had been treated unfairly and UKIP would bounce back...clearly not!
It's clear what the BBC policy is: destroy UKIP as a political force, keep Labour afloat, until a suitable left of centre leader can be found, more to the BBC's liking than the old style Trot, Corbyn and then boost the new Labour leader so they represent a credible alternative in 2020.
Only prob for the BBC is that there is no credible alternative leader yet identified for Labour. Be sure when they find him or her you will know about it as they will be given the BBC Boost treatment.
Is this the alt-story where UKIP are badly served by the reportage of negative publicity? They seem to do a great job of generating that themselves without the help of any journalists, BBC or otherwise.
DeleteThat's naive. I am not excusing UKIP for self-inflicted wounds but there was plenty of negative stuff on the Labour candidate, it's just that was passed over by the BBC. We've seen the same thing re the USA. It's true there plenty of negative stuff to report about Trump that he's generated himself, but that was equally true of Clintby the MSM (she still is), and by the BBC in particular.
DeleteIt's not naive. UKIP claim to be something different - different from the "political establishment", a party for the "people". Whilst I may agree that they receive slightly disproportionate focus re: negative publicity, it's not entirely unearned given such a claim. We can't ignore either, if we're critics of bias, that UKIP have received plenty of airtime from the BBC in which to press their case and become "a political force".
Delete"It's clear what the BBC policy is: destroy UKIP as a political force, keep Labour afloat, until a suitable left of centre leader can be found, more to the BBC's liking than the old style Trot, Corbyn and then boost the new Labour leader so they represent a credible alternative in 2020."
How does the destruction of UKIP as "a political force" (with 1 MP, you could argue it chews up a substantial amount more media spotlight than it warrants) solely benefit Labour? It's not going to do the Conservatives any harm either.
A party 'of the people' has the flaws of the people. They don't have media schooling and PR/spin merchants and pals in the media to present the right 'face'.
Delete"A party 'of the people' has the flaws of the people. They don't have media schooling and PR/spin merchants and pals in the media to present the right 'face'."
Delete1) Are you suggesting that the average person makes claims as ridiculous and disturbing as Paul Nuttall?
2) Are you suggesting that UKIP don't have spin doctors and are an organic grass roots movement?
Surely for a party to represent the "people" we want them to be honest and transparent, rather than just another bunch of bullshit merchants.
Well, R4 News at 9 am this morning LED with comments from David Milliband. Remember him? No, not really, but the BBC do.
DeleteSo, yes BBC desperate for a more electable Labour party and are, and have been casting around for a Corbyn alternate for the last year or so.
But BBC is in a panic, the ground has moved beneath their feet and they are falling and failling around.
Yes, BBC has been virulently anti UKIP for years. Never given them or Brexit a fair hearing. Acted unprofessionally and undemocratically in my view. But now their anti-UKIP propaganda is turning-out to be of most help to the Tories! Delicious irony.
Whilst I agree with you in part - any accusations levelled at UKIP that the BBC give them too much coverage because they only have 1 MP should be put in the following context;
ReplyDeleteUKIP got 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 election
Lib Dems got 7.9% and 8 MPs
SNP got 4.7% and 56 MPs
It's not an accusation and I didn't and don't discount the notion they did well in the popular vote. But they ended up with 1 MP, which doesn't make for much of a "political force".
DeleteSo, more an exercise in nit picking then?
DeleteActually they ended up with no MPs as a result of the popular vote. Carswell(?) defected, and may find he doesn't get elected next time around because of it.
DeleteThe SNP also gets a disproportionate voice, as does anyone who holds the majority of Scotland.
DeleteHowever I'd suggest that the MSM and those who criticise UKIP would never dear to say that out loud.
Dare....
DeleteI agree, but is it a surprise that the State broadcaster affords them a disproportionate voice?
Delete"How does the destruction of UKIP as "a political force" (with 1 MP, you could argue it chews up a substantial amount more media spotlight than it warrants) solely benefit Labour? It's not going to do the Conservatives any harm either."
ReplyDeleteWell I think you are being naive again. The BBC couldn't care less who delivers their agenda as long as it is delivered. They aren't committed to parties but policies: PC multiculturalism, no borders globalism, and extreme feminism among them.
It's naive to talk in terms of UKIP's media "share" - most of their share on the BBC is given over to negative investigations, negative analysis and negative interviewing. That said UKIP's share of the vote fully justifies it being given more attention than the Lib Dems.
"The BBC couldn't care less who delivers their agenda as long as it is delivered. They aren't committed to parties but policies: PC multiculturalism, no borders globalism, and extreme feminism among them."
DeleteThere was me thinking they were a State broadcaster, with a penchant for slavishly promoting the Monarchy, who could have their chain yanked at any time by the prevailing Government of the day. Turns out they're agents of radical international communism or some such. Perhaps it's naivety or perhaps it's just your own bias leading you to those conclusions?
"It's naive to talk in terms of UKIP's media "share" - most of their share on the BBC is given over to negative investigations, negative analysis and negative interviewing."
Their message was received loud and clear. It's all publicity, and publicity which served them well in the popular vote.
"That said UKIP's share of the vote fully justifies it being given more attention than the Lib Dems."
Wouldn't argue with that. Perhaps we should be more concerned with the ever-increasing creep of polarization in the media writ large (and the media writ large) than solely concentrating on the BBC, for whom - as a State broadcaster - you should naturally and intellectually expect a degree of bias. All of our political overlords and wannabes need to be subjected to scrutiny, whether or not they're giving the messages you wish to hear.
To be fair on this blog, and most who come here, I think we'd be perfectly happy if they weren't giving the message we wished to hear. As long as they also did - if that makes sense.
DeleteBrexit is the existential issue for UKIP. Now that it's - allegedly - in motion, they don't have much of a reason to keep going. The constant own goals don't help, and they don't have the ground game the others have, which does matter. Nuttall's recent idiocy did for him, probably.
DeleteUnless Theresa May's mask slips to reveal Tony Blair wearing a skin and leopard-print heels, and arranges for a Brexit so soft a thousand and one EU mandarins could sleep on it every night without complaint, UKIP has no reason to exist, regardless of internal squabbling or media attacks.
All the schadenfreude over UKIP's losses are coming from people who hate them anyway and I'd bet most of them have always said UKIP is worthless, mad, self-destructive, etc. For them, UKIP has been on the brink of disaster from the moment Farage signed the form bringing the party into existence.
I think is potentially more to UKIP. For one thing they could pursue constitutional reform to set us up as a referendum-based democracy like Switzerland. I think the key issue is whether May is really intending to pursue the sorts of policies that her hero Joseph Chamberlain would pursue in the current era. If she is, then that would make UKIP redundant. However her Industrial Policy and her investment decisions so far don't inspire confidence.
Delete"There was me thinking they were a State broadcaster, with a penchant for slavishly promoting the Monarchy, who could have their chain yanked at any time by the prevailing Government of the day. Turns out they're agents of radical international communism or some such. Perhaps it's naivety or perhaps it's just your own bias leading you to those conclusions?"
ReplyDeleteI never suggested the BBC were promoting international communism - that's Corbyn and McDonnell's schtick and the BBC don't support that. The people who run BBC policy are themselves wealthy, and move easily within the global elite. They promote mass immigration, political correctness, relativistic multiculturalism, globalism, free trade, and transnationalism. They use the monarchy to promote their policies, but ultimately they have no attachment to monarchy.
"Their message was received loud and clear. It's all publicity, and publicity which served them well in the popular vote."
UKIP was kept off our screens until their huge success in the European Parliament elections made it impossible for the BBC to suppress them. It then became all about negative reporting.
"Wouldn't argue with that. Perhaps we should be more concerned with the ever-increasing creep of polarization in the media writ large (and the media writ large) than solely concentrating on the BBC, for whom - as a State broadcaster - you should naturally and intellectually expect a degree of bias. All of our political overlords and wannabes need to be subjected to scrutiny, whether or not they're giving the messages you wish to hear."
BBC have a legal responsibility to be impartial - one they consistently ignore. As Clockworkorange pointed out most of us here are not demanding to hear a single viewpoint. We are arguing for a range of opinions to be heard.
I think that is exactly the point. We want to hear both sides of the argument. A little more straightforward reporting too, without the opinion of the broadcaster would not go amiss.
DeleteThe problem is that, more often than not on important issues, the BBC views one side of the argument as coming from Coco the Clown, or "opponents of the consensus".
Delete"... the media writ large" ... the problem for us Brits is that the BBC dominates the media in the UK, squeezes out competition (70% of news), attacks the competition ("therightwingpress"), lives parasitically on the competition (newspaper reviews) ...
DeleteAs for "All of our political overlords and wannabes need to be subjected to scrutiny" ... is obvious, but the BBC itself is uniquely free of accountability. It doesn't answer to voters or license fee payers. It's charter is longer than 2 parliaments!