It’s that same old ‘not right-wing = left-wing’ fallacy. The BBC is to the left of them, but so is most of the world.

Thanks for writing this, I read the article by Janet Daley, and found it thoroughly depressing. Does she really believe any of what she writes ?

Janet Daley is an American Neo con nut case, who used to work for the Murdoch Times, and not to be taken seriously. I’m sure if a few years ago you had told mad Janet that NI where paying and bribing the police, she would have screamed “left wing conspiracy theories” Remember, for people like her it is never illegal when conservatives do anything wrong. Conrad Black, another right wing media thug is in prison, and no doubt Janet thinks that is a leftist conspiracy.

Turn Murdoch and Brooks over to the CIA and let them be interrogated by the Jordanian Secret Police and whatever they find throw him in Gitmo for the next ten years. Fox has been pushing this approach for suspected criminals for a long time now. Rupert is a fair man, surely he won’t object to equal treatment.

You see the point surely.All this talk of quasi monopolistic ownership of the media looks mighty peculiar when the Conservative Party has to cope with a vast publicly funded Broadcaster whose editorial position is progressive left, not far from the Guardian .Polly Toynbee and this blog have both called for an attack on the Mail and for political control of the free Press, relatively feeble though it is.

We can`t we have broadcast media free to express any view it likes?

I don’t know if it is a ‘Left/Right’ issue, but there is certainly a ‘decency/Right element to it. What the Right have been doing these last couple of weeks is to portray themselves as the victims. It is not so much that they are in anyway contrite regarding this phone hacking, what they actually want phone hacking, attempts (failed or succeeded) at police corruption, political smearing and downright lying to be considered fair and legitimate.

It is a tactic we have seen here and other places when the Tories (or the ‘Right’ in general) have their feathers ruffled on a subject or other. When they are accused of being the ‘Nasty Party’ or evil or whatever. They do not admit that they may have gone over the top on occasion. No, what they want is that their indiscretions be taken as reasonable behaviour. On a number of occasions we have seen people on the Right trash the disabled.

One of the More overt instances when one their number demanded that disabled people be treated as second class citizens. That drew out predicable cries (not least from me, TBH) of nasty and even drawing comparisons with aspects of Nazi ideology. The retort from the Right was not ‘Oh, yeah, now I come to look at objectively, I can why people would describe that as nasty’, but one of ‘How dare YoOU accuse us of being Nazis, just because we wish to drive the disabled further into poverty’.

Same on the Global Warming debate. It is not that we evil Lefties have misrepresented them, they just want it to be completely legitimate to ignore the science, cherry pick bits of data and completely make up ‘scientific facts’ to win an argument. To win an argument that will condemn millions of people to die or suffer horrendous consequences of their own greed.

‘Just because you have lied to ensure you can destroy an ecosystem does not make ‘evil’’

People like Janet Daley and Dennis Kannavah last week have been bleating, not because people have been making outrageous claims about the Murdoch press, they are whining that they have been found out. They are not complaining that the rivals have been targeting them unfairly, they are bitterly complaining that they have been found out doing exactly what we are accusing them of.

The biggest mistake the Left or the Centre can make is to allow them the luxury of painting the BBC as ‘Lefties’. The one thing we need to preserve or re-establish the concept that the BBC is objective and politically neutral. When we see these types of attacks we need to challenge them. We cannot simply let them away with Tory whinging that ‘the BBC’s position on…’ whatever, ‘or the BBC’s bias’ etc.

I am sick to death of the Rights assertion that the BBC has a position on ‘The death penalty’ (for example) goes completely unchallenged on any political programme.

If there is |ONE thing the Left/Centre should have understood is when you allow these statements go unchallenged it gets into the consciousness of the public.

Paul Newman @ 4

Conservative Party has to cope with a vast publicly funded Broadcaster whose editorial position is progressive left,

That is sheer fucking bollox and you know it. What you mean is the Tory Party and the Right in general despise ‘truth’ and when you have it rammed down your throats you cannot handle it.

What you people want is your own bigotry re-enforced not objective reporting.

I’d love to read specifics about the serial claims that the BBC is (? systematically) “leftwing”.

Failing specifics, I would feel bound to conclude the claims amount to no more than a smear to discredit government policy assessments by BBC subject editors. I think we need to know whether we are expected to regard Stephanie Flanders, the BBC economics editor, and Robert Peston, the BBC business editor, are covert “leftists” and, if so, why.

Having seen lefties attack the BBC for not questioning the cuts, and right-wingers savage it for giving too much coverage to the victims of the cuts, I have come to the conclusion they must be doing something right.

That is all.

7 – Andrew Marr who is no Righty admitted that the BBC has an unconscious left-liberal bias. Don’t know Peter Sissons’ politics but he suggested the same.

I think it’s insane. If I was a Tory, I’d be paddling away from this enormous whirlpool of political death as fast as I could, not circling the plughole and demanding that everybody feels sympathy for me.

That said, let’s not stop them making this mistake. If they want to row right into the heart of this, I say let ‘em do it. They’re only killing themselves, after all.

The BBC is obviously a left-wing conspiracy. After all, only the other day I heard them demanding the overthrow of capitalism & the immediate removal of the Queen as head of state.

It’s political correctness gone mad, I tell you.

i wish some brit would sketch out a british constitution. there should be some reference to ‘who rules’ and ‘how.’

as it is now, there is a thousand years of very tangled history, occluded by newspeak and doublethink. i particularly would like to know why there is reference to ‘democracy’ in a nation where the people do not rule, nor even know what the rulers are doing.

While Janet Daley is a bit bonkers I think it’s fair to say that the Beeb is a bit lefty. Not massively so, perhaps not even intentionally so but if you consider which paper the BBC is most like then it would be the Graun rather than the Times or the Sun.

Perhaps we should just have partial news allowed on the BBC, lefties get one day, righties the next?

“But she is not alone out there on the right, where pundits and bloggers are united in seeing the BBC as some great leftist Satan and want to see a few left leaning hacks in the dock as some kind of balance.”

If she’s “not alone on the right”, it would be nice to see some proof that such opinions are held by a significant proportion of right-wing commentators. So far, you’ve only provided evidence that one right-wing blogger holds this view. As for putting “a few left leaning hacks in the dock”, I was informed that Trinity Mirror Group (owner of the Daily Mirror, which isn’t exactly a mouthpiece for the British right) was the worst for phone-hacking incidents. Is this wrong? If so, then I can’t see why you don’t mention it in the OP; if not, then why shouldn’t Mirror journalists go in the dock, too?

Yes, yes, left-liberal bias, Mirror Group, and so on and so forth. Give me a call when they’ve hacked a murdered child’s mobile phone, eh?

Honestly, I’m flabbergasted that anyone on the right would even bother trying to smear the mud about a bit, let alone complain at great length or claim victimhood. I just looks terrible.

They’re not waving – they’re drowning.

@12:

That’s roughly correct. There is no single document embodying Britain’s constitution just a collection of Acts of Parliament, precedents, conventions and rules of Parliamentary procedure. The fundamental doctrine is that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can irrevocably bind its successors, which implies that, in the final analysis, treaty obligations can be repudiated but usually aren’t in practice as that would weaken Britain’s international credibility.

One example of Britain’s flexible constitutional arrangements is that in September 1931, there was little administrative difficulty in taking the Pound off the Gold Standard, an action which caused the Pound to depreciate in the foreign exchange markets by about 25 percent.

Without an obligation to maintain the Gold parity of the Pound, the Bank of England was able to reduce interest rates soon after and that led to a boom in speculative property development across the south of England and much of the Midlands. After the trough of the slump in 1931/2, Britain’s economy performed relatively well during the rest of the 1930s compared with the economies of most other industrialised countries.

Another example, is that Blair as PM was able to carry through preparations for a war with Iraq starting on 20 March 2003 using the powers vested in him as PM by invoking the Royal prerogatives and without the need to secure specific sanction by Parliament. In the event, Parliament was finally permitted to debate the war on 18/19 March and voted to support the government.

What I find hilarious is how this issue was vehemently dismissed as a non-story by various Murdoch lickspittles. Now the non-story has led to the arrest of Coulson and Brooks. The withdrawal of the BSkyB bid and the closure of the NotW. An FBI investigation. The resignation of the Met. chief and the ordering of the Murdoch’s to appear before a select committee. It could even lead to the downfall of a PM. Obviously it must all be the work of the ‘left’ bogeyman. Who else could turn News International into a criminal enterprise and entice Mr Cameron to exercise such appalling judgement. I think the non-story advocates just feel so embarrassed that any attempt to implicate other media organisations will be pursued to distract attention from the criminality of NI.

Why thankyou for your objectivity Jim.
The Wilson Report on BBC Coverage of the EU Referendum is illuminating.
Blair`s U Turn – A Case Study In BBC Partiality – is quite rigorous ,sorry I cannot track down a link
I only mention the EU because I happen to have seen surveys but it shows that left /right is not strictly speaking the axis .For example, left wing anti Common Market voices were excluded at the time of the referendum which sends subtle message.Its not dissimilar to the pro AV campaigns exclusion of Farrage and UKIP.
Roy Hattersley has remarked that the failure of the BBC to reveal that a significant loss of sovereignty was involved has poisoned the EU debate since because people can say, with justification, we were never asked.
People like Andrew Marr, hardly a righty, have happily announced that the BBC was the Guardian on screen but that bias is not a conspiracy so much as institutional ( much as racism in the police was describe by McPherson).The problem, is the type of people who go there I have along list of Guardistas who have been prominent at the BC then worked for New Labour
Peter Sissons “-Institutionally biased to the Left….” ( A view shared by the Wilson report from years previously.)

It would be hard for an organisation whose funding is doctrinally questioned by one of the main Parties to maintain neutrality. In 1997 the BBC was ( as it often has been) threatened with privatisation by Charles Lewington the then Conservative Director of Communications.
In many ways you have a parallel. After 97 the Conservative Party came to the view that they could never get a fair hearing as long as the BBC dominated the narrative. Much the same happened with New Labour and the Press.
The result in both cases, with great bitterness left in the rank and file was a charm offensive . Blair sucked up to Murdoch and Cameron sucked up the BBC pursuing its pet projects ,( International AID , Prison , backing off from America , maintaining high taxes etc. even fudging Europe as much as he dared )
This Liberal Conservatism sold to the Conservative Party by flawed evidence showing that the “Brand” was toxic ( Ashcrofts evidence ), in fact it was no more toxic than New Labour
In 2007 Sky had a market share of 6% , the BBC has 44.4% and taking the amount of sport in that 6% into account the BBC is a behemoth , it has a de facto monopoly of speech based talk radio.
If the Free Press is to be balkanised into powerless units it will be hard for Cameron to contain the pent up loathing of the state broadcaster and its history of insidious bias. If Cameron is weakened all the more so .

I take a moderate view ,the BBC is biassed but has many good qualities as well Its wings should be clipped and we need to sort out a proper funding basis for the future. I would like to see a better balance in the broadcast media without losing the public sector ethos which has served us well.

What would be very silly is to deny that the action over Murdoch will have a reaction in the balance of the media .

Yeah, as media scandals go, all the left have had is Johann Hari. I did see various threads trailing down right wing publications saying of course Hari would do that sort of thing, he’s a lying leftie. The lying leftie has been dwarfed by the corrupt, bribing, blackmailing right.

Sensible lefties didn’t defend Hari and those that did looked like immoral idiots. Reasonable rightists could learn a bit from that.

Of course the actions of the NotW were completely despicable. I don’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly don’t dispute that. On the other hand, the liberal-left would have to be–I don’t know–angelic? moronic? disinterested? post-human and post-political? not to use this opportunity to attack one of the few remaining vaguely non-liberal institutions in the country.

I think Marr’s point about liberal bias was a cultural rather than party political observation, in that it is comfortably multi-racial and accepting of diversity. The element of the population which is uncomfortable with ethnic minorities or gays for example does not see itself reflected in the beeb. Aside from that it generally walks a fairly bland line and tends to take its cue from the press as to what the major stories of the day are rather attempting to steer a different course. You’ll rarely see outright partisanship unless of course Andrew Neill is on screen.

Oh, and the BBC is as liberal in 2011 as it was conservative in 1951.

Given the (amazing) pace of events, I think we have reached a stage where the mere straight reporting of facts regarding the resignations and arrests amounts to a pervasive leftwing conspiracy to keep the public informed about failings of what we used to consider the national establishment.

BobB – Isn’t polarisation nasty?

Yes, unfortunately there’s an increasing gap there, not dissimilar – and for similar reasons – to the growing income gap.

@ Jim, comment 5.
Those on the Left tend to rely primarily on intellect; they usually are wise, mature, reasonable and objective in judgement, and understand that truths can be inconvenient and problematic. They also have feelings and emotions.
Those on the Right tend to rely primarily on emotions and gut instincts; they often are self-serving, immature, unreasonable and subjective in judgement, cannot cope with criticism or inconvenient truths, and resort to what can be described as playground antics. They also have reason and intellect.
The real acid test is always when things go pear-shaped and people are put under pressure; true primary colours show through, then.
btw, this Left-Right distinction is there in all main political parties; the right wing of any party is where the fear & negativity will be most readily found… and where the desire is greatest for power without responsibility or accountability.

As for the BBC, my take is that the BBC tries hard to be impartial and deserves to be given credit for this, but the BBC is so close to the Establishment that there is a slight tendency to be pro-government (whichever party happens to be in govt).

re xxx yes you are wrong,the daily mail was the top one for using private detectives for accessing information.
right wingers love mercilessly giving abuse to their opponents but they cry like babies when they’re given a taste of their own medicine. i’m loving every twist and turn of hackgate.

Notice how it’s only ever nebulous outgroups who are to blame, there’s almost never any names, never anyone you can attribute anything to or validate accusations against.

It’s always “The PC brigade”, “liberal elites” or the “twitterati” – non existent blank canvases they can project bile onto, it’s never “Dave from Loughborough” because then you could go and ask him whether or not he thinks the mail should be banned or whatever.

Incidentally, no one on the right actually believes the bbc is ‘left wing’ but they realise they can further push the centre to the right by defining the bbc’s right of centre agenda as left wing lunacy, ie; if Fox is liberal what is conservative?

People at the BBC , admittedly this is a bit out of date

Will Hutton – 10 years 1980 to 1990 Economics Editor
Polly Toynbee- Social Affairs Editor 1993 -1996
Andrew Rawnsley — Chief Political Commentator .. this very day he has published a weak and pathetic Ed Milliband love piece, Ed Milliband btw worked for him
James Naughtie – Certainkly left leaning personally although he tries to do the job I feel
John Birt – Takes Labour whip
James Purnell – Head of BBC corporate Planning

Its endless , of course you have to wait few years before you can see the underlying attitudes of the people involved but to suggest there is no bias is bizarre .
Rather than stick your heads in the sand it might be a better idea to think about how to preserve the BBC . It certainly cannot go on the way it is , the pressure on Cameron to act will become impossible to withstand
What you may not realise is that the BBC is hated in right wing circles every bit as much as Murdoch is on the left. It goes beyond reason its also tribal . The BBC allowed this to happen

I look back at this thread incidentally and it seems to me the emption and fear is coming form those who agree with the BBC whilst I have at least tried to bring in some evidence

..already it begins . Post Murdoch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/17/murdoch-politiciasns-eu-referendum-wapping-summer

I think I have amply demonstrated the extreme bias of the BBC on this subject and now the anti Nationalists want to re frame the European question with no opposition to the BBC/ Guardian line. That is why there has to be a reaction.

@Paul Newman #30:

What, specifically, is wrong with the piece?

The problem is that reality has a well-known liberal bias; so any good-faith attempt to report reality will be seen by the right as liberal or worse.

Is this just sour grapes because she was dropped from “Moral Maze”?

@14

The idea that the Mirror was also at it was put forward recently by the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines, who suggested that the Sven and Ulrika-ka-ka-ka scoop had been secured by hacking on the watch of Piers “Morgan” Moron.

Unfortunately for Staines, this case is a well known one: it was the Screws that had been hacking Ms Jonsson’s phone, and that is why she is taking action against them, and not the Mirror. The Mirror was gifted the scoop as a spoiler to stop the Screws.

This updated post has details:

http://zelo.tv/n6Tp4D

@28 Paul Newman

Rawnsley, Birt, Purnell – leftists! Nay, communists at least.

Paul Newman @ 18

The Wilson Report on BBC Coverage of the EU Referendum is illuminating.
Blair`s U Turn – A Case Study In BBC Partiality, etc, etc

Yes, but you have done is found another bunch of Right wing bigots, whinging that life aint fair and that everyone should believe what they believe.

After 97 the Conservative Party came to the view that they could never get a fair hearing as long as the BBC dominated the narrative. Much the same happened with New Labour and the Press.

Oh, you got a fair hearing all right and that is the issue, it was a fair, unvarnished representation of Tory policy and it was not a pretty picture.

What you wanted was the BBC to spin the bad and ignore worse of your policies. They didn’t and guess what? Your Party looked exactly like the backward scum they truly are. You are complaining about the lack of bias, not BBC bias.

Cameron sucked up the BBC pursuing its pet projects ,( International AID , Prison , backing off from America , maintaining high taxes etc. even fudging Europe as much as he dared )

Written like a True Tory. It never occurred to you that these things are the right things to do?

What you need to remember, you Righties are incapable of coming up with an independent opinion between you, therefore you assume that the rest of us are the same. This idea that the BBC have ‘pet projects’ is pretty silly, because the BBC’s position is one of neutrality, the fact that given a level playing field, you people are unable to get points across clearly is the paucity of your side, not an indication of bias.

I would like to see a better balance in the broadcast media without losing the public sector ethos which has served us well.

Do you fuck want balance. You want a fucking Tory mouthpiece and the fact that your side are too stupid to get your points across in an unbiased media is more about the level of debate you cunts bring to the party, rather than anything the BBC does. You know what you cannot stand? Making an arse of yourselves on National TV and radio. You know why it always happens? Because the BBC employ good journalists that can disembowel you within thirty seconds.

Today finished this morning with Simon Jenkins shaking his sage grey locks in sadness at the indulgence of the press in a scandal “we all knew was going on.” Nothing to see here, move along…

The consternation of the Right surely indicates the importance their sugar daddy Rupe held for them. Left with the prospect of the increasingly deranged Dacre as their only “credible” friend in the press they know hard times could be ahead.

Those of us on the Right are inclined to believe that our antagonists on the Left are simply wrong-headed – sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes malevolent but basically just mistaken. Whereas the Left believes that we are evil incarnate. Their demonic view of people who express even mildly Right-of-centre opinions (that lower taxes or less state control might be desirable, for example) would be risible if it were not so pernicious.

Saaaalllllllleeeee!!!!!!!!

You want a fucking Tory mouthpiece and the fact that your side are too stupid to get your points across in an unbiased media is more about the level of debate you cunts bring to the party, rather than anything the BBC does.

Oh don’t worry, Sally.

Jim’s here.

A couple of years ago the merits of so-called intelligent design was rearing its ugly head. It was creeping into the National debate and ‘Today’ aired the subject. Two sides were quickly identified, the Darwin theory of course providing the opposition.

After the first couple of exchanges, the Darwin theory was easily on top and had it been a boxing match, the ref would have waved the religious nutter to his corner and declared ‘Darwinism’ as the winner. After that, it got a bit embarrassing because the religious guy was left spluttering and mumbling because his carefully constructed ideas were ripped to pieces.

This did not show the BBC’s ‘line’ on Darwin or religious belief, it showed that science was superior to religion. It was not the BBC’s fault that the religious view looks silly nor was there any bias on the piece. It was simply that one side had arguments that the other had not.

The BBC has to make sure that the debate gets treated impartially, but it is up to the protagonists to use that space.

Those on the Left tend to rely primarily on intellect; they usually are wise, mature, reasonable and objective in judgement, and understand that truths can be inconvenient and problematic. They also have feelings and emotions.
Those on the Right tend to rely primarily on emotions and gut instincts; they often are self-serving, immature, unreasonable and subjective in judgement, cannot cope with criticism or inconvenient truths, and resort to what can be described as playground antics. They also have reason and intellect.

What is so remarkable is that so many on the left seem genuinely to believe this.

Pagar @ 38

Well me where I am wrong. Tell me that the Right are looking for an unbiased media and not people to push their agenda?

Tell me that they actually want the BBC to tell the ‘truth’ and not what the Right would like the ‘truth’ to be.

Tim J @ 40

Global Warming.

Science vs ‘gut feeling’.

42 – I think that of all people on this site – with the possible exception of Sally – you are the least qualified person to make the argument that left wing people are wise, rational and mature in argument, seeing that the truth is often complicated.

If we mean by “free press” a press which spouts whatever billionaires and multi-millionaires want it to, because no one else can afford to run a (loss-making) DTF paper, then I don’t see why anyone should want one. Rusbridger has predicted that they’ll all be gone in five years and given what right-wingers think of him their failure to trash his opinion speaks volumes.

Since the advert of the mass-market dailies (Mail, Mirror etc) a little over a century ago now, we have had an oligopolic media. Those who make a fetish of “freedom” – from whichever side of “centre” – ought to rejoice at the prospect of its replacement with hundreds or even thousands of electronic outlets catering to niche upon niche. Of course they don’t because in an oligopoly you only have to convince a handful of media barons – in a truly free info-market you are merely one voice among a multitude.

And let’s not have any more of this hypocrisy about “we don’t want to close them down”. Everyone who is parti pris in any direction dreams of the other side’s outlets going belly-up, whether it’s the market and the US regulatory system between them smashing up Murdoch or a David Davis government here breaking up the Beeb. Spare us the hypocrisy…

Cherub – Simon Jenkins has in the past been complimentary about Murdoch saving the free Press.He is about my favourite columnist btw.

The problem is that reality has a well-known liberal bias; so any good-faith attempt to report reality will be seen by the right as liberal or worse.

I think that is the BBC mind set more or less and I don’t say it is malign.In fact , under pressure from the internet and budgetary constraints it has made efforts to reform its front line news.
Then problem is that most of the people working there don`t actually believe what they are doing and that tells in omissions and emphasis more than outright headline partisanship .
Take coverage of Islam in the UK where the BBC `s line has not been far from the Liberals Conspiracy line .Understand investigate, see the point of view … that sort of thing, all very responsible of course and given the numerous attempts to murder British citizens ” Brave” and all that .

There has no similarly empathetic investigation of their enemies
Examples ….
The BNP
Le Pens Party
The Orangemen of N Ireland

The BNP ,for example, got more votes than the Green Party ,( who went backwards ) but while both inhabit the marginal edge of opinion their treatment is wildly contrasting. Perhaps this is understandable but on immigration the BBC have failed ,as they failed over the Common Market to investigate warn and report
What is required is reform a Mc Pherson style report on the methods of recruitment and pro – active measures to stop the BBC operating in its own big state high tax public sector interest.

Excellent piece.

[45] Yes, the BBC will be biassed in the interest of its own survival. So are Rupert Murdoch and Sunny Hundal. So what?

Tim J @ 43

Perhaps, but it never stops the Right Wing constantly demonising people and as for your point that ‘the truth is often complicated’, I certainly could not agree more.

Which make Tory claims along the lines that ’90 per cent of asylum seekers are bogus’, ’70 per cent of incapacity claimants could work’ etc far too simplistic and pretty stupid too.

Yet, for some reason, you people never question people that spout such rubbish! You people never question those assumptions, or take the people who spout them to task.

Most of the backward Tories are on the wrong side of the science on AGW, not because they have all spontaneously misunderstood the science or have spotted something that the entire scientific community have missed. You are on the wrong side of the debate because the wrong side of the debate happens to coincide with your political ideology.

This is precisely why you people see ‘bias’. Whenever the ‘truth’ (as complex as it is) appears at odds with your considerable list of prejudices you assume that there is bias afoot. The BBC reports that a scientific Consensus exists and your instant ‘Tory defensive mode’ kicks in.

1) Something has been reported that Tories wish untrue.
2) I must be untrue
3) The messenger therefore must by lying for his own political ends
4) The messenger is biased.

And there it is, the Tory is placated and we can all sleep safe in our beds again.

The Times was, by all accounts, quite the impartial newspaper prior to Rupert’s purchase, though Mr Murdoch thought it a vipers pit of leftys. Thus did the insight team become the hindsight team…

Unconscious bias is a very different thing from an editorial line, let alone a conspiracy.

@18 “For example, left wing anti Common Market voices were excluded at the time of the referendum which sends subtle message.Its not dissimilar to the pro AV campaigns exclusion of Farrage and UKIP.” Er, what? Assuming that your first claim is true, these are two different phenomena. In the first case, you claim that an outwardly non-partisan group with a secret agenda excluded people who disagreed with it in order to skew the debate; in the second, an overtly partisan campaign group excluded people who AGREED with it because it found the association embarrassing. How is that “not dissimilar”? It looks utterly dissimilar to me.

The BBC does have some institutional biases, but they’re not really along left-right lines. They’re also largely shared with the rest of the British broadcast media. Here are the main ones:

1) The Westminster Bias. Parties and persons within the bubble are seen as More Serious than those outside it, and their views and pronouncements are treated with more respect – regardless of where they or the Less Serious parties lie on the political spectrum. This is related to…

2) The Mouthpiece Bias. Although individual Beeb programmes do some real (and very good) journalism, the main news programmes simply report what other news outlets are saying or those in power have announced. Not without questioning it, but they report first and question later. The result is that, through little fault of their own, they become regurgitators of the Establishment line. They’re conscious of this, and try to counter it, which is a major factor behind…

3) The Opposition Bias. The Beeb’s inquisitors tend to concentrate their fire on the government of the day, while the opposition gets an easier ride – again, regardless of party. (This is less true during a new government’s honeymoon.) This is partly an attempt to correct the Mouthpiece Bias, and partly results from the feeling that those in power need to be questioned more fiercely and more urgently than those without it. It is also related to…

4) The Rebel Bias. Members of governing parties who oppose their own govt’s policies are pretty much guaranteed a lot of coverage and relatively little grilling. This is partly a variant of the Opposition Bias, but also partly derives from the fact that party rebellions are often juicy news stories. Like the other biases, this one applies regardless of whether the rebels come from the left of a left-wing party, the right of a left-wing party, the left of a right-wing party, or the right of a right-wing party.

5) The Status Quo Bias. Anyone proposing any kind of change or reform is going to get a tougher time from the Beeb than those who want things to stay the same – again, regardless of whether the change in question represents a rightward or leftward move.

Jim

There are two reasons to want a more egalitarian society.

One is that you look at the disadvantages suffered by some of your fellow human beings and wish that they could have richer, happier more fulfilled lives.

The second is that you look at the advantages enjoyed by some of your fellow human beings and envy them their prosperity.

Middle class lefties are generally more motivated by the first and working class lefties by the second and I am guessing, from your vehemently expressed hate of the Tories, that you are in the latter category.

And, actually, no blame attaches to you. Despite the fact that it cannot work, socialism is a rational response from the working class. It is the alleged socialist response of the the pink, middle class intelligentsia that is stupid and dangerous.

Why, they ask, can everyone not be better off than everyone else?

And yes. The BBC is the heartbeat of that movement.

Pagar @ 51

There are two reasons to want a more egalitarian society…

…

…And yes. The BBC is the heartbeat of that movement.

What the fuck are you on, Sir? What has anything you have written got to do with the BBC? The BBC are broadcasters, not a political movement. They fact that people like you want a Right Wing mouthpiece does not mean everyone else is a Socialist.

Get a fucking life, you sad cunt.

Makno – Perhaps I confused the issue . It is widely agreed (let us say) that by presenting the AV referendum as an anti Conservative / conservative left/ progressive cause its fate was sealed . That came from arrogance .

The Common Market , by the exclusion of Labour antis from the BBC, the case against was presented as big C and small c conservative case only.Thus its fate was also sealed and Polls did indeed move from solidly anti to pro during a concerted campaign.
I am afraid there is amble evidence that at this time there was collusion between BBC and the establishment to ensure this was the case
This chimed with the “Pro” case that opposition was confined to silly old duffers with pictures of the Queen on the wall.
If the BBC merely shared the predispositions of its class and industry ( which is true of course) there would be no problem with allowing a a politically free broadcast media.There is .

I agree with you that its not strictly speaking left /right bias though. More left Liberal . I aklso agree it is not a conspiracy .
It is precisely equivalent to the institutional racism in the Met and can only be addressed though policy on recruitment . That was also not a conspiracy and only an attitude shared by all Police forces

Pagar @ 51

Middle class lefties are generally more motivated by the first and working class lefties by the second and I am guessing, from your vehemently expressed hate of the Tories, that you are in the latter category.

I don’t envy anyone’s prosperity. I do not have a problem with greed mate. Sure, I could do with a couple of quid extra, but who wouldn’t? The problem I have with what appears to be most of the Tories ids the fact that they appear to attack the weakest members of society. Most of which, BTW, I do not fit into those targetted groups.

I am not unemployed, live on the minimum wage, recieve tax credits or disabled. Yet I see every day the most vile attacks on these people by some of the richest people on the planet.

I do not hate ‘most Tories’ because they are rich, but rather because the appear to delight in kicking the lungs out of people who have least to lose.

So the ‘chattering’ conservative classes are doing what they always do when the get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Blame the BBC. HA HA HA

This would be the same BBC who’s political editor Nick Robinson joined the tory party? Or the daytime face of BBC political shows Andrew Neil, the former Thatcher arse licker and former Murdoch lacy. Or his side kick Michael Portilo former tory cabinet member who with Neil provide a 2-1 bIas against a labour party MP. Or maybe the guy who just left the BBC to become Cameron’s replacement for Coulson. Or maybe the BBC’S motoring show which has been handed over to staunch tory and member of the Chipping Norton set Jeremy Clarkson. Who used the show for 10 years to run a political campaign against the Labour govt.

Funny thing is at the last election non of these people where asked to stand down by the BBC, and not broadcast. No, the only person who had their show taken off air was the apprentice, hosted by Lord Sugar because he was a Labour Lord. Talk about tory bias you can’t make it up.

But then this is not new with the Right wing liars and hypocrites, Any one who used to read the Daily Telegraph when Conrad Black owned it , and had to wade through the usual moronic pieces by his ludicrous wife, usually about crime and how the lefty people are not tough enough on criminals. Rather Ironic since her lifestyle was basically run on other people money, and her husband now languishes in an American jail.

@Paul Newman #45:

Are you seriously suggesting that treating hate-groups as hate-groups, and a major world religion as a major world religion, is indicative of some kind of bias in BBC reporting, rather than a bias in reality?

Could you answer the question I asked? What was the problem with the Grauniad piece you linked?

Robin-Islam is not a major UK religion and the BBC is not financed by “The world ” .Christianity is a major UK religion and it is treated with contempt. Catholicism is also a major world religion and he Pope has been abused on the BBC for his attitude to birth control and much more.
Th BNP would claim they are not a hate group and they and their allied Parties are a major art of European politics. They also do not pose a terrorist threat not have they blown up fifty British Citizens and tried to plough planes though populated US cities.( I did say that a bias here is understandable btw)
On that piece, it suggested that the question of EU was now easier to approach for Pro EU opinion now Murdoch has been beaten. My point is that the overall media climate was strongly pro EU with the BBC being the chief cheer leader This throws into relief hope we cannot have a state broadcasting monopoly if we are to have a balkanised and neutered free press. Of course ,he does not say ” Now we can ignore the citizens as we have always wanted to” …
He says the media center has shifted.
Well that is what Tim Fenton denies

Tim Fenton is wrong

QED

TimJ @40:

One of the times I genuinely agree with you. For me, that paragraph, in so far as it reflect reality at all (which is limited, and /much/ more true of US politics than UK) all it does is define why I don’t fit in either definition.

If you look back 100 years, the ‘left’ was all about rabble-rousing and emotionality. It was mass strikes and chaining your self to railings. That’s because they were losing.

Since the 80s, as individual (rather than merely collective) self-determination became a general force in society below the truly wealthy, reality has had (as someone says in this thread) a bit of a liberal bias. Generally speaking, we’ve been making the world uncomfortable for the intolerant. This has resulted in the increasing hysteria of the right-wing, and the increasing rationality of the left.

But both still lose. Neither (at least as far as the UK is concerned) is really liberal, and in that ‘neither’ I include the LDs in their current form. Neither is really conservative, either; one party wants to create a vision of Britain in the 1950s which didn’t actually exist even in the 1950s; and one wants to excuse the middle class over not caring about the death of industry and rise of a service economy.

I can’t accept definition as either left or right because I am interested in functionality not ideology (for an explanation of why I think like this, start here). If lowering taxes on the investment classes meant that the people I meet across my bar got happier and with a higher standard of living, I’d support it. This is also true if cutting all immigration was the Big Idea, or giving Rowan Williams a position analogous to that of Khameni.

Of course, none of these things would give the people I meet better lives. No Big Idea, or ideology, will ever do so. As Pratchett once suggested, you can’t help people with magic, even the magic of propaganda, spin and sloganeering; you can only help people with skin, by getting out and doing something useful.

How we choose which ‘something useful’ to do is of course what politics is for. But there is no space in modern politics for a pragmatist. To gain any traction and support for one’s ideas one has to fit into an ideological box, so that all the shrieking gibbons can easily tell if you are one of Us or one of Them.

Sod Us and Them. I’m one of me, and I’m the only one. Us and Them don’t exist; just 70 million Mes. Blue and Red are just United vs City all over again; right and left are industrial-era thinking being applied to a post-industrial nation.

Right-wing used to mean restraint, realpolitik, not standing on principle. Left-wing used to mean the greatest good of the greatest number, and always standing on principle. These days, right-wing means defender of privilege, particularly the privilege of the Christian fundamentalist and the uber-rich. Left-wing seems to mean very little apart from ‘I don’t agree with those other guys’.

I think I may have been offline too long, this is more of a post than a comment. Sorry.

BBC “left wing bias”

Arf!!! ‘don’t look at News International! Look! Look!! Look over here!!! the BBC!!!’

It’s pathetic

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/08/mehdi-hasan-bbc-wing-bias-corporation

@ 26:

“re xxx yes you are wrong,the daily mail was the top one for using private detectives for accessing information.”

The Daily Mail was the worst individual paper, with 952 incidents carried out by 58 journalists, but the worst group of newspapers was Trinity Mirror Group, whose publications had a total of 1,663 incidents by 139 journalists (as opposed to 1,248 incidents by 95 Mail Group journalists).

Anyway, for all that people seem to be talking about “the right” claiming that this scandal is some sort of lefty smear, nobody seems to have offered much evidence for this apart from the one article mentioned in the OP.

@Paul Newman #57:

More later, but in the meantime (i) consider David Copeland; and (ii) I was around in 1975.

Do you know I considered David Copeland and considered it not worth mentioning . I also said , twice, I do understand a bias against the BNP. I don`t blame the BBC for that. I do blame them for following the New labour line on immigration for ten years which is a common and reasonable concern
I also blame them, incidentally, for keeping the danger posed by African immigrants from AIDS a secret when they knew perfectly well they were pouring money down the drain pretending unprotected sex amongst teenagers was the problem
Of course having a hyper sensitive anti racist/ pro multicultural agenda in your coverage is not a crime ,Liberal Conspiracy,the Guardian and so on all do . Fine

For the BBC it is not acceptable

Paul Newman @ 62

I do blame them for following the New labour line on immigration for ten years which is a common and reasonable concern

What do you mean by ‘following’ the New Labour line? Do you mean ‘reporting’ the New Labour line? Then again, wasn’t the ‘New Labour line’, just the CBI’s line, at the time?

Anyway, even if the BBC had ‘followed’ the line that immigrants were good for the economy would be evidence of Right wing bias.

‘Broadcaster reports what the Government says’ is hardly a shocker is it? I mean I could say that the BBC follow the Tories ‘Big Society’ line merely because they report it, but that would be stupid.

I also blame them, incidentally, for keeping the danger posed by African immigrants from AIDS a secret

Eh? Now I am really scratching my head on that one and it looks increasingly like you are becoming detached from reality. Do you remember the Nineteen Eighties? Are you sure you are not getting this information from an idiotic relative? The BBC did not run the AIDS campaign; it was run by the Government, who based it on the best medical evidence available. Now you could argue that the medical evidence was wrong or that the medical evidence had been skewed for whatever reason, but to suggest that the science and medical evidence at the time had been deliberately manipulated by the BBC must go down as sheer paranoid nonsense.

@ Paul Newman

I’ve got shares in Alcan. Every time you make a new hat, I make some money.

@ 63:

“What do you mean by ‘following’ the New Labour line? Do you mean ‘reporting’ the New Labour line?”

There’s a difference between reporting what the New Labour line on something is, and treating the New Labour line as the right one and anybody who disagrees with it as being some kind of dangerous extremist. I’d imagine that Paul was accusing the BBC of doing the latter rather than the former.

No Jim it is the job of the BBC to question and hold to account. You will notice their endless criticism of government policy at the moment.They supported New Labour`s line on immigration,( That it was an economic good ) unquestioningly, despite a great many voices raised in protest.
In the end the figures, the economics( HOL report) and level of concern reported elsewhere, and ignored, proved to be correct.
Now you might say ..ok so they missed the story ( as they did in the Middle east so convinced were they it was all Israel and Americas fault), big deal. The point is that they always miss stories that do not fit their agenda and never those that do
On the AIDS ads the BBC felt the information they had was too sensitive for publication. Such raving lunatic shire Tories as Stephen Fry have said so, as well as ex BBC employees .This is pretty well documented . Hardly unlikely is it.
In the end the fact you support them is evidence enough and if you do not then , we can agree to dismantle large parts of it and there is nothing further to talk about.Suits me. Too right wing? … Fine , lets cut it down to size

Ha, anyone who thinks the left could pull off some sort of grand conspiracy leading to police resignations and the closure of the News of the World has obviously never spent any time among lefties. We’d fall out over tactics in the first five minutes and end up adjourning the whole thing indefinitely.

XXX @ 65

There’s a difference between reporting what the New Labour line on something is, and treating the New Labour line as the right one and anybody who disagrees with it as being some kind of dangerous extremist.

When did this ever occur? When did the BBC report anyone who questioned immigration policy as a ‘dangerous extremist’? On Panorama, perhaps? The Daily Politics? The Chuckle brothers? On what programme did Jeremy Paxman, James Naughtie or Pippa Greenwood ever say ‘you disagree with immigration? You must be an extremist, then’?

When? I can never remember a single programme where someone who questioned immigration having someone from the BBC describe them as an extremist. Do you know why? Because it never happened anywhere expect the tiny mind of the paranoid Right.

Paul Newman @ 66

They supported New Labour`s line on immigration,( That it was an economic good ) unquestioningly, despite a great many voices raised in protest.

What never? I have heard the BBC report a story question the level or the benefits/drawbacks of immigration? The BBC have never posed the questions? The BBC have never published reports?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4601055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4257397.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5127222.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5119892.stm

Then after I found them, I got bored looking. Yet it appears that for some reason, you are too stupid to use a search engine? I found these four stories in a matter of seconds and a couple of clicks, yet you are telling me they don’t exist?

Has it never occured to you that the reason you never find these types of reports is because you are a fuckwit?

“Ha, anyone who thinks the left could pull off some sort of grand conspiracy leading to police resignations and the closure of the News of the World has obviously never spent any time among lefties. We’d fall out over tactics in the first five minutes and end up adjourning the whole thing indefinitely.
”

That is very funny, and true. Labour could not even remove Brown as leader.

@45 – Sympathy for WHO?

…

Oh, and funnily enough even the Office for Budgetry Fiddling agrees that immigration is economically positive. Do keep up with the party line!

@67 – Yea, it’s like herding cats. Seriously, power first, THEN policy struggles. Really!

You have found some reports about immigration have you Jimbo ? DEEP SIGH……
When I was quoting the reports on the BBC bias on the EU I might have gone on to mention the ratio of opinions expressed over a period (which in that case were researched and found significant bias ). I would not have said there were no contrary voices because that would be entirely impossible
You will now, with your much respected intellect,no doubt have quickly grasped that the BBC over a period of years will of course carry this or that view on many occasions That does not show balance .They had Nick Grifin on once fcs..
In fact I don`t know of any research other than that conducted by the Centre for Policy Studies over a period of years so its difficult to prove in that sense.
You probably think the coverage of cuts ( yet to happen) and debt is balanced ..yes? I would very much disagree and would like to see the BBC ( with its obvious interest in high tax ans collectivism)less dominant.
Since you clearly feel it is on occasion right wing ,nastyand, I daresay, bigoted et al, I can`t see your problem
Can we not agree Jimmy..baby ? You don`t like it, I don`t like it ..lets call the whole thing off ….
XXX

The BBC have been very, very quiet on cuts. They should be running far mpre coverage of the effects. Strangely enough, this wouldn’t look good for the Tories.

Of course you can’t have what the Tories are doing to people and communities be publicised, can you? Because you’d have to admit that there’s a massive human cost, with completely inadequate and token “mitigation” to say “but we ARE helping”.

You’re not. You’re pulling another Thatcher, in communities which haven’t recovered from the last time, PLUS you’re going to be loading a lot of poorer people onto those communities, ensuring a sink from which much of the country will probably not recover for fifty years.

But they’re not Tory homelands, so you don’t give a crap, eh?

@ Jim: if only they released all their reports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report

Whatever the damn thing says, spending money on Me Learn’ed Friends to keep it secret does not inspire confidence. The fact that they have done so strongly implies, (though I certainly admit it is not conclusive evidence), that the contents of the report is more damning than their actions in hiding it.

@ 70: It is only the strongly authoritarian minded who are easy to herd, take it as a badge of honour that’s it’s so difficult.

@63

I also blame them, incidentally, for keeping the danger posed by African immigrants from AIDS a secret

Eh? Now I am really scratching my head on that one and it looks increasingly like you are becoming detached from reality. Do you remember the Nineteen Eighties? Are you sure you are not getting this information from an idiotic relative? The BBC did not run the AIDS campaign; it was run by the Government, who based it on the best medical evidence available. Now you could argue that the medical evidence was wrong or that the medical evidence had been skewed for whatever reason, but to suggest that the science and medical evidence at the time had been deliberately manipulated by the BBC must go down as sheer paranoid nonsense.

I think I know what Mr Newman is referring too, in a little book printed by civitas railing against politcal correctness gawn maaaddd called, “The Retreat of Reason” the reason for an increase of HIV cases from 1997 is made. (It was also on the front page of the times as well, course given the hubbub surround Mr Murdoch’s papers at the moment you could be forgiven for taking it as an altogether trustworthy source)

That argument was that newly arrived African immigrants were being tested for HIV and being found to be HIV positive (ie that although it was a new instance of HIV for the UK data stats it wasn’t actually an instance of HIV being contracted within the UK). Assuming this to be true, the alleged response that followed – greater HIV awareness education for teens in sex ed – would appear to be a waste of money, and was apparently pursued so as to not appear as being racist, or because of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GAWN MAD!
Cept of course there’s a bit of being economical with the truth going on – here’s a link to where civitas got it’s data:
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=2886
You’ll notice that there are actually government plans aimed at UK African communities discussed in the document, a fact that was completely omitted for some reason by The retreat of Reason and Anthony Browne’s Times front page article, who preferred to pretend that all that was done was to teach white-british teens to wrap their wakka. (Which frankly is fucking good advice for preventing almost everything STD related)

Now I wonder why that could be? Could it possibly be because Mr Browne is a mendacious tosspot? I’ll let others decide on that one.

Not taking it as an altogether trustworthy source.

Paul Newman @ 71

You have found some reports about immigration have you Jimbo ? DEEP SIGH……

No, I found dozens and if I looked hard enough, I would have found hundreds and I dare say, I would, if I looked hard enough still, find thousands. I really have no idea how many articles the BBC has on line. I really cannot speculate on how many I would end up finding with regard to immigration. However, the point is there are countless articles that openly contradict this so called ‘Party line’ that you people insist exists and that the BBC never reports. Yet there they are from everyone from Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Frank Field et al. Report after report, Story after story regarding how asylum seekers come here for benefits, come here for work and come here for an endless list of reasons. I find stories of bogus asylum seekers (AS) and criminals that commit crime while here on special leave to remain. I find stories of AS working illegally. I find all the stories that you people say don’t exist.

I also find stories of hardship of heroism and of struggle too. In fact, I find ‘balance’. What you see is the stories that you do not wish to see and call it ‘bias’. When I see a story that undermines my position on AS, I do not see ‘Right Wing bias’, I see parts of the story that I wish were not true. I wish that no AS would commit crime of abuse the system, but I do not want such stories suppresed, I have to accept that it happens.

You probably think the coverage of cuts ( yet to happen) and debt is balanced ..yes? I would very much disagree

So what? You don’t think the BBC is balanced because want savage cuts, but that does not mean the coverage is not balanced just because the BBC provide an overview of the cuts.

Since you clearly feel it is on occasion right wing ,nastyand, I daresay, bigoted et al, I can`t see your problem

Nope, you have got my mindset completely wrong. I do not want a broadcaster to tell me things that I want to hear, I want to hear the truth. I want an accurate picture of events. You assume that because you want an exclusively Right wing agenda that I must want a Left wing mirror. Nothing can be further from the truth.

I am able to make up my own mind on most things, thanks very much. I do not need spoonfed, just give me the basic facts and I bet I can get a good all round knowledge of what is going on in most stories.

@73 – Not really. Disunity on the left costing elections isn’t a good thing, it’s a sign that we can’t put strategic over tactical goals, and it happens again and again across the world.

It’s getting worse, and most of the “upswing” of the right can be attributed purely to the left screwing the pooch on this.

Cylux I do have that book somewhere so you might well be right. The figure I have is that African immigration tripled the rate of heterosexual infection. Do you think the scale of the problem was properly addressed ? It was certainly known.
Subsequently the BBC has run programmes dealing with it ( and its non African victims ) which, I think, amounts to an admission of having failed those that should have been informed .
It also show a certain amount of principle but I never said the BBC was evil incarnate, just institutionally biassed to the left. Even Mark Thompson admits that in the past there has been a considerable problem and I would admit that some efforts have been made to correct it but only on the surface and only due to the absence of its friends in New Labour ( IMHO)
The BBC for example apologised for going top far when it supported “Make poverty history”..its was some Vicar of Dibley thing

Andrew Marr had this to say ” “The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”
I think thats fair enough but the problem is that the BBC will never address the real problem which is the type of people it employs.
Personally I think this all pervasive sub surface message is all the worse for being hidden and unacknowledged .

Jim Jim Jim…. I said they did exist , just as the Met is full of non bigoted Policemen, its a question of balance.
I wonder how do you account for long time Economics editor at the BBC , Will Hutton applauding the BBC for acting as a counter weight to the “Right wing Press”. I wonder how Andrew Marr can have been so wrong and as for Peter Sissons he must have lived on another planet

Ben Bradshaw — BBC ex
Ken Mc Intosh – (producer of BBC News)
Lance Price – BBC News..then Alistair Campbell Henchman
Andrew Rawnsley … just the other day he was penning some god awful sycophantic thing in the Graun about Ed Milliband who used to work for him

How would you like Boris Johnson , Simon Heffer , Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips having similar influence …?
Any way you may keep what you are determined to pretend are unvarnished facts I only want the BBC trimmed and I would keep News. I would also like space for other views.Who knows perhaps lots of people think you have the answers Jim. Why yes I see it now, Jim`s potty mouthed shouty soap box…It will probably be a money spinning hit .
Not tempted ?

Btw way Falco don`t you think that the BBC`s expensively hidden bias over Israel is looking extremely embarrassing.The fact they rarely criticised the corrupt Arab dictatorships that in the BBC`s mind were the moral equivalent of an open democratic state ( Israel) looks more invertebrate every day.

Last Word to Ben Stephenson BBC Drama Commissioning Controller(Guardian, July 16th 2009)…..

“We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”

ooops

@79: LMAO. The BBC is odiously pro-Palestian. Get real.

And yes, you can’t have competent public-funded services, I understand. Unless you can afford Sky, you’re nothing. Right.

Michael Portillo The Week in Politics, Melanie Phillips, Moral Maze, Craig Oliver BBc World Service now the new Coulson, Matthew Parris hardly ever off Radio 4, Nick Robinson former Young Conservative, Robert Peston son of a Tory peer and your point is…?

Well, job done in this thread I guess, since the discussion is now focused on where the BBC lies on the poltical spectrum and not on NI’s hacking of dead girl’s messages.

Paul Newman @ 78

I wonder how do you account for long time Economics editor at the BBC , Will Hutton applauding the BBC for acting as a counter weight to the “Right wing Press”.

The best counter to a Right Wing press is not a Left Wing broadcaster, it is an objective broadcaster, so, yes I agree Will Hutton. I cannot think of anything more boring than a Left Wing broadcaster.

@84

See 83

Newman is really not worth any attention. Giving it to him has diverted this thread from any useful content.

Robert Peston son of a Tory peer

Um…

@85
Well said, Cherub! – your assessment is spot-on!

The only extra I’d add is my personal view that it’s best to leave diversionary posts unanswered in the early and middle stages of a thread
… but once a thread has served its purpose, then it’s up to people to go off on a tangent or answer a previous unhelpful post if they wish.

@83
Cylux, I understand your sentiment; the main purpose of the OP was to focus attention on the fact that Phonehackgate is a matter of routine criminality.

But seemingly another purpose of this OP was to counter a myth perpetrated by the Right. The OP says the Right falsely claim it’s the Left who seek to shut down debate and seek to close down right wing media outlets … and the OP further says the Right falsely allege the BBC is some sort of satanic left wing threat.
In one sense at least, this thread was successful. Job half done?!

Sigh!
For those of us old enough to remember it, this is a *very* pale echo of Labour trying to blame Churchill’s government for Burgess and McLean.
Any sensible right-winger should be screaming about New Labour (and its appointees in the Met: apart from incompetence, one of the minor reasons Boris sacked Blair, the overwhelming cause being incompetence, was that he was a political appointee) sweeping it under the carpet because Murdoch was supporting Tony Blair and New Labour; and any sensible Labour supporter should be rabbiting on about Durham’s cricket team. Instead I watch left-wingers shouting and right-wingers trying to play everything down
While I should experience schadenfreude at seeing all the directors of NI(UK) during 2001-7 sent to jail, accompanied by the directors of the Telegraph in 2009-10, I just cannot visualise any *valid* reason why Cameron should be blamed for the behaviour of the NOW before he became Leader of the opposition.

Oh of course, can’t have people taking responsibility now. For that matter, the links call into question the fairness of the basic system.

I.m writing to the beeb to demand proper coverage of the 20+ earth Summit in 2012. The last few international conventions have been poorly covered and just when the world really needs to be more co-operative the beeb is terrified of offending right wing neo con nuts by poor coverage of global issues, save on minority channels.

Newman, pagar and that tim bloke (who I think has a link to his shitty blog, if not, then my bad) are the biggest twats ever. Newman must work for News Corp or something, cause he has been on here for the past few weeks defending his beloved cunt of a cunt Mister Murdoch, and that Tim bloke he has always been a twat, but in the past couple of weeks he has reached great hights of twattery. Also did Pagar call anyone who votes Labour or who doesnt think of themselves as to the right and also happens to be poor or working class as envious. I think he did. What a cunt. Cheeky fucker, I hope he gets canceraids of the eye.

To call them trolls would be a disservice to Trolls everywhere, cause it my experience Trolls can actually funny.

Yeah, yeah, the BBC of Nick Robinson, Andrew Neil and Jeremy Clarkson, the BBC which practically crawled up Cameron’s rectum during the 2010 General Election….a socialist institution for sure.

This is also the BBC which regularly wheels out Mad Mel Phillips on all manner of forums, not least the Moral Maze every week. Her column in the Mail this week was all about how how the Murdochs are not so bad, and that it’s the BBC which is the real threat to society, what with all its insidious, evil, er……. following the established line of 99% of scientists on climate change etc. She neglected to mention how this evil organisation pays her several dozen grand a year. She must have forgot. She neglected to say how she has obviously now seen the light and will no longer take the blood money of this vile Gramci-Marxist outfit, as, after all, her Mail salary is more than enough to keep her in wire specs. Again, she must have forgot.

When you come across stuff like this, its beyond hypocrisy, its beyond self-serving delusion, its beyond even mental illness. Its Philipsania, a condition which seems to infect the dribbling right-wing Beeb haters above, who are similarly ungrateful for the way the Corporation does far more to legitmise their selfish, anti-social agenda than they would ever give it credit for.