2012-017 The BBC and it’s bias

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571884/Tory-voter-pose-left-wing-BBC-debate.html

The BBC

 

csdvnvtwgaafkc1

As very many people now view the BBC

see also  The Proaganda War by A.W.Montford  ISBN978-1481236133

The BBC’s Royal Charter charges it with reporting in a neutral, balanced and non-political manner. Jonathon Chapman, however, described as a ‘senior BBC World News reporter’, told the Malta Press Club: “The UK media is broadly sceptical [about the EU] so we try, in Brussels, to break that cycle of scepticism. The BBC’s job is to reflect the European perspective … make news less sceptical. That’s why the BBC has such a big bureau in Brussels” (ref. 2006-58).

So, it’s the BBC’s job to ‘make news’ that puts a positive spin on the EU and suppress any news that reflects badly on the EU. Well, that may well be one reason why their limited reporting of the EU is either very positive or benign. Precious little of significance that does not obsequiously support the EU Agenda is ever broadcast in the UK from their ‘big bureau’.

The BBC has now admitted to receiving considerable loans (£250m +) from the European Investment Bank – whose remit is to fund activities that further the EU Agenda. How will the BBC repay such a ‘loan’? It has all the appearance of a loan that will not have to be paid back. So why would the EU ‘loan’ so much money to the BBC? One can readily speculate that it is for the BBC to ‘make news’ that promotes the European Agenda and censor any adverse criticism (ref. 2006-58). If so then it is surely a dreadful breach of their Royal Charter.

Chris Patten is the new BBC head man. He was our EU commissioner in Brussels as so entitled to a juicy EU pension (£100,000/year). If he allows any criticism of the EU on the BBC he could have that pension revoked by the EU. Surely this is a form of state blackmail to muzzle any critism.

Is he, therefore, a fit and proper person to be in charge of the BBC?

The BBC and ITV steadfastly refuse to critically question ministers – and other politicians – about the EU. Items within this pamphlet and their effect on the UK and our culture, are never broadcast or critically discussed.

Why? Well, your BBC has now, at last, publicly admitted that they’re politically and religiously biased but are quite unrepentant (ref. 2006-58).

The Metropolitan Police have had a dossier (since March 2007) alleging a prime-facia case of ‘Malfeasance and Breach of Royal Charter’. The MET has declared that it does not intend to investigate this. You can speculate for yourself just why the MET has chosen not to investigate this self-evident breach of the law and Royal Charter.  Not in the Public Interest?

It should also be noted that the BBC recruits excessively from the readership of the left wing Guardian newspaper, the very left wing Oxbridge Broadcasting Societies and Common Purpose alumni. If someone joins the Oxbridge Broadcasting societies and they do not demonstrate suitable Left Wing credentials they eventually get squeezed out.

Media Release

Embargoed to

Tuesday 13 March 2007

see  http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/03/bbc-just-let-slip-real-reason-biased-coverage-exclusive/ 

Scotland Yard alerted to EU Funding of BBC

MEP Asks:  Is it Bribery, Corruption, Fraud or Malfeasance?

The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England , detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.

He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC’s sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee.  The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter.

Recent correspondence between the BBC’s management in Brussels and the MEP has revealed a prima facie case for investigation, Mr Mote claims.  The documents show that the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the charter.

The BBC’s Royal Charter has the force of law.  It requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs.  All strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time. 

Solid proof exists that this is not the case, Mr Mote says.  He has told Scotland Yard that evidence of bias has been collected by professional media analysts for Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU for many years. 

“My focus has been on the money”, Mr Mote says.  “We now know that the BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union.  The correspondence shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the EIB on terms that would never have been available commercially.  It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.

“The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support.  Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud.  At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest”, he wrote to DAC Yates.

Notes to Editors:

For further information, call Ashley Mote on 07836 220223

The full text of the letter from Ashley Mote MEP to DAC John Yates at New Scotland Yard follows:

BBC Malfeasance – A Case for Investigation?

You will recall my letter of 20 February offering to provide you with evidence of the BBC’s commercial and editorial activities which conflict directly with the Corporation’s legal obligations under the Royal Charter.  There appears to be a prima faciecase of malfeasance.

This letter and the enclosures represent the evidence accumulated in recent months.  If, having considered it, you need any further information I will of course attempt to provide it.

In a nutshell, the case is this: the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Royal Charter. 

The Charter, which has the force of law, requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs, although it has to be admitted that the obligations to maintain balance set out in the present document are much watered down from those in the original of some 80 years ago. 

Nonetheless, even the present Royal Charter makes it clear that all strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time. 

Solid proof exists that this is not the case.  That evidence can be obtained from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU over many years.  I have no doubt he will gladly make it available to you, together with any other relevant evidence you might find helpful.

You might also find a recently published book instructive – Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken.  Mr Aitken worked for the Corporation for 25 years.  His book describes numerous horror stories of bias and political prejudice, many of them quietly buried by past generations of BBC management.

This letter and enclosures concern themselves mainly with the other side of the coin – to be precise, the provision of substantial sums of EU money on less than commercial terms and for questionable motives.

I have also taken the liberty of enclosing background reading – for example the BBC’s internal attempt to put right an acknowledged lack of balance in EU editorial policy. 

The BBC receives an annual funding of approximately £2.7 billion from the public through the licence fee system. This obliges members of the public to finance the BBC simply because they own a TV set. 

As this is a legally enforceable poll tax, the public can expect the BBC to comply scrupulously with the terms of its Royal Charter.  The governors have a duty to satisfy themselves that all activities of the BBC are carried out in accordance with the highest standards of public accountability. 

It is arguable that they have not complied with such obligations.  When reporting on the EU, the BBC routinely demonstrates a commitment to UK membership which at times amounts to little more than pro-EU propaganda. 

Furthermore, the BBC has openly admitted that their reporting of EU activities is biased.  Why else have they taken steps to redress the balance by appointing internal investigations and commissioning reports on the subject?  

Some brief points from the evidence follow, specifically:

a) Article 7(1)(e) of the Royal Charter requires the governors “to ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration and are properly handled by the Corporation”.  Lord Hutton’s report on the death of Dr David Kelly clearly showed that the BBC did not comply with this Article when dealing with complaints from Alistair Campbell.

Furthermore, the BBC has on numerous occasions refused to consider complaints from viewers and listeners about coverage of EU affairs, despite the Charter obligation for complaints to be given due consideration.  Refusing to accept complaints is not an option, and unlawful.

b) Article 7(1)(f) requires the governors “to ensure the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality”.  The BBC clearly supports Britain ’s membership of the EU and the abolition of the £ sterling in favour of the euro.  The statistical and documentary evidence is overwhelming and readily available, as mentioned above.  Much of the statistical evidence has been gathered for Lord Pearson by Minotaur Media, an independent monitoring organisation.

Some Minotaur Media research findings have been reported on the Global Britain web site.  Other websites also support the view that the BBC has its own agenda, particularly on the EU.  In addition, scores of anecdotal newspaper articles have pointed out the BBC’s bias towards the EU.

Despite all this powerful evidence to the contrary, and its own internal enquiries, the BBC continually refutes complaints about its lack of balance in reporting EU news and current affairs.  At times its denials border on calling black ‘white’, or insisting that the Emperor really is wearing clothes.

c) Rod Liddle (ex Editor, Radio 4’s Today programme) wrote an article about the Welsh National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in The Spectator of 10 May 2003.  He stated that the BBC’s attitude was…

“the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism.  It is result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and time again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t”. 

Such editorial ‘guidance’ in the reporting of these institutions meant that the BBC was directly and specifically supporting the EU’s policy of breaking up the UK into regions which could be more effectively controlled by Brussels.  Such a policy was contrary to the BBC’s obligations under the Charter, and its implementation more propaganda than news.

d) The BBC’s governors recently set up a review body under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor to examine whether or not the BBC was biased in favour of the EU.  Their main finding was that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU “but that this bias was not deliberate”. The report confirmed that bias existed in the BBC, again contrary to its obligations under the Charter.

But to claim that it was not deliberate was an absurd conclusion bearing in mind the overwhelming contradictory evidence.  Since when, for example, was the setting up and management of the seminars referred to above not “deliberate”?  Since when were such events “accidental”?

e) The BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union.  These borrowings and other funding are detailed in the enclosed correspondence with the BBC’s team which is permanently based in Brussels (next door to the European Parliament building).

The correspondence also shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the European Investment Bank on terms that would never have been available commercially.  It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.  Indeed, as you will see, transparency in all of these dealings is notable by its absence.

The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support.  Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud.  At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest.

I write, therefore, to invite the Metropolitan Police to review the BBC’s sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee.  Further, to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its legal obligations under the Royal Charter.

From Ashley Mote  MEP

I am making the following letter public at this time because the House of Commons is debating the renewal of the BBC’s Royal Charter this week.

Regards,

Ashley

Matteo Maggiore Esq

Head of European Policy

BBC

Rue Wiertz 50

B-1050 Brussels

cc: Michael Grade, Chairman of the Board of Governors, London

cc: Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, London

11 July 2006

We failed in our attempt at a meeting last month, when you tried to change the time you originally proposed for our discussion on the relationship between the BBC and the EU.  I promised to write to you instead.

First, let’s deal with the answers you gave to my questions of 31 January, the most important of which you chose completely to ignore.

The figures quoted in your reply of 8 May are merely a rehearsal of the figures quoted in answer to a written question in the House of Lords in June 2004.  They bear no relation to known financing of the BBC by the EU and some of its various institutions.  But you must know that already.  So the question arises…why did you attempt to minimise the sums involved?  Does the BBC have something to hide

I referred in my original letter to the 40.4 million euros provided by the European Investment Bank in 2002, and the 96.46 million provided by the same source the following year.  These sums were in the form of loans, and are listed as such on the EIB website.  In addition to these loans to BBC subsidiaries, another 240 million euros has been ‘loaned’ by the EIB to other broadcasting and production units in the UK since 1989.

Several questions arise: on what terms of repayment, over what period and at what rates of interest?  Are these soft loans – meaning will they be written off quietly in a few years time because you know (and the rest of us can make an intelligent guess) that the BBC will never be in a position to repay such sums and is not expected to do so.  Even the EIB’s own website admits they were made under the “most favourable of terms…financing capital projects according to the objectives of the Union “.  It goes on to declare that one of its objectives is to “contribute towards the integration of member countries”!

Within the UK , of course, strictly speaking these loans also raise questions of probity.  Are licence-payers’ funds at risk?  The BBC’s so-called “Information Unit” has apparently claimed elsewhere that these were loans to BBC Worldwide, which it says is a separate company, the implication being that it has nothing to do with the BBC and licence-payers.

This claim raises another question – is not the BBC the guarantor of last resort?  Can it be shown that this is a stand-alone commercial company and that repayment would not be sought from what is, in reality, the parent – ie, the BBC as constituted under British law?

The comments of the “Information Unit” are doubly suspect since that department has itself been sub-contracted to a commercial company, Capita, which has extensive connections with the Blair government and numerous contracts with government departments.   Hardly a reliable source of objective information…especially when Capita’s BBC Information Unit tries to suggest in correspondence that these loans were not actually loans at all.  They claim that the BBC merely enjoys EIB loan facilities.

In any case, the BBC uses BBC Worldwide as its distribution channel for the sale of its programmes around the world.  So to suggest that the two are somehow separated in law is to ignore reality.  The BBC brand is a world-famous asset of the British people, and the fact that one part of it has received a soft loan from the EIB has profound implications.

But let us consider the purposes of these loans.  The 96 million euros was ‘loaned’ to build a digital broadcasting centre in London .  Note London .  Not Timbuktu , or Saigon.   London .  The digitising of the BBC’s services in the UK was a demand made on them by the British government whose declared aim has been for some time to close down the use of analogue channels for TV broadcasting.

The previous year’s 40 million ‘loan’ was for the co-production of television programmes in London .  Now why make these loans to BBC Worldwide when all the benefits were lodged in the UK ?

Even if we stretch a point and include in our considerations the BBC’s World Service, which again is separate from BBC Worldwide, we find that the BBC uses reporters based all over the world but funded from London by British licence-payers.  Yet, in your letter of 8 May you admit the BBC’s World Service received another £1.4 million into its Trust fund, this time directly from the EU.

In these cumulative circumstances, how can the BBC possibly continue to claim that its news and current affairs broadcasting complies with the terms of its Royal Charter?  It is the publicly stated objective of the European Investment Bank “to further the objectives of the EU…”

Millions of UK licence-payers have a huge problem with this interference in their right to objective, balanced reporting.  Lord Pearson of Rannoch has been tireless in his efforts to have the output of BBC news and current affairs analysed objectively and tested against what might be expected under the Charter.  The distortion his researchers have demonstrated over several years is undeniable.  It is gross.

For some considerable time the BBC has conducted a systematic and persistent policy of stifling criticism of the EU, it has been in clear and permanent breach of its own Charter, and it continues shamelessly to ignore, let alone address, any of these issues.  With the tacit support of the British government, and its dependency on EU funds, it has become a brazen supporter of the European ‘project’, bought, paid for and tied up in financial ribbons.

I offer merely two examples of blatant bias out of thousands.  A recording of the first is still to hand.  A mere ten days after the EIB loan, the BBC’s economics editor Evan Davis (who really ought to have known better) broadcast a series of supposedly objective interviews and “news” reports from around the member states about the prospects for the euro.  The tone and content of this programme were obviously a not-so-subtle acknowledgement of the loan.  Objective and balanced it was not.

During the signing of the Nice Treaty, and within the hearing of several bystanders, the BBC reporters on the scene were instructed not to record or report the significant demonstrations against the treaty going on all around them.  Such entirely legitimate opposition was literally whitewashed out of the event by BBC editorial controllers.

Journalists – and not just those reporting for the BBC – are given financial inducements by the EU to attend plenary sessions in Strasbourg .  They have transport, accommodation, camera crews and editing facilities provided at no costs to themselves.  The same facilities are provided more permanently in Brussels .

Perhaps the last word should come from one of the BBC’s own.  Jonathon Chapman, described at the time as a ‘Senior BBC World News Reporter’, told the Malta Press Club in March 2004 : “The UK media is broadly sceptical [about the EU] so we try in Brussels to break that cycle of scepticism.  The BBC’s job is to reflect the European perspective…and make news less sceptical (emphasis added).  That is why the BBC has such a big bureau in Brussels .”

What say you to that?

Ashley Mote

Corporation’s £100m loan from EU bank   By Graeme Wilson
(Filed: 12/07/2006)

The Tories attacked the BBC last night after it emerged that it has a £100
million loan deal with a European Union bank set up to promote European integration.

MPs said the disclosure would alarm licence fee payers and raise questions about the BBC’s impartiality in reporting events in Brussels.

The BBC confirmed last night that it had borrowed £25 million under the deal with the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. A spokesman said it had recently submitted an application to borrow the remaining £75 million.

The EIB was created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Union. It proudly declares that its mission is to “finance capital investment furthering European integration by promoting EU policies”.

Philip Davies, a Tory MP, said: “Many people already believe there is a pro-EU slant to a lot of BBC reporting. There are bound to be more questions about the corporation’s impartiality when it is borrowing from a bank set up to promote European integration.”

But the claims were rejected by Mark Thompson, the BBC director-general, during an appearance before the Commons culture, media and sport select committee.

“This relates to various technical projects,” he said. “I can give an absolute assurance that I have no doubt that the BBC’s impartiality is unaffected by this.”

A BBC statement said the money was being borrowed by BBC Commercial Holdings, the company that handles the corporation’s commercial activities. BBC Worldwide used the money to buy commercial rights for programmes.

“The loan carries no editorial obligation for the BBC, it relates only to the
BBC’s commercial subsidiaries. If it did, we would not be able to enter into such a loan agreement.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/12/nbbc112.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/12/ixuknews.html

Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives
By PAUL REVOIR Last updated at 22:23pm on 22nd October 2006

BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years – that the corporation is institutionally biased.

The revelation came after details of an ‘impartiality’ summit called by its
chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked.

Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately
over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the
overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away – but would not do the same for the Koran.

Muslim leaders later condemned this approach.

Ishmail Farhat of the Muslim Association of Britain said: “We don’t support this kind of action or abuse. If they are respecting all religions – then they should treat all religions the same.”

The BBC executives also agreed that the BBC should broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, despite the offence it would cause.

Even one of the BBC’s most senior journalists, political pundit Andrew Marr admitted that the corporation was unrepresentative of British society.

He said: “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.”

BBC ‘diversity tsar’ Mary Fitzpatrick claimed women newsreaders should be allowed to wear what they liked on air and went on to say this should include a Muslim veil.

She spoke out after criticism was raised of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce wearing a necklace with a cross on it.

‘We may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness’

The BBC’s Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused his own employers of being anti-American saying they treated it with scorn and derision and “no moral weight”.

He revealed that he had got deputy director general Mark Byford to secretly help him to “correct” it in his reports.

Business presenter Jeff Randall said he complained to a senior executive at the BBC about the corporation’s pro-multiculturalism stance.

He claimed he was told: “The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism, it believes in it and it promotes it.”

He told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work and was rebuked with: “You can’t do that, that’s like the National Front!”

One senior BBC executive admitted that the summit had opened people’s  eyes to how biased the BBC had become.

He admitted: “There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

“Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.”

The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411977&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

http://scotlandonsu nday.scotsman. com/opinion. cfm?id=987322007
Scotland on Sunday – Opinion –
Sun 24 Jun 2007
Last updated: 23-Jun-07 00:59 BST
Long-suffering viewers must be freed from biased BBC
GERALD WARNER

‘IMPARTIALITY is and should remain the hallmark of the BBC as the leading provider of information and entertainment in the United Kingdom… Far from being imposed on the BBC, impartiality has been conceived by the BBC.” And to think they said comedy was dead in Broadcasting House, that the corporation could no longer craft good humorous material. That po-faced soundbite was funnier than any one-liner from Fawlty Towers.

This complacent, mendacious drivel is the first of 12 ‘guiding principles’ that form the conclusions of a report entitled ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel:
Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century’, published last week by the BBC.
It is the kind of Big Lie that (momentarily) defies rebuttal by its sheer
audacity. The BBC is a global by-word for partiality: its bias is notorious,
relentless and institutionalised.

This report stemmed from the famous seminar held by the corporation last September, when the dam of complicity burst and senior broadcasters, like alcoholics in a support group, publicly acknowledged the bias endemic at the BBC. Andrew Marr stated that 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.”

Jeff Randall, former business editor, revealed that a senior news executive had told him: “The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.” Executives, faced with an imaginary scenario for the satirical programme Room 101, admitted they would permit a sketch in which a Bible was thrown into a dustbin, but would not sanction similar treatment of the Koran.

With the genie out of the bottle, it was time for the corporation to embark on a white-washing exercise. Last week’s report was the result. Cleverly picking up on Marr’s ‘cultural’ bias, it disarmingly admitted the BBC had allowed itself to be hijacked by Bob Geldof, Bono and the Live 8 concert hype at the time of the  Gleneagles summit in 2005. However, there is definitely no party-political bias.
So, what about James Naughtie’s notorious slip, on the Today programme on March 2, 2005, when he asked: “If we [sic] win the election, does Gordon Brown remain Chancellor?”

The BBC may have fallen out with Labour over Iraq, but that was a tiff in a basically indissoluble marriage. Ask former BBC director general John Birt, now a Labour peer; or his immediate successor, Greg Dyke, a Labour Party donor; or anyone who has ever listened to the corporation’ s output. Robin Aitken, author of the book Can We Trust The BBC? and a former staff member, has testified: “In 25 years I met only a smattering of Tories in the organisation. ” It is a fair bet they were technicians or other non-editorial staff. Otherwise, cronyismrules, as anybody who saw long-discredited Labour luvvie Kirsty Wark shrieking down Alex Salmond on Newsnight will be painfully aware.

Yet Marr was right to identify the main thrust of BBC bias as cultural. The BBC pursues a social agenda regardless of reality or even ridicule. At the time of the first Countryside March, The Archers script had the everyday country folk in Ambridge making no mention of it, but discussing a Gay Pride march instead. The BBC report admits that a producer who proposed a Newsnight investigation into de facto abortion on demand was denounced as being “anti-abortion” . The BBC’s manic
Europhilia is reflected in the fact this sturdily ‘independent’ broadcaster received a loan of £25m last year from the EU’s European Investment Bank, whose goal is to promote European integration.

After last year’s seminar, a senior BBC executive said: “There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture that it is very hard to change it.” BBC staff live, eat, drink and sleep with like-minded liberals. They know no other views. The corporation is beyond reformation. Nor should reform be attempted.

Instead, the recently renewed Charter should be torn up and the corporation sold off. Then it will not matter if all its newsreaders are women wearing hijabs, with a giant poster of Gordon Brown as backdrop to the news. BBC news reports refer insinuatingly to “Iranian state television”; but we are watching biased reporting on British state television. We are being charged a fee of £135.50 a year to have our news distorted and our values trashed.

Imagine if you wanted to shop at Harvey Nichols, but you had to go to Jenners first and pay them £135 for a permit to enter their competitor’s premises. By what right does the BBC act as gatekeeper to all 196 other television channels?
That is an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention, guaranteeing free access to information across frontiers.

Yet the tyrannical corporation broadcasts Orwellian advertisements warning of raids on the homes of those who have not paid their licence fees. Feckless single mothers sent to jail are effectively political prisoners.

The corporation’ s pompous prating of “public service broadcasting” is risible: EastEnders, River City – that says it all. The BBC’s total disconnection from reality is typified by its claim, quoted above, to be “the leading provider of information and entertainment in the United Kingdom”. In the week ending June 10 it had 27.4% of the television audience for its terrestrial operations and a further 2.1% for its other channels. A figure of less than 30% is only “leading”
because there are so many other channels splitting audience figures.

The BBC’s own report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in 2005 revealed research showing that, if the licence fee were abolished, 58% of viewers (14 million households) would opt out of all BBC television, leaving the corporation with £1.2bn in revenue instead of its current £3bn. It cannot happen soon enough. Auntie has degenerated into a vicious old crone: she is no longer welcome in our homes.

UK Independence Party forces apology from the Today Programme

17-07-2007

Following revelations that the BBC Trust will be holding an enquiry into pro EU bias on the corporation’s flagship morning news the UK Independence Party has received an apology from the Today programme for its failure to include the party in its coverage of last months EU summit.

In response to a formal complaint from UKIP, Gavin Allen the Deputy Editor of the programme wrote,

we should have included  a contribution/contributions from UKIP. Europe is at the heart of what your party stands for and listeners would reasonably have expected to have heard your take on the treaty and/or key debates. I’m sorry we didn’t offer them that…it was on balance a mistake not to have done so across the fortnight as a whole. Once again, apologies for that”.

Party leader Nigel Farage said, “The BBC are having a rough old time of it, they traduce the Queen, they cheat children and now they have been forced into an apology for their obvious anti UKIP and Eurorealist bias”.

Isn’t it about time that the whole question of the BBC’s charter be revisited?”, he asked. “It is remarkable that when these mistakes happen they always happen in the same direction, in the words of Anthony Jay the former BBC journalist, ‘we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it”.”

http://entertainmen t.timesonline. co.uk/tol/ arts_and_ entertainment/ tv_and_radio/ article6591261. ece

June 28, 2009
BBC sends over 400 staff to Glastonbury
Jo Whiley is part of the BBC team at Glastonbury
Steven Swinford

THE BBC has sent 407 people to cover this weekend’s Glastonbury festival, almost as many as it flew out to film last year’s Beijing Olympics.

There are so many on the corporation’s payroll that it has had to
block book hotels within a 10-mile radius of the festival. The BBC
sent just 32 more to cover the Olympics.

The camera crews and presenters were joined by a clutch of senior corporation executives, who earlier this week were forced to disclose their expenses and earnings. They received free passes to attend in a “work capacity”.

One of the executives at the festival, Mark Byford, the deputy
director-general, routinely charged the licence fee payer £240 a day for a chauffeur to pick him up each morning at Waterloo station.

Another executive, Alan Yentob, the BBC’s creative director, once
hosted a Glastonbury festival reception at his nearby country home, paid for by the licence fee. Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, was also at Glastonbury this weekend.

The cost of coverage, excluding any fee paid to the organisers of
Glastonbury, was estimated by one BBC source at £1.5m. “We really don’t want anyone making unfortunate comparisons with Beijing,” he said.

Philip Davies, a Conservative member of the Commons culture committee, said: “It’s yet another example of how the BBC is bloated.

They send people to these events in quantities that any other
broadcaster could only dream of. It seems totally unnecessary.”

Television audiences for the festival on BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 reach a fraction of the number achieved by Wimbledon, where the men’s final attracted 12.7m viewers last year. There will be 111 hours of television coverage across these minority channels and the BBC’s interactive service, known as the “red button”. This compares with 3,050 hours coverage for Beijing.

On radio there will be more than 60 hours on 6 Music, Radio 1 and 5 Live.

This weekend the BBC confirmed in a statement that it has sent 27 television and radio presenters to Glastonbury, fronted by Jo Whiley, the BBC Radio 1 presenter, and Mark Radcliffe, the Radio 2 presenter.
They are supported by a 68-strong editorial team and 160 technicians.
The BBC has sent a further 18 staff to work on interactive content and employed 130 contractors to provide technical support and security.

Their presence is a boon for the local hotel trade. At the Wessex
hotel in Street, Somerset, where prices range from £40 to £160 a
night, the BBC has booked all 51 rooms. “They come here every year and have already booked ahead for next,” said Judy Juvy-Churches, the manager. “It’s great for business.”

The corporation has booked out all nine rooms at Meare Manor near Glastonbury for one of its lighting teams, at a cost of £100 a night.

At Mullions hotel in Street all 19 rooms have been booked, with prices ranging from £59 to £109 a night. At the Shrubbery hotel in Shepton Mallet the BBC has booked six out of seven rooms. The remaining one has been booked by Carol Ann Duffy, the poet laureate.

A spokesman for the BBC said: “Our coverage of the festival is not comparable with the Olympics. We are the official broadcast partner to Glastonbury and are responsible for all broadcast infra-structure and transmission. Our pictures will be used around the world.”

Last week the corporation was forced to reveal under freedom of
information legislation that its top 50 bosses are paid a combined total of up to £13.6m, with most of them earning more than the prime minister. Many will be at Glastonbury. Lyons, Byford and Yentob have all been given free passes to attend in a “work capacity”.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP who has campaigned for greater transparency for the BBC, said: “In these times the BBC should be reconsidering its priorities.”

As a BBC ‘lifer’ it has never occurred to him that anyone could contradict the BBC line

BBC Director General George Entwistle

Friday November 2,2012

By Frederick Forsyth

AS THE BBC twists in the wind over the Savile affair there is an old BBC veteran out in Buckinghamshire watching with neither surprise nor distress.

Forty-five years ago at 28 I was the Beeb’s Assistant Diplomatic Correspondent.

One of the great abiding myths of our society is that the BBC is always editorially neutral, unbiased and impartial. It is utter poppycock. On any major issue the BBC will soon have an editorial ‘line to be followed’�, usually that of the prevailing Establishment view.

From that point on, its own hierarchy will only favour those who report that view – as I learned to my cost. In 1967 Eastern Nigerria, homeland to the Ibos, pulled out of the federation of states that makes Nigeria and declared itself independent under the name Biafra.

The Lagos government promptly declared war to force the secessionist province back into the federation. Starting with our High Commissioner in Lagos and moving up through the Commonwealth Office, the Wilson government adopted a passionately pro-Lagos view and imparted this to the BBC. Not that it mattered, ran the received wisdom, because the Nigerian army, British trained, was going to sweep through Iboland and wrap the whole thing up in two weeks.

I was given a lengthy briefing on all this and sent down there to cover the federal victory. On my arrival I discovered absolutely everything I had been told was rubbish. Being naive (not about reporting, I had been four years with a far better outfit called Reuters, but about the BBC mind-set) I reported this. Outrage, horror, he must be biased.

Asked to recant, I repeated what I was seeing – no federal victories.. The opposite, they were a rabble. I was recalled at once and busted back to reporter.

The High Commissioner and the senior BBC West Africa man were 400 miles away in Lagos but they knew far better than the man in the thick of it.  Only later did I realise the score. The BBC simply will not hear what it does not want to hear.

Six months later I quit in disgust.

I did not join journalism to spout managed news.

By the by, the two-week war lasted two-and-a-half years and cost a million children their lives by starvation. So what has this to do with Savile? Patience.

Much more recently the Beeb became wholly enamoured of the EU and our slavish relationship within it. Every interviewee or contributor on radio or TV who was pro- EU was treated with courtesy, allowed to waffle on uninterrupted; every speaker even mildly sceptical of the EU was treated with undisguised contempt, interrupted every dozen words and generally by a nasty piece of work.  Once again the ‘suits’� at the BBC, including those who rule the News And Current Affairs Division, the real ‘voice’ of the Beeb, will hear only what they want to hear.

Now to Savile. Can 200/300 victims really never have produced a single one who complained? Of course not.  Some refused to be ashamed, intimidated or bribed into silence. So they were rebuffed. Savile was a BBC star and flawless. That was all the suits were prepared to hear.

George Entwistle, the new DG, only ever has one expression on his face: utter bewilderment.  As a BBC ‘lifer’ it has never occurred to him that anyone could contradict the BBC line and get away with it.

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/355850

——————————————————————————————————————————

For the attention of Mr Horrabin.
>
> Dear Mr Horrabin,
>
> Some time ago I wrote to my member of parliament giving him irrevocable evidence of BBC bias on a number of important issues.  I asked him, in view of the breaches of the Royal Charter if the government would not insist on a root and branch overhaul of this national publicly funded institution before granting a further licence
>
> In a long and considered reply Mr Robert Walter penned this sentence:-  “If you ever feel the BBC has not reached the high standards that have been set for it, then I recommend that you file a complaint to the BBC trust at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.
>
> Before doing so may I ask why you have neither had the courtesy of acknowledging, or better still replying, to my recent email?
>
> In case you have already forgotten or even disdained to read it I pointed out I had read in detail your emails as to how you set up the BBC to ensure it always followed and promoted the now discredited Anthropological Global Warming alarmist scam stating that Global Warming would fry us all by the end of the century and sea-levels would rise by many feet, flooding major cities.  In other words the flawed doctrine of Dr Michael Mann, using the fiddled figures of Prof. Phil Jones all as exploited by Al Gore.
>
> I asked in the interest of balance if you were prepared to give air time to the alternative view I sent you.  Presumably your failure to even have the courtesy to acknowledge my correspondence, let alone a considered reply, signifies the single-minded arrogance that we have come to expect from our publicly funded, supposedly public service broadcaster.  I therefore have no option but to file a complaint as recommended by my Member of Parliament.
>
> Yours,
>
> W. Woodhouse

—————————————————————————————————————–

BBC accused of “systematic bias” and climate change cover up

six-year Freedom of Information battle between a North Wales pensioner and the BBC’s Director of news, Helen Boaden has revealed the lengths to which the BBC will go to to conceal information that is in the public interest.

The BBC is refusing to disclose the names of ‘scientific experts’ who attended a BBC formal seminar in 2006 titled – ‘Climate Change – the Change to Broadcasting’. In 2007, the BBC Trust, the public-funded broadcaster’s governor, published an 80 page report – ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel’ which revealed some details as to the nature of the seminar.

The report hinted at the corporation’s tendency to institutional bias and the problem of editorial policy reflecting particular views and not those of the wider public.

“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]”.

Curious as to whom the climate change experts may be, blogger Tony Newbery filed a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to find out who exactly would be advising the BBC on its scientific view of climate change. He became sceptical stating that he used to watch the BBC’s “coverage of the subject- with growing astonishment”.

The BBC response informed Newbery of the name, date, time, aims, hosts, key speaker and location of the seminar which he could have found out himself from a Google search. But it decided not to publish the list of names of those who attended as participants and/or observers.

“In this case, the information you have requested is outside the scope of the Act because information relating to the seminar is held to help inform the arc’s editorial policy around reporting climate change. The only exception to this is the logistic details you requested…” We’ve heard something similar before.

In 2007, Newbery referred his application to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for adjudication and in 2008 an investigation began.

“Advising such a body – or in the BBC’s words, providing training – at a formal seminar with a title such as ‘Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting’ can in no way be considered to be a private matter of the kind that could reasonable fall within the scope of the Data Protection Act… It is unreasonable for anyone who embarks on such an exercise to expect to be anonymous”, Newbery said.

On Monday, the court heard that the BBC continues to refuse to hand over the requested information using the following two arguments: refusal is justified for the “purpose of journalism” and that the “attendees of a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule must not be named”.

What nonsense. The case has reached an Information Rights Tribunal – Tony Newbery vs the BBC and the Information Commission.
In Boaden’s words, it has been revealed that the 28 “external invitees” were “representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communication experts, people from the ‘front line’, scientists with contrasting views and academics”.

Boaden claimed that it would be unfair to disclose the names and further added: “The seminars bring together individuals who want to share their views but don’t want it widely known that they are there”. This undoubtedly raises the question: why?

It has also come to light this week that the BBC is in for a further grilling over its bias, inaccurate and dishonest reporting – this time from Conservative MP, Peter Lilley.

Lilley has accused the BBC of “systematic bias in its handling of climate change evidence” in a complaint regarding a Newsnight programme Mr Lilley participated in on 5th September 2012.
In the MPs letter to David Jordan, BBC Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, published on The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) website, the MP says; “The BBC cannot credibly suppress the views of those who think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) too alarmist while promoting those who think it too cautious”.

The member of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee further added:
“The BBC has taken the position that the views of ‘climate sceptics’ will not be given airtime since the science has been settled by the IPCC. Inevitably the BBC lays itself open to the charge not just of inconsistency but of backing the side of the argument which gives ammunition to those on the statist, liberal left persuasion who want to control every aspect of the economy – a position with which the BBC has allowed itself to be associated”.

Lord Lawson, the chairman of GWPF has written to Lord Patten, chairman of the BBC Trust to call for an investigation into the complaint made by Mr Lilley and the wider problem.

Lawson says it is “namely the case for the BBC to migrate from its one-sided reportage and propaganda of the conventional wisdom on climate change and climate change policies to a more balanced and objective coverage of this complex and important range of issues”.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I am making the following letter public at this time because the House of Commons is debating the renewal of the BBC’s Royal Charter this week.

Regards,

Ashley

Matteo Maggiore Esq

Head of European Policy

BBC

Rue Wiertz 50

B-1050 Brussels

 

cc: Michael Grade, Chairman of the Board of Governors, London

cc: Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, London

 

11 July 2006

We failed in our attempt at a meeting last month, when you tried to change the time you originally proposed for our discussion on the relationship between the BBC and the EU.  I promised to write to you instead.

First, let’s deal with the answers you gave to my questions of 31 January, the most important of which you chose completely to ignore.

The figures quoted in your reply of 8 May are merely a rehearsal of the figures quoted in answer to a written question in the House of Lords in June 2004.  They bear no relation to known financing of the BBC by the EU and some of its various institutions.  But you must know that already.  So the question arises…why did you attempt to minimise the sums involved?  Does the BBC have something to hide?

I referred in my original letter to the 40.4 million euros provided by the European Investment Bank in 2002, and the 96.46 million provided by the same source the following year.  These sums were in the form of loans, and are listed as such on the EIB website.  In addition to these loans to BBC subsidiaries, another 240 million euros has been ‘loaned’ by the EIB to other broadcasting and production units in the UK since 1989.

Several questions arise: on what terms of repayment, over what period and at what rates of interest?  Are these soft loans – meaning will they be written off quietly in a few years time because you know (and the rest of us can make an intelligent guess) that the BBC will never be in a position to repay such sums and is not expected to do so.  Even the EIB’s own website admits they were made under the “most favourable of terms…financing capital projects according to the objectives of the Union “.  It goes on to declare that one of its objectives is to “contribute towards the integration of member countries”!

Within the UK , of course, strictly speaking these loans also raise questions of probity.  Are licence-payers’ funds at risk?  The BBC’s so-called “Information Unit” has apparently claimed elsewhere that these were loans to BBC Worldwide, which it says is a separate company, the implication being that it has nothing to do with the BBC and licence-payers.

This claim raises another question – is not the BBC the guarantor of last resort?  Can it be shown that this is a stand-alone commercial company and that repayment would not be sought from what is, in reality, the parent – ie, the BBC as constituted under British law?

The comments of the “Information Unit” are doubly suspect since that department has itself been sub-contracted to a commercial company, Capita, which has extensive connections with the Blair government and numerous contracts with government departments.   Hardly a reliable source of objective information…especially when Capita’s BBC Information Unit tries to suggest in correspondence that these loans were not actually loans at all.  They claim that the BBC merely enjoys EIB loan facilities.

In any case, the BBC uses BBC Worldwide as its distribution channel for the sale of its programmes around the world.  So to suggest that the two are somehow separated in law is to ignore reality.  The BBC brand is a world-famous asset of the British people, and the fact that one part of it has received a soft loan from the EIB has profound implications.

But let us consider the purposes of these loans.  The 96 million euros was ‘loaned’ to build a digital broadcasting centre in London .  Note London .  Not Timbuktu , or Saigon.   London .  The digitising of the BBC’s services in the UK was a demand made on them by the British government whose declared aim has been for some time to close down the use of analogue channels for TV broadcasting.

The previous year’s 40 million ‘loan’ was for the co-production of television programmes in LondonNow why make these loans to BBC Worldwide when all the benefits were lodged in the UK ?

Even if we stretch a point and include in our considerations the BBC’s World Service, which again is separate from BBC Worldwide, we find that the BBC uses reporters based all over the world but funded from London by British licence-payers.  Yet, in your letter of 8 May you admit the BBC’s World Service received another £1.4 million into its Trust fund, this time directly from the EU.

In these cumulative circumstances, how can the BBC possibly continue to claim that its news and current affairs broadcasting complies with the terms of its Royal Charter?  It is the publicly stated objective of the European Investment Bank “to further the objectives of the EU…”

Millions of UK licence-payers have a huge problem with this interference in their right to objective, balanced reporting.  Lord Pearson of Rannoch has been tireless in his efforts to have the output of BBC news and current affairs analysed objectively and tested against what might be expected under the Charter.  The distortion his researchers have demonstrated over several years is undeniable.  It is gross.

For some considerable time the BBC has conducted a systematic and persistent policy of stifling criticism of the EU, it has been in clear and permanent breach of its own Charter, and it continues shamelessly to ignore, let alone address, any of these issues.  With the tacit support of the British government, and its dependency on EU funds, it has become a brazen supporter of the European ‘project’, bought, paid for and tied up in financial ribbons.

I offer merely two examples of blatant bias out of thousands.  A recording of the first is still to hand.  A mere ten days after the EIB loan, the BBC’s economics editor Evan Davis (who really ought to have known better) broadcast a series of supposedly objective interviews and “news” reports from around the member states about the prospects for the euro.  The tone and content of this programme were obviously a not-so-subtle acknowledgement of the loan.  Objective and balanced it was not.

During the signing of the Nice Treaty, and within the hearing of several bystanders, the BBC reporters on the scene were instructed not to record or report the significant demonstrations against the treaty going on all around them.  Such entirely legitimate opposition was literally whitewashed out of the event by BBC editorial controllers.

Journalists – and not just those reporting for the BBC – are given financial inducements by the EU to attend plenary sessions in Strasbourg .  They have transport, accommodation, camera crews and editing facilities provided at no costs to themselves.  The same facilities are provided more permanently in Brussels .

Perhaps the last word should come from one of the BBC’s own.  Jonathon Chapman, described at the time as a ‘Senior BBC World News Reporter’, told the Malta Press Club in March 2004 : “The UK media is broadly sceptical [about the EU] so we try in Brussels to break that cycle of scepticism.  The BBC’s job is to reflect the European perspective…and make news less sceptical (emphasis added).  That is why the BBC has such a big bureau in Brussels .”

What say you to that?

Ashley Mote

 

3 responses to “2012-017 The BBC and it’s bias

  1. It’s jobs for the boys as usual. A chap resigns who was appointed by his ‘friend’ Mr Patten. His contract is said to entitle him to half a year’s salary but he is given a whole year’s salary.
    Who in the BBC can sanction a breach of contract and pay out OUR money to a self confessed failure in his job and after only a couple of minths in the job. Oh yes ! (in the words of Churchill’s dog) It’s definitely jobs for the boys !
    Bill

    • Chris Patten has an EU pension of £100,000 which he will lose if he ever allows any critism of the EU. Is he a fit and proper person to be in charge of the BBC?

  2. That’s the problem of having two masters, but bribery will win the day over integrity any day. The BBC should not be allowed to take EU money, for it clearly affects their viewpoint, never mind Pattens.

    Patten was supposed to help clean up the BBC, but still it sinks deeper into the mire – time to break it all up and allow the parts to be taken over by semi-commercial endeavours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *