pathetic BBC attempt to rebut claims of Labour bias

[Zod]

Newsnight ran a Dragon's Den-type political discussion called "Political Pen". All four "dragons" were or had been affiliated to Labour. This attracted criticism to nobody's surprise. Here is the BBC's credibility-stretching (to the point of no return) response.

(the panel was

Digby Jones former business minister who never actually joined the Labour party,

Greg Dyke former Labour donor, then Lib Dem donor now working for the Tories chairing their review on creative technology,

Deborah Mattinson employed by the Labour party - but her contributions to the Pen are not from a party political point of view - (yeah right) and

Matthew Taylor former Labour strategist.)

So not a bunch of Labour types at all, thus proving that the BBC is utterly unbiased.

[Digga]

The fact that it was the Torygraph which chose (IMHO quite rightly) to expose the MP's expenses scandal should never be forgotten by anyone - right wing, left wing or middle of the road.

There are other, truly scandalous issues that are yet to be fully spelled out to the great, mouthbreathing masses and the BBC fking about like this does not help matters.

Next on my wish hit list are:

• Magnitude of waste & bearaucracy in the public sector.
• Public sector pensions - spelled out in simple terms (i.e. what proportion of a private sector salary would need to be sacrificed to net similar retirement benefits) so the average Joe realises how crap a deal he's getting by comparison.
• Remuneration and governance of the big insurance and pension firms (who look after our investments) and the companies they 'invest' in.

Edited by Digga on Wednesday 8th July 11:03

[Mark Benson]

I think this quote from the 'Have your say' section sums it up for me.....

Have your say said:

First, we must try and ignore your sneering dismissal of a very fair criticism as "predictable". Has it not occurred to you that it is predictable because it is obvious?

Second, let's try and dissect your statement. You actually admit that all four of your panellists have established links with the Labour party, and all four have, in some way, been EMPLOYED by the Labour government.

Do you really, honestly, genuinely not seen any problem here? If not, ask yourself - why not?

Why didn't an editor - just one editor - just one single editor - on Newsnight - say Hold on, this is wrong, we need at least a semblance of balance? Why didn't this problem of imbalance occur to you before?

THIS is your problem. You are so mired in Establishment liberal-left groupthink you can't even SEE when you are being screamingly biassed.

You need to change - before you are privatised. This privatisation will happen, unless you are very very very careful. In a climate of swingeing public sector cutbacks, under a Tory government, selling the BBC is a juicy prospect. Trust me, this is now a possibility.

You are signing your own death warrant. Next time, THINK.

[Parrot of Doom]

Zod said:

Newsnight ran a Dragon's Den-type political discussion called "Political Pen". All four "dragons" were or had been affiliated to Labour. This attracted criticism to nobody's surprise. Here is the BBC's credibility-stretching (to the point of no return) response.

That is not the BBC's response — it is the response of the editor of Newsnight, using a blog.

[Zod]

The editor of Newsnight is the BBC's editorial voice, PoD.

[FoolOnTheHill]

The Beeb have never admitted they were wrong about anything.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

FoolOnTheHill said:

The Beeb have never admitted they were wrong about anything.

That's because they get things wrong so often, they find it less time consuming to only admit when they've got things right.

If they say nothing....assume it's wrong

[jimothy]

Zod said:

Matthew Taylor former Labour strategist

He's not labour any more, he's totally neutral. He said so the other day, just after CMD walked through the charity he runs. It's amazing how they'll change their colours to help line their pockets.

[Digga]

Parrot of Doom said:

Zod said:

Newsnight ran a Dragon's Den-type political discussion called "Political Pen". All four "dragons" were or had been affiliated to Labour. This attracted criticism to nobody's surprise. Here is the BBC's credibility-stretching (to the point of no return) response.

That is not the BBC's response — it is the response of the editor of Newsnight, using a blog.

Firstly, if the edit of Newsnight choses to comment, be it in a blog, tv interview, radio interview, letter to a national news paper or whatever, it is deemed that he is talking in his professional capacity. Indeed most employment contracts in the real woprld private sector at least, will have a "disrepute" clause whereby any such action which is judged as harmful to the interests of the business is grounds for dismissal. So either the eidtor's views [iare[/i] the BBC's views, or perhaps he should be invited to attend a disciplinary hearing.

Secondly, who give's a fk about the distinction and how does that change the more important fact that this sort of quasi-political broadcast is being made at taxpayer's expense?

[Parrot of Doom]

Zod said:

The editor of Newsnight is the BBC's editorial voice, PoD.

No, it is the editor of Newsnight's editorial voice. The BBC's editorial voice would be that of the head of news, or the channel controller.

[Zod]

I don't agree. The editor of Newsnight, the editor of Today and the editors of the other flagship news programmes all speak with the BBC's editorial voice. Their consistency demonstrates this perfectly.

[Parrot of Doom]

Sigh.

[Mclovin]

i havent paid my tv tax despite demands, net and ps3 so no need...once i stopped looking through the lense of negativity portrayed in part by the government bias beeb i became a bit happier about life...

[tinman0]

Parrot of Doom said:

Sigh.

You may sigh PoD but the matter of the fact is that people do not differentiate between the BBC as a corporation and the people who work in the corporation, like the producers. There may be two different messages, but people are unable to see that.

The big problem is that the BBC is meant to be impartial, yet fails to be. So whilst this producer may not represent the official views of the BBC, they aren't that different at the end of the day to the average person.

The line is blurred, and the BBC does not feel inclined to sort things out.

[rfisher]

When the BBC officially dies I will piss on their grave.

What the left has done to this once great institution utterly disgusts me.

Those responsible should literally be fed to the wolves.

[Zod]

Parrot of Doom said:

Sigh.

Sigh all you like.

[Jasandjules]

What, the BBC is baised? When did this happen? [/head in sand Mode Off]

[Digga]

tinman0 said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Sigh.

You may sigh PoD but the matter of the fact is that people do not differentiate between the BBC as a corporation and the people who work in the corporation, like the producers. There may be two different messages, but people are unable to see that.

The big problem is that the BBC is meant to be impartial, yet fails to be. So whilst this producer may not represent the official views of the BBC, they aren't that different at the end of the day to the average person.

The line is blurred, and the BBC does not feel inclined to sort things out.

When Gerald Ratner stood up that that black tie dinner and made the now infamous off the cuff remark about all Ratners jewelery - that was taken as an official remark and his company duly payed the consequences. So it should be with the editor of newsnight and the BBc and any other "spokesperson" and the organisation they work for.

As I said, employment law recognises this.

[JagLover]

The BBC won't change until the licence fee is abolished to be replaced by a subscription by those who want to watch it.

Once their lavish pay and pensions are threatened they will start paying attention to their viewers and not before.