BBC Bias Must Be Taken In Hand

The BBC's pro-Labour bias is well documented in various blogs (notably Biased BBC), and yet it is amazing that the new coalition government has done nothing yet, as far as we know, to eradicate it. Last night I watched Emily Maitlis interviewing a Tory spokesman about the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which asserted that the poor would be worse off under the Coalition's cuts. She constantly interrupted him and was persistently aggressive in her manner. None of the other talking heads lined up by the BBC supported the government.

This approach was in stark contrast to her interview with Labour MP Tom Harris about complaints that MPs were being abusive to IPSA staff over expenses claims. Not for him the aggressive interruptions, the harrying. No, at one point she even called him 'Tom'. How sweet. No mention that this incompetent system was set up by his boss, Gordon Brown, who, as it happens, is still leader of the Labour Party, although he hasn't made an appearance for 3 months.

No mention, either, that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is part funded by the BBC - and the EU - and various government departments.

I have no complaints about interviewers being tough with politicians - but I do resent the fact that the BBC, a publicly-funded body, subjects Coalition MPs to the kind of aggression that it rarely applied to any Labour MP during the 13 years of the last government's rule, and hardly ever covered some of the most egregious pieces of legislation (a lot of it from the EU) passed since 1997.

Time for a purge of BBC mandarins, time for the BBC's Charter to be rescued from New Labour's political interference, time for the Coalition spokesmen to be more robust with interviewers and time for government and others to stop paying attention to think tanks and other similar bodies, etc.

BBC Labour Bias In Little Ways...

Comment by Biased BBC on this morning's interview with Sir Stuart Rose of M&S:

It seems to me that like Labour, the BBC does not understand why an increase in NIC is a tax on jobs.Perhaps Statism erodes the capacity for clear economic thinking but I listened in amazement to the BBC "Today" interview with Sir Stuart Rose, he of M&S fame. When Rose pointed out that the NIC increase with Brown and Clegg think so virtuous is a direct impediment to business growth, he was ignored on the substance of that argument and instead presented with the Labour attack line that IF government does not jack up NIC it will have to increase VAT. A false choice and talk of reducing Government efficiency was dismissed. Rose rightly pointed out that if VAT did rise, it would be a tax on consumption and therefore one has the choice to avoid it by limiting expenditure whereas an NIC increase hits all, this was met with silence. Then, most disgracefully, Humphrys suggested that Rose was saying these things because he would be offered a peerage to the Lords. Rose denied this but the impression was aimed at listeners, not Rose. More BBC attack dog stuff dressed up as news.

I caught a little of this exchange and was pissed off to hear the tit of an interviewer (whoever he was) asking Rose if he wasn't being selfish criticising the government yet not coming up with any alternatives himself. Rose rebuffed him quite robustly, but I would have added that it's the job of government to come up with alternatives. That's what we pay the useless bastards for.

Cretin Warrant Speaker EU Thieves BBC Police Bias And All

The disgraceful cretin Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons, admits that not only did the police have no warrant to search the office of MP Damian Green but that he couldn't be arsed to ask them if they had one in the first place. Well done.

And he's going to set up a commission to look into the matter. With people appointed by himself. Well done.

As a result of Blair&Brown's munificent incompetence in 2005 Britain's contribution to the EU empire will treble within two years from £2 billion to £6.5 billion, according to the Telegraph. Not the sort of stuff your average punter is likely to hear about or take notice of, but very important nonetheless. Well done.

Is the BBC biassed? Or do they simply display the lack of intellectual rigor and knowledge that typifies the generality of British media?

I have to admit that I think they are biassed in favour of the government. During the David Davis story, for instance, it became obvious to me that BBC tv followed a consistent line both at national and local level. Firstly, they never spent much time discussing the issues or letting Davis go into any detail; secondly they focused on him and his ministerial career (or lack of it); and thirdly they repeatedly asked if the by-election was a waste of tax-payers' money (this latter initiated by New Labour).

They held this line all the way through and after. It became lamentably predictable. Well done.