Stephen Pollard • The BBC's strict impartiality

This is no longer my blog.

It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard

» Print Version «

Recent

Brown's dilemma (Wall Street Journal)

When the left loved Zionists (Jewish Chronicle)

An enigmatic insult to Elgar (The Times)

Food as art, or pie in the sky? (The Times)

What are the Tories thinking of ditching grammar schools? (Daily Mail)

Content

Browse the archives:

Links

Link to Stephen Pollard

Use this button:

Visitors

Support

Network

Developed by:

Previous: Arafat - the truth exposed
Next: Quite

November	03
2004

The BBC's strict impartiality

» Posted on November 3, 2004 09:30 PM » Category: BBC

Here's a first hand example of the BBC's world view. I'm doing a discussion tomorrow morning (07.50, BBC1 Breakfast News) with Henry Porter on the election result. As is their wont, the researcher rang me to ask what I'm going to say in response to a variety of questions.

Researcher: Why do you think the exit polls were wrong, so that we were all so disappointed by the eventual result?
Me: We weren't all disappointed. Not everyone shares the BBC's anti-Bush leftie bias. I was delighted and relieved that the free world will continue to be led by a man who understands the threat we face.

Researcher (said with an air of giggling mystification): Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I forgot you were pleased by the result.

UPDATE:
You really can't make this up. Here's how Matt Frei ended the lead report on the Ten O'Clock News:

President Bush now has a clear mandate. The question is: will he use it to unite or to divide?

Is it really, Matt? Isn't it, will he use it to carry out the mandate he has been given by the American people to defend it against terror? Yet another repetition of the BBC's governing credo, that Bush is a 'divisive' figure because he doesn't carry out BBC-approved policies.

FURTHER UPDATE:
The explaining away of Bush's triumph has already started. He really shouldn't have won; it's all unfair. According to Gavin Hewitt on the Ten O'Clock News, Bush's victory is a result of the evangelical Christians getting their vote out. (I'm disappointed he didn't just come out and say that it was because the Americans are all morons.)

I guess we should ignore the fact that Bush won more votes than any candidate in US election history, and that he trounced Kerry by over three and a half million. If those bloody Christians hadn't voted, the right man would have won.

You've got to laugh, haven't you? Forget the merits of President Bush's foreign policy. It's been worth his winning just to see the Beeb so pissed off.

AND ANOTHER UPDATE: Paxman keeps calling it an 'extraordinary result', parroting the BBC line. What on earth is extraordinary? An incumbent President was re-elected. And, er, that's it.

I suppose however that if you think Bush is a moronic warmonger, then the fact that a majority of the US electorate support him is indeed extraordinary.

MessageSpace

Comments

I know exactly what you mean, and I wanted Kerry to win. The anti-Bush bias of so many is unthinking and based on little more than crude anti-Americanism. It was almost enough to make me support Bush.

I don't know how the BBC gets away with pushing its political line so strongly whilst being considered independent. And its coverage of the election was shocking and often ill-informed.

Stated by: Ken on November 3, 2004 10:59 PM

It's surprising that given the state of the economy etc, Kerry managed to miss an open goal. Just as Gore did in 2000. Gotta hand it to GWB, he is a genius at winning elections!

Stated by: Aron Landy on November 4, 2004 1:00 AM

Here's how Matt Frei ended the lead report on the Ten O'Clock News:

President Bush now has a clear mandate. The question is: will he use it to unite or to divide?

Translation:

Bush got elected. Now will he do what we want, or will the stubborn b*d go ahead and do what he got elected to do? If the latter, we will of course continue to crucify him.

Regards,
Ric Locke

Stated by: Ric Locke on November 4, 2004 3:35 AM

Sorry, some of this is looking for bias where there was none. Matt Frei's comment about uniting or dividing seems entirely fair when a great deal of coverage - here and in america - both before and after the result has presented this election as showing america as hugely divided. Most commentators accept that the BBCs coverage over election day was as reasonable and fair as any. If you take almost any paper or station over that period of time, you are bound to find some comments which in isolation can be presented as one-sided - the way you've chosen to here says more about you than about the bbc. (Who can be one-sided at times, viz over their coverage of Iraq)

Similarly with the comment about evangelicals voting - as this was acknowledged as a key target for the Rove / Bush team, and as they obviously succeded, why is it wrong for the BBC to point that out? I'm sure that if Kerry had won there would have been much highlighting of other segements of the electorate who voted overwhelmingly democrat.

I'm all in favour of the BBC being held to account when they do show clear bias, but in these cases it's more about what you are looking for than what they are saying. (This does not apply to your comments about Paxman, who I think can be loathsome and obviously considers he is mcuh more important than any politician or political view he is covering).

Stated by: Tim Swift on November 4, 2004 9:28 AM

Stephen, saw you on the telly this morning. Nicely done sir, I thought you made your points really well. Christopher Hitchens also made mincemeat of Paxo on Newsnight. He confronted head-on the sheer snobbery of so many Bush-bashers. Paxman squirmed.

Stated by: Johnathan Pearce on November 4, 2004 11:31 AM

"Bush's victory is a result of the evangelical Christians getting their vote out"

You call this evidence of bias? It was the central plank of Karl Rove's entire election strategy. (the failure of Evangelical Xians to vote forms the basis of his analysis for the election being so close in 2000).

I'm not sure Mr Rove would be pleased to know that his brilliant political campaign does not get the widest possible audience because the BBC (unlike US networks, including Fox) are not allowed by Mr Pollard to tell the world about it.

Stated by: alex on November 4, 2004 11:50 AM

"Paxman keeps calling it an 'extraordinary result', parroting the BBC line. What on earth is extraordinary? An incumbent President was re-elected. And, er, that's it."

Just the highest turnout for an election since the '60s, and Bush won the most votes for a US presidental candidate ever.

No, nothing extraordinary there...

Stated by: Ant on November 4, 2004 4:00 PM

So, I'm sitting here watching FoxNews, viewing choice of liberal critics everywhere. They're having a long discussion about the question of division vs unification. Trust them to be duped by BBC attitudes!

Stated by: alex on November 4, 2004 5:07 PM

Dear Stephen, I read this too quickly without my glasses and was convinced you'd said you were going to be on breakfast tv with Harry Potter. Clearly all of this is proving too much for my nerves!

Jessica

Stated by: Jessica on November 4, 2004 10:38 PM

Did anyone else hear that nice impartial Beeb Washington correspondent Justin Webb describe Kerry as appealing to 'rational'
'scientific' people? The inference to be drawn about those who support Bush is, um, obvious.

Whatever your preference for US President, the contemptuous tone of this comment is clear evidence of the biased worldview prevalent in the BBC. Their reaction to a Bush victory was therefore less a reasoned stance and more like an intellectual reflex.

Fran

Stated by: Fran on November 6, 2004 9:27 AM

Maybe the 'rational' part is unfair, though I bet 'rationality' comes low on Bush supporters' lists of the most important virtues, as compared to Kerry's. But to say it's biased to describe Kerry as appealing to 'scientific' people is ridiculous. Scientists, who I take it are the most scientific people, supported him overwhelmingly, because he listened to them more. Bush listened more to other groups. That's fair enough--scientists aren't always right. But just because journalists seek to differentiate the two campaigns does not prove they are biased.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/041011012118.ioomiwgv.html

Stated by: Rob on November 6, 2004 11:01 AM

Rob wrote

"Scientists, who I take it are the most scientific people, supported him overwhelmingly, because he listened to them more. Bush listened more to other groups. "

Where's your evidence for that, Rob?

Fran

Stated by: Fran on November 6, 2004 10:50 PM

Surely the point is that Bush won through the religious vote. There's little doubt that he appealed to the religious majority, - religion being something that the US takes extremely seriously. It's dificult for, say, the average Brit to quite comprehend how most Americans are very serious about their faith - it drives what they do, and in this instance, how they vote.

Visit my site too... at chess sets

Stated by: Baron Turner on December 28, 2004 5:26 PM

seehersquirt marissa galleries x@x sehersquirts cytherea pics x@x seher squirting sekx x@x tuggjop 18teen download x@x toggjob facial mpeg x@x toggjobs dp tits x@x koronki mokre kicie seks x@x krecone wlosy mokre kicie seks x@x krzesla mokre kicie seks x@x pikantne panny lizanko akty x@x mokre panny lizanko akty x@x latwe panny lizanko akty x@x niesamowite dziewczyny przyjaciel porno x@x mokre niunie przyjaciel porno x@x spragnione niunie przyjaciel porno x@x seks amatorki akty x@x porno amatorki akty x@x erotyka amatorki akty x@x seks amatorki akty x@x porno amatorki akty x@x erotyka amatorki akty x@x

Stated by: gwheg on March 16, 2006 2:40 PM

jpb ppyt psycholog zdrowa żywność nieruchomości projektowanie stron agencja reklamowa soczewki kontaktowe nauka angielskiego agroturystyka opony klimatyzacja domy opieki akupunktura hydraulik projektowanie wnętrz soha jpk paa ki wypadki tfrd jh sw jft pp fdr

Stated by: art on April 13, 2006 7:36 PM

Stated by: dstg on May 27, 2006 3:19 PM

免费铃声下载手机铃声免费下载免费铃声 mp3铃声免费手机铃声 mp3铃声下载三星手机铃声三星铃声诺基亚铃声诺基亚手机铃声特效铃声 midi铃声和弦铃声搞笑铃声移动铃声 nokia铃声波导手机铃声 mid铃声 nec手机铃声下载原唱铃声联想手机铃声摩托罗拉铃声 amr铃声夏新手机铃声松下手机铃声 cect手机铃声和炫铃声海尔手机铃声索爱手机铃声飞利浦手机铃声康佳手机铃声下载彩信铃声真人真唱铃声 mmf铃声 lg手机铃声南方高科铃声西门子铃声东信手机铃声 tcl手机铃声手机图片免费电影下载免费在线电影看免费电影免费电影网站韩国电影两性生活性教育片电影神话电影雏菊激情电影免费黄色电影最新电影成人性爱电影免费小电影免费性电影免费成人电影免费电影在线观看宽带电影经典电影恐怖电影免费影片免费影院最新大片十八电影网美女写真联通铃声下载联通手机铃声中国联通铃声联通免费铃声联通用户铃声联通cdma铃声联通mp3铃声联通彩铃联通彩铃下载中国联通彩铃联通手机彩铃下载联通cdma彩铃联通炫铃中国联通炫铃联通炫铃下载联通炫铃网站联通cdma炫铃联通手机图片手机彩铃手机彩铃下载彩铃下载移动彩铃免费彩铃炫铃手机炫铃下载移动炫铃酷铃人体艺术美女图片美女走光美腿图片三级片强奸电影美女祼体图片黄色电影下载免费色情电影性感美女图片漂亮妹妹图片做爱图片美少女图片日本av女优情色电影同志电影激情视频下载明星露点图片写真电影阴部图片乳房图片明星裸照性爱视频偷拍图片美眉图片泳装美女美女内衣内裤性爱贴图情趣内衣图片性生活图片作爱图片艳情小说性交姿势性息港做爱电影性福联盟人体摄影明星裸照裸女图片黄色小说成人小说乱伦小说强暴电影轮奸视频性虐待电影迷奸图片妓女日记汤加丽写真集全裸美女淫荡小说淫乱小说淫书金瓶梅舒淇写真美女脱衣图片裸体女人图片
 人体写真女性手淫图片波霸美女淫水美女鲍鱼阴户阴道臀部阴毛美女图库口交肛交图片

Stated by: qq on June 11, 2006 11:01 AM

成人论坛
 成人小说
 黄色论坛
 黄色网站
 黄色小说
 黄色电影
 激情小电影
 三级片
 色情论坛
 色情小说
 色情网站
 成人电影
 色情电影
 性爱电影
 性爱论坛
 自拍
 激情自拍录像

黄色电影
 黄色网站
 黄色小说
 黄色论坛
 色情电影
 色情网站
 色情小说
 成人电影
 成人网站
 成人小说
 性爱电影
 性爱网站
 三级片

Stated by: dsf on June 20, 2006 3:30 AM

ass slut* ass sluts* mature porn tgp* mature porn tgps* kirstens room password* kirstens room passwords* allinternal claudia trailer* allinternal clips* anal pluging* heart shaped and jack and ass* 3some mfm* 3some mpeg*

Stated by: bundlebox on July 15, 2006 11:04 PM