Stephen Pollard • You pay their salaries. So what right has the BBC to censor the news? (Daily Mail)

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: X-rated
Next: President Bush's doppelganger

April	28
2006

You pay their salaries. So what right has the BBC to censor the news? (Daily Mail)

» Posted on April 28, 2006 08:14 AM » Category: BBC

You would know all about Charles Clarke’s incompetence if you relied solely on the BBC for your news this week. And you would be equally informed about Patricia Hewitt’s problems.

But when friends referred to John Prescott, you would be mystified as to why. Throughout the day when the story broke, the BBC made almost no reference to the revelation that Mr Prescott had had a two year affair with his secretary.

Even yesterday, when the story was the talk of the country, the BBC’s bulletins effectively ignored it, mentioning it only in passing, with as much disdain as possible.

The BBC operates in a parallel universe to the rest of us. It exists on Planet BBC, where it - and it alone - is the moral arbiter of the nation, and where its editorial slant is not bias but the only decent way of thinking.

In this world, certain stories do not exist, and certain attitudes are simply impermissible.

Eurosceptics, for instance, are not people who share the same view as the overwhelming majority of the population. To the BBC, they are unpleasant Little Englanders.

And in a gloriously circular argument, those who live on Planet BBC consider news which is not covered by BBC News to be non-news, which does not exist.

So because the BBC has not covered the fact of the Deputy Prime Minister having an affair with his secretary it is, in their terms, non-news.

This is mind-boggling. John Prescott is not some non-entity junior minister. He is the Deputy Prime Minister.

Not only has he abused his office in conducting his affair at the taxpayers’ expense, using his official car, his official residence and his official country house to facilitate his extra-marital sex life, he has also abused, some might say, his relationship with a junior employee.

And his behaviour goes to the heart of his character. It is a huge story, of major public importance. So why has the BBC ignored it?

The most obvious explanation is that the BBC is biased and does not cover such stories because they do not fit with that agenda. Whether that is because the BBC’s journalists are overwhelmingly Left-Liberal in their outlook, or because the BBC’s future is in the hands of the Government, through the licence fee, is a moot point.

But there is an additional explanation. The BBC is a deeply hypocritical organisation, and full of contradictions. At the very time as it has cheapened and coarsened its output, it has also maintained a rather high-minded approach to the stories which it will and won’t report. Its coverage – or non-coverage – of Mr Prescott’s affair is typical.

Indeed, at the end of Newsnight’s report on Wednesday night, Jeremy Paxman, the presenter, made a somewhat snide remark. The programme had just spent 16 minutes covering the difficulties of Charles Clarke and Patricia Hewitt, but had completely ignored Mr Prescott’s extra-marital activities.

“This being a high minded sort of programme, we haven’t focused on the third government embarrassment today” he said, before devoting all of 21 seconds to an account of the story.

Then, just in case any of the panel of politicians Mr Paxman was about to interview might have dared to mention the story, he began his questioning with this: “I don’t suppose any of you are going to want to make any political capital out of John Prescott’s troubles, are you?”

Heaven forefend the BBC’s airwaves might be tarnished with such a story.

This is far from the first instance of this. When David Blunkett’s affair with Kimberly Quinn was revealed in August 2004, it caused a sensation.

But again, if you had relied on the BBC for your news, you would have had not the slightest idea, because for days the BBC refused even to mention it.

One might argue that it is up to the BBC to decide what it reports and what it does not. It has of course to make news judgements. But ignoring so major a story goes against even the BBC’s stated aims.

At the start of its annual report, it claims that “BBC News aspires to be the world’s most trusted news organisation”. On its website is writes that:
“The BBC exists to enrich people’s lives with great programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain”.

Except, of course, when it decides to ignore a story which does not fit in with its own outlook. Or when it gives it journalists free rein to spout their agitprop.

Its domestic coverage, for instance, is predicated on the implicit beliefs that public spending is always good, and tax cuts are only wanted by the greedy, business is usually engaged in a conspiracy against the public and that the war on terror is an excuse for American imperialism.

BBC correspondents can barely conceal their contempt for anything they consider to be ‘Right-wing’. During its coverage of the Canadian elections, Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader, who is now Prime Minister, was described as “portraying himself as a moderate”.

The idea that a Conservative could actually be a moderate was simply incomprehensible to the BBC.

Last week, Justin Webb, a BBC correspondent, was being interviewed on Radio Five Live about how the US television networks were losing viewers to cable and the internet:

"There are three groups of people who don't watch the evening news any more, and they are intelligent people, young people, and right-wing people. Obviously there are some people who fall into all three categories - at least arguably [he added, laughing].

Right-wing people tend to watch Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, intelligent people tend to not bother with the telly at all, and young people get their news from the internet where they get it at all.”

Clearly it is not possible to be Right-wing and intelligent, according to the BBC.

The BBC cannot have it both ways. If it wants to impose its worldview on its coverage of the news, and to censor stories such as John Prescott’s affair, then it should allow those of us who do not share its views to opt out of supporting it. It should compete, like any other broadcaster, in the market.

Not, of course, that it would dream of such a thing. The BBC believes that it is entitled, as of right, to behave as it sees fit.

It has used licence fee payers’ money to launch its vast presence on the internet. It took the decision early on to be a major internet player and has succeeded. It now has sites on almost every subject under the sun.

In so doing it has further imposed its values on the nation. Now those people turning to the internet for their first source of news find that, once again, it is coming from the BBC.

Some of the most egregious examples of the BBC’s bias appear in its written internet reports, which allow correspondents to air their prejudices at will. Justin Webb – yes, him again – penned this extraordinary outburst last year:

‘The real question - putting it baldly - is whether there is going to be a revolution. Will the American social and economic system - which creates the wealth that pays for billionaires' private jets, and the poverty which does not allow for a bus fare out of New Orleans - be addressed?’

But still the BBC wants to have its cake and eat it. Take the one area where the BBC does enter the market – its commercial arm, BBC Worldwide.

BBC Worldwide exists on the back of the license fee, putting that revenue to purely commercial ends, from investment in film and TV production to global programme sales and satellite channels.

Books, DVDs, CDs, clothing and all sorts of commercial activities combined to give Worldwide profits of £145 million last year.

But it does so with an entirely unfair advantage over other companies. It exists solely because of the programmes made by the BBC itself, which are funded by the licence payer.

The BBC is now little more than a vast left-liberal propaganda vehicle, whose income is derived through the threat of jail for anyone who does not pay. Mr Prescott’s affair is indeed a disgrace. But the biggest disgrace of all is the existence of a BBC which wouldn’t tell us about it.

MessageSpace

Comments

Ouch, that's vicious, but well-said. Stay on their case please.

Stated by: sokenbi on April 28, 2006 8:35 AM

"John Prescott is not some non-entity junior minister. He is the Deputy Prime Minister."

I disagree: He is a non-entity who happens to be the deputy prime minister.

Stated by: HJHJ on April 28, 2006 8:36 AM

In the absence of an opposition political party, those of us who are sick of the systematic betrayal of our nation need to focus their fire on the increasing corrupt, sycophantic distorting mirror that is the BBC. It helps to keep the poor British people ignorant, quiescent and fearful of any challenge to the ruling class by continually hammering home its threatening slogans (you need only look at its 'Have your Say' website to see that many of the things you might wish to say are not allowed to be said.

It can no longer be said to be British at all since it holds British values, history and people (and not least their flag) in contempt and pins its faith in loftier visions beyond (it believes) your typical white Briton. Its politicised programming (Holby City and Casualty being two particularly nausiating examples of propogandised feminism and multiculturalism) belong back in the Soviet Union. The BBC should be renamed Pravda. Its executives and favoured frontmen and women obviously believe that it does represent a single unchallengable Truth.

Bring it down! Free this country from the obnoxious licence fee and persecution by self-righteous freeloaders and their cant.

Stated by: Bernard on April 28, 2006 10:19 AM

I'm sure that you're familiar with the weblog Biased BBC at www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
One of hundreds of examples of institutionalised slant came after the tsunami, when BBC News 24 simply ommitted to mention that among the very first organisations to arrive and dispense aid was the American navy. The BBC is avowedly anti-American, anti-Israeli and pro-multiculturalism, which was something the English used to be rather good at until it was made compulsory.
Great site. I enjoy reading your stuff.

Stated by: Mark Brentano on April 28, 2006 12:24 PM

A disgrace they may be, but they have a well informed and dare I say dashing commentator on the daily politics show right now.

Stated by: Rich on April 28, 2006 12:30 PM

The BBC is now little more than a vast left-liberal propaganda vehicle, whose income is derived through the threat of jail for anyone who does not pay.

Well, you've been saying this for quite some time, Stephen.

I'm an ex-pat living 6,000 miles away from the UK. When you live abroad you appreciate the BBC more.

Stated by: Benjamin on April 28, 2006 1:19 PM

Bernard writes: "I'm an ex-pat living 6,000 miles away from the UK. When you live abroad you appreciate the BBC more."

I live a long way away as well, and I loathe and despise the BBC with an abiding toxic hatred. I want to get the exterminators in. I want it destroyed. It is vile, its feminist, multiculti agenda and its news broadcasting are prejudiced and destructive, too. I do not trust a word I read. For anyone who trusts the BBC, I refer you back to their criminally prejudiced reporting of Hurricane Katrina, when every sob-laden word that Justin Webb and Matt Frei whined into the camera with such emotion was later proved wholy fictitious.

The BBC delenda est.

Stated by: Verity on April 28, 2006 1:30 PM

I agree with all your criticism of the BBC bar this: in this instance I don't see the fact that he had an affair as news. I don't care what Prescott does in bed in Ministerial residences. Come to that I don't even want to begin thinking about it. So, pending any hard evidence he has actually abused his position, I think it's a non-story and the BBC handled it correctly, especially given the scandalous nature of the other two stories betraying genuine Government maladministration which will directly affect many of us.

Stated by: Edward on April 28, 2006 2:14 PM

Stephen, I am afraid the BBC's expensive new internet upgrade is the harbinger of a move to extend their licence-fee remit to anyone who owns a home computer with broadband access.

I look forward to you leading the fight against this.

Stated by: paul on April 28, 2006 2:32 PM

Radio 5 managed to concentrate on appointment of the new England football manager to the exclusion of just about everything else yesterday. Their patrons in the government will be pleased.

Stated by: Bishop Hill on April 28, 2006 5:32 PM

Edward, I don't think anyone cares what a whale does in bed, but dancing around his office with his secretary's legs wrapped round his neck does, you must admit, display an alarming lack of judgement in a deputy prime minister.

Stated by: Verity on April 28, 2006 6:14 PM

They should really all go, dears! That violent, adulterous, hypocritical, Champagne socialist slob most especially, in Edna's most humble estimation. (On the bright side, Edna hears that fresh adultery revelations are on the way - this time with someone a bit more senior than a lowly civil servant.) As for the BBC, it's betrayed its charter by employing a load of talentless, provincial announcers - I mean, Edna for one can barely make out a word of the banal nonsense that Kirsty Wark spouts. Edna remembers an age, halycon days, when BBC announcers spoke decent English; when BBC English meant the Queen's English; when announcers wore evening dress to read the News; when the arts didn't include graffito daubers burbled on about by Yorkshire slobs; when Ant "'n'" Dec, Jonafan Woss and their loathsome ilk wouldn't have been permitted to swab out the servants' quarters' lavs; but, tragically, these days are no more and instead we have knighted bus conductors to drawl the News.

Stated by: Edna Sweetlove on April 28, 2006 6:22 PM

Oh, grow up. Who shags whom is a red-top story and the BBC is not - and should not be - a red-top medium. If there is evidence that he has significantly abused his position, that will be reported, just as the Opposition's claims were covered this morning. It's rich that this whinge appeared first in the Mail alongside fantastically hypocritical Glenda Slag-esque pieces expressing solidarity with Mrs Prescott - all the while revelling in the scandal and her distress - and making vicious assumptions about Prescott's PA and her motives. There's a very good reason that outlets like the BBC don't go big on stories like this. They have humane values which don't involve scouring the gutter to titillate our viler natures.

Stated by: Hunter Hillman on April 28, 2006 6:39 PM

In a sane world you might have a case, Hunter dear, but this is Blair’s Britain and, when it comes to Mr Unpleasant, it's just about time for some serious, red-top titillation - the viler the better really. Edna would argue that BBC hacks should definitely get medieval on JP's ignorant, unrighteous arse ASAP.

Stated by: Edna Sweetlove on April 28, 2006 7:04 PM

Hunter Hillman, the BBC is staffed by Trots, Marxists and other assorted lefties and only runs what will further its agenda of a feminised (which women most assuredly do not want), weakened, multiculti country of anonymous providence.

It is a vile organisation. If you like it so much, you should be willing to watch ads or pay for a subscription to watch it. Other people shouldn't be forced to have communist propaganda poured down their throats in the guise of "humour" and "drama".

Stated by: Verity on April 28, 2006 7:09 PM

I should, of course, have written "provenance". Plse forgive the sloppiness.

Stated by: Verity on April 28, 2006 7:12 PM

I'm getting the picture. Civilised values are fine so long as the targets are people you agree with. But any vileness is OK if he or she is a cultural enemy. And as for dear old Auntie... it's damned for "cheapening and coarsening its output", but, er, damned, too, for not joining the Sun, the Mirror and those other beacons of decency by puking out the private details of people who made small errors in their love lives. Presumably the BBC would be applauded for raking through the knicker-drawers of Blair's babes but condemned if it went digging among the sex aids of the Cameroonies....

Stated by: hunter hillman on April 28, 2006 7:29 PM

I've been boycoting the BBC for quite some time now; I simply refuse to
watch or listen to their output and I deleted the BBC RSS feed which came with the Firefox browser. For the same reasons I adopted a similar approach about 35 years ago , when I was living in one of the so-called socialist republics. During that time I used to listen to the BBC and Radio Free-Europe since one could not rely on anything the local media was reporting. We used to regard these as trustworthy organizations and envy those who had unrestricted access to them. How far the greats have fallen!

Stated by: martin on April 28, 2006 11:42 PM

If "Call Me Dave" was caught with his kilt up,the sneering Grand Inquisitors of the BBC would be asking "How long can he survive as leader of the Tory Party".
Personally,I think the secretary should be commended for getting Presco to do to her what ha has been doing to the country,at least it takes his mind off concreting over Southern England

Stated by: Ron Brick on April 29, 2006 12:21 AM

Just because they're doing wrong by the right doesn't mean we should call for them to do wrong by the left. They ought to do the right thing all the time. To do that they need reform, yes; they don't need to titillate us with speculation about what Two-Jags-Three-Shags did or did not do in his office.

Stated by: Edward on April 29, 2006 1:08 PM

With the inevitability of an ancient Greek drama, the secretary in question has announced that she "feels betrayed" by the Cabinet office. She has been wronged. She needs a protector. She is now being represented by Max Clifford.

I love the unchanging formalities.

Stated by: Verity on April 29, 2006 2:13 PM

Edward,
Since we,the taxpayers are paying for the office,and any other public property that the Lumpen Lothario chooses to use as a knocking shop, we have a right to know.
We need to know if he is shagging on company time,try getting caught at that and see how soon you will be clearing out your desk. He was also shagging a public servant,was she also abusing her employer's time?
It is also against the rules to bang the junior help,it could be misconstrued as taking advantage. If they had met at a crown green bowling competition on their own time, it could be regarded as none of our business,but they didn't, they met at work in a department of government.
Since this seedy crew wishes to poke its snout into every cranny of our lives,we have the right to know exactly who and what they are.

Stated by: Ron Brick on April 29, 2006 3:31 PM

How good it is to enjoy the self-basting morality of the red-top hack... Minor footballer slips up with a girl in a club? Publish every steamy detail because he's a "role model". Model messes round with a non-U boyfriend? Breach her privacy "out of concern for her". Politician gives in to a mid-life crisis? There's, er, public money involved. Right. First stone anyone?

Stated by: hunter hillman on April 29, 2006 3:45 PM

If a politician is having a mid life crisis,perhaps he should spend more time with his herbacious border, rather than wield power over the rest of us.Not really the time for Captain Rehab to be at the helm is it?

Stated by: Ron Brick on April 29, 2006 4:06 PM

First stone anyone? Yep, Hunter, I'll be happy. I can make judgements about Prescott, because I don't choose to be a politician in high office, I have no access to the public purse and I didn't make sneering comments about "sleazy tories" in a bid to get myself elected. Presco did run for high office, he has access to my money -- for which in return I expect him to be whiter than white -- and he did deride the Tories. We all know how the press love to catch a hypocrite with his pants down, so don't blame the red-tops that Presco's true character is being revealed. Blame the grasping, cheating thug himself.

Stated by: paul on April 29, 2006 4:13 PM

Paul - You beat me to it! I was about to volunteer to cast the first stone - for all the reasons you mentioned. In my case, I was going to offer a rock, as large as I could heave.

Stated by: Verity on April 29, 2006 5:39 PM

Ron, is there any evidence he or she was "shagging on the public purse's time"? As I say, if he did abuse his position then that is the story. As it is, I've heard nothing to suggest this.

The mere fact he's in Government should not open every cranny of his private life to scrutiny such as this. Checking he didn't abuse his office does not include taking voyeuristic pleasure in the sordid details of who he was banging. By all means call him a hypocrite and an incompentent, let's just not use them as excuses to invoke the pseudo-morality of the tabloids as we peer into the horrendous minutiae of his life.

Stated by: Edward on April 29, 2006 5:45 PM

Edward - Why shouldn't someone who has chosen to pursue a career in governance of other people be scrutinised. Wherever he was pursuing his trysts with this gal, he was betraying his wife, which is an immoral and cowardly act. If he has no more control over himself than this, I don't think he should be in control of a country. Or be entrusted with plans to concrete over England, or make decisions to plaster little boxes all over SE England to house illegal immigrants. That he carried on this affair for two years tells me he is a dishonest man.

Stated by: verity on April 29, 2006 6:29 PM

No it isn't Edward,he was using two of his publicly funded residences for his trysts. They were flirting in the office,she ran pretend errands for him,"Not only has he abused his office in conducting his affair at the taxpayers’ expense, using his official car, his official residence and his official country house to facilitate his extra-marital sex life, he has also abused, some might say, his relationship with a junior employee." What part of that do you not understand?
Don't come the old "Tabloid Prurience" on me,this Government was elected on a pure as the driven snow platform,I don't want the dreary details, I just want him gone,but is it not in the public interest to know the extent of the deceit that the man must have used to cover his affair? Or are you one of those happy souls that think that public figures have two moral circuits,private and public.
Affairs are not simply peccadillos,they are the ultimate betrayal,if a man will betray his wife his closest companion,what else will he do?
It is worth you remembering that most of the papers carried the story,why not the BBC?

Stated by: Ron Brick on April 29, 2006 6:51 PM

Read Edward In office hours.

Stated by: Ron Brick on April 30, 2006 1:53 AM

I think that it is the hallmark of quality media not to write on sex scandals. Incompetence, illegal actions, corruption, etc, yes, but the private sex life of politicians should be kept out of it. The quality media shouldn't nose in the bedrooms of the individuals. That's what the porn industry is for.

Stated by: Mel on April 30, 2006 1:14 PM

I am big enough (though still not as big as Prescott, thank God) to admit, Ron, that the story you link to is fairly disgraceful, does put Prescott in an even worse light and is of some importance.

My point still stands though, even if the details of this episode aren't what I thought they were. The mere fact he had an affair, in itself, (or whatever he does between the sheets) is not something which bothers me or which I think is of great importance to the public. Hypocrisy and abuse of office or of others is.

Stated by: Edward on April 30, 2006 1:25 PM

Mel says the press shouldn't comment on what politicians do in their bedrooms and Edward says "whatever [Prescott] does between the sheets ...".

But they were never in a bedroom or between the sheets. They were shagging standing behind the door of his cabinet office, with seven people working in the outer office, or on one of the couches in his office and so on. For further venues, see The Mail on Sunday. No bedrooms seem to have been mentioned.

Stated by: Verity on April 30, 2006 3:36 PM

There seems to be some ignorance of the amount of time and effort which goes into conducting affairs,is it too much to ask of politicians to commit 100% of their efforts into the high office which they are privileged to hold?
The public do not want their employees thinking about affairs of the "heart" rather than affairs of state.We want them to read briefing papers not enxamine briefs,we want decisions made with a clear head,not hurriedly after a quick knee trembler.
Oddly Mel wishes to give a pass to a member of the most arrogantly intrusive government in living memory. They stick their noses into everything in the manner of some appalling head girl,lecture ,regulate and nanny us in the most insultingly patronising way,sauce for the goose chum!

Stated by: Ron Brick on April 30, 2006 4:01 PM

Why do you call it liberal, Stephen? There's nothing liberal about the pro-totalitarian, anti-democracy attitudes which seem to be mandatory at the Beeb nowadays. Even a leftie like Rik Mayall can no longer stomach the stifling political correctness of the organisation which made him a star.

Stated by: George Utley on April 30, 2006 4:21 PM

Well, quite Verity. Which is why I made the post I just did!

Stated by: Edward on April 30, 2006 5:37 PM

Who is John Prescott?

Stated by: will Rebwen on May 1, 2006 11:39 AM

If you're an American or something and genuinely don't know, he is the Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Stated by: Verity on May 1, 2006 1:09 PM

Another small example of BBC-think. Yesterday both the BBC Ceefax and the ITV Teletext services reported the fire-bombing of three Asian-owned shops in South London. They both also reported the Police assessment that the attacks were racially motivated. But the BBC, unlike the ITV, omitted to mention the rather salient detail that the suspect is a black man - because, of course, in Beeb-world only whites can be racist.

Stated by: David Burbridge on May 1, 2006 1:38 PM

What is "Great" about Britain?

Stated by: will rebwen on May 1, 2006 2:07 PM

What is "Great" about Britain?

Stated by: will rebwen on May 1, 2006 2:08 PM

will rebwen, who evidently never took history in school.

The name Brittannia was given to the our group of islands during the Roman occupation. There is a region in France called Bretagne. It was settled by ancient Brits. In English, it translates to Brittany.

So in the North Sea, we had two places, one a comparatively large country, called Britain. To avoid confusing people like yourself, will rebwen, the country of Britain became known as "large - or Great" Britain. In France, these places are styled as Grande Bretagne and Bretagne.

Someone with a more detailed knowledge of history than me may add some flourishes, but that, essentially, is it.

Great means "big". As to what's great, in the sense of impressive, about Britain, read our 2,000 years of history.

Stated by: Verity on May 1, 2006 3:43 PM

"What is "Great" about Britain?" Probably the fact that you are not here Will.

Stated by: Ron Brick on May 1, 2006 6:48 PM

Ron Brick brings up an unassailable point.

Stated by: Verity on May 1, 2006 11:53 PM

I presume that Ron's comment is what is meant by that "Great" British saying, "Like shit off a brick".

Have a nice day Limey.

Will Rebwen

Stated by: will rebwen on May 10, 2006 7:27 PM