I despair sometimes that society as a whole has lost all sense of how a democracy ought to operate. State abuse has become the norm.
I am astonished that there is not greater reaction to the BBC role in Obama’s statement against Scottish independence. It is now confirmed that not only did No. 10 ask Obama to make the statement, they set up the BBC to ask the question that prompted it.
For a state broadcaster, with a legal obligation to neutrality in the referendum campaign, actively to participate in a stunt plainly aimed to boost one side in the campaign is beyond disgraceful. There is obviously a realisation at the BBC that they have done something very wrong indeed – all of the BBC’s own coverage with unprecedented reticence omitted totally the fact that it was the BBC that asked the question.
This ought to be an absolutely huge scandal which leads to resignations at the BBC. Yes, it is not unprecedented for officials to ask a journalist to ask a helpful question. The Tories might well ask the Sun or Telegraph to ask them something. But it is a completely different thing when it is a state broadcaster legally obliged to neutrality and part of a referendum or election campaign.
That the BBC truthful report that there were no WMD’s in Iraq led to forced resignations, while this twisted propaganda interference has no result, is a sign of the collapse of democratic values in society – and the expectation of them.
“Who are the Greens?”
They are the next great hope who will never be corrupted until the day they are. Then we, the political revolutionaries of News Junky Groundhog Day Lala Land, will be extremely surprised.
“I thought the BBC had officially established that UKIP should now be regarded as the protest party.”
Yes that’s true, but (spoiler alert) Craig will next week be revealing that the BBC lie.
Scots Vote: ‘English Politicians Keep Out’
An exclusive Sky News/YouGov poll shows voters in Scotland want politicians south of the border to stay away from the debate.
http://news.sky.com/story/1277753/scots-vote-english-politicians-keep-out
including a quote from Hague –
‘He told the Murnaghan Programmne: “This is for the Scottish people to decide, of course.
We all have a stake in it though, it is about the whole future of the United Kingdom. It will effect us all.”
He said it was important therefore that the British government is able to set out its view of the facts along with everyone else.’
I’m sure that Sky meant to say ‘….affect us all’.
Truth is we can do nothing, legally, about the BBC and the Electoral Commission has no power over them.Only the BBC Board can do anything over output. They are protected by law. So other than protest, and what good is that, nothing can be done.
Of course they play that fact to the hilt, fine example was Politics Scotland today Sunday.
First we had the great J.Reid, free to spout all he wanted with deliberately feeble interrogation by G Brewer, all pushing the Union cause to the hilt.
Then there was the “Stories of the week” again spouting Reid, then they went on about Obama’s “intervention in the referendum debate. All within a half an hour.
Despicable stuff.If anything, could have been done about their bias, then I guess they would not be doing it. Because they have no threat, they have a happy playing field. All against Scottish democracy. They are so corrupt, yet are the first to encourage “foreign” democracy (as long as it suits the British state’s interests.
It makes you sooo angry, but they cannot be challenged except morally, and they have no morals to work with.
Sorry, previous post – Not the BBC Board, the BBC Trust ( trust?, that’s a laugh!)
“Yes, it should cause a scandal. I would suggest that the reason it doesn’t (or hasn’t) is because this sort of thing has been going on for so long; at least since the Bliar era.”
Bliar?
Maybe we, the political revolutionaries of News Junky Groundhog Day Lala Land, have forgotten what happened yesterday. Or at least, say, the miners strike or the 1926 general strike.
Ref Haig on Sky News
“He said it was important, therefore, that the British government is able to set out its view of the facts along with everyone else.”
Problem is, their facts as they call them, are almost ( if not all) are made up by misrepresentation or downright lies. Cameron takes the high ground, ( he always quotes, he does not have a vote) But orchestrates all the lies that come out of Westminster. Although, he will not debate the issue, he is a coward of the highest order, as is his government.
Phil,
Please spell out your message without sarcasm. I can’t work out whether you are accusing Craig of being an establishment agent, or just of being naive by your standards.
Or something else?
I missed this by a mile on Poro’s speech.
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.de/2014/06/poroshenkos-message-to-novorossiia-and.html
“Poroshenko’s inauguration speech has sent a message to Novorossiia and Russia:
No federalization
No state status for the Russian language
No recognition of the Novorossian political leadership
Full and unconditional surrender of the Novorossian Defense Forces
Crimea will forever belong to the Ukraine.
He could not have been any clearer: that is basically a declaration of war and an ultimatum. This is also a full endorsement of the “Banderastan project”.
Clearly, the US has prevailed over the hoplessly spineless EU leaders like Merkel or Hollande and the AngloZionists will have their way.”
Nazis lost the War didn’t they? I’m afraid the EU is just as culpable as the US if this is truly a declaration of war and it seems so.
Yes, the BBC is very obviously in breach here of its own guidelines of impartiality, which were negotiated and agreed with Ofcom and the Electoral Commission. The guidelines are here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/2014ReferendumGuidelinesFinal130314.pdf
The BBC is NOT entitled to argue the government line as the state line in the referendum, any more than it is entitled to do so in a General Election. That argument, made by several commenters above, is pish.
“The BBC truthful report” only appeared when Iraq was destroyed and occupied for Israel after murdering over one million Iraqi men, women and children. In 2011, Lord Owen, former UK foreign secretary, cried that the US occupation of Iraq made Iran the most powerful country in the region.
http://rehmat1.com/2011/12/17/lord-owen-iran-is-the-most-powerful-country-in-the-region/
Letter of complaint to the Trust c/o its director Kroll Craig before he retires at the end of the month.
Trust Unit Director Nicholas Kroll to retire from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2014/nicholas_kroll.html
Note Nicholas’s salary and remuneration is published as part of the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts. For 2012/13, his base pay was £238,680 and his total remuneration was £246,480. Further information is on the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts website.
The Trust Unit
The Trust is supported by a team of 70 staff, known as the Trust Unit. These staff are independent from the BBC Executive and include specialists in audience research, performance analysis, and finance. The Trust Unit is headed by its Director, Nicholas Kroll.
In 2007/08, the BBC Trust cost £11.909 million to run; in 2008/09, £10.517 million; and in 2009/10, £10.502 million, excluding Ofcom fees.
~~~
How about applying?
Culture secretary posts ad for new BBC Trust chairman
Salary for four-year role to remain at £100,000 a year, with Lord Patten successor expected to lead discussions on royal charter
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/culture-secretary-advertisement-bbc-trust-chairman-lord-patten
We are in danger of getting Coe who is giving it ‘much thought’. In other words he has already had the offer.
Isn’t part of the media’s role to educate the masses? BBC et al failure.
“Two-thirds (66 per cent) of the public estimate that 20,000 or fewer civilians and combatants have died as a consequence of the war in Iraq since 2003
– See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/poll-shows-public-odds-reality-iraq-war/4968#sthash.fXBxpbEQ.dpuf
ANode
You make a good point. I have today moved my default position on from anger to sarcasm. However, I did think I was being fairly clear. No, I was not suggesting CM is an agent. I am suggesting that being surprised day after day, post after post, about things that have happened for, well, yonks leaves us stuck in a useless rut of dumb news consumption.
Jesus fucking harry h bolloxing christ the BBC has always been state propaganda. See the 1926 link provided earlier.
I actually like the phrase political revolutionaries of the News Junky Groundhog Day Lala Land and shall use it again. This repetition has a poetry to it for me. And we fucking love poetry round here. It is my feeble attempt to be less dull. To step beyond: The BBC lie! I am surprised! I am sooooooo angry! Here’s a link to media fucking lens!
Anyway I am off to my “Make Friends By Managing Your Wild Fluctuations Between Sarcasm And Anger” workshop and then to sink six stellas. I’ll pop back later if you want to chat.
Craig – I’ve not seen all the reports on this – you say it’s confirmed that Downing St set up the question, and I certainly believe that, but can you point me towards this confirmation as I’d like to be able to use this further…
“The BBC is NOT entitled to argue the government line as the state line in the referendum, any more than it is entitled to do so in a General Election. That argument, made by several commenters above, is pish.”
__________________________
But surely the BBC is entitled to argue the State’s line (of which the govt in office is merely the voice); and it is entirely natural that the State should wish to maintain itself as presently constituted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More generally: I’ve read the BBC guidelines you linked to and they seem fair enough.
Please indicate whether you think the problem lies in the guidelines themselves (eg, they are too lax, they are insufficiently clear, etc..)or in the allegation that they are being breached (if the latter, please supply specific cases of BBC behaviour and cross-reference to the guideline(s) you claim is/are being violated).
There we have Orwellian habby again.
Trotting out the statist line.
Auntie will decide what’s best for all.
“But surely the BBC is entitled to argue the State’s line (of which the govt in office is merely the voice); and it is entirely natural that the State should wish to maintain itself as presently constituted.”
Oh yes. They are merely guilty of benign neglect and only wish for their own survival.
‘Not Guilty’ your honor due to permanent obsiquium.
“Yes, the BBC is very obviously in breach here of its own guidelines of impartiality…The BBC is NOT entitled to argue the government line as the state line in the referendum, any more than it is entitled to do so in a General Election.”
Guidelines! They have broken guidelines! I didn’t expect that! Mr president de la EU please send some eurocops now!
Meantime here is a link to media lens.
It’s the same in the US for the Team Players.
Old Journalism is a cottage industry these days. It’s a smaller market and fewer cash returns.
If one’s credentials don’t display the proper status under these new Shield Laws, they could be cut off from access to critical sources. Becoming a team-player at Pressers and Meets of all kinds is like having the last word at their fated cocktail parties.
Craig,
I have given up on the BBC, the way the BBC Scotland is being manipulated and it journalists sidelined or dismissed during this important period is incredible.
Hopefully in the future, the manipulation of the MSM will become a case study in state manipulation.
I campaign actively for the YES campaign but it is discouraging to be bombarded on a daily basis with misinformation and lies by the state organs that I pay for through my taxes.
If only I ca persuade the missus to not renew the TV licence later this month!
I wouldn’t get in a lather, just don’t watch it. Don’t pay their TV Tax. There simply is not enough time in the world to read all the books you want to read, grow wildlowers, root up dock leaves, ride bikes, cure rust, shoo nosy cats, lift tatties, cut your toenails etc., without the grievous mental harm TV can cause and the time wasted when you could actually be getting things done best not left undone. I’ve hardly watched any TV since 1991 (Shock and Awe 1, in Iraq, beamed triumphantly by the new-fangled News-24) so can hardly see what all the fuss is about, had been tapering off viewing since leaving school in 1985, sickened by the miner’s defeat and the BBCs role in that battle; in my 40s and thus in the twilight of my life, I had thought I was probably the last TV-hooked generation, and purposefully sought to eliminate it, to break my addiction, it had simply lost the wonder it had possessed for me as a child growing up in the 1970s -in colour. It isn’t intellectual snobbery, there just isn’t time any more for such idleness and passivity combined with actual mental and physical harm their disgusting lies and disinformation must cause.
Post-independence this will not change, I certainly will not support with a license fee or similar compulsory extortion anything having the least connection with the existing BBC, some new SBS (Scottish Broadcasting Service) will get short shrift when they pass round the begging bowl, and should be shunned by all, I’d tell them to worry less about their jobs and worry about their continued liberty instead because from where I’m standing this organisation has copious amounts of blood on its hands and its higher echelons will not –cannot evade a certain and colossal reckoning for the harm it does.
The problem with the BBC ‘job for life’ staff is that airbrushing the deep shame and embarassment of any connection with this disgraced organisation from their CVs might leave a yawning chasm impossible to fill, I’d suggest they cover this gap by falsely admitting to having spent those many years behind bars in prison for some awful crime, or to have been inmates of a mental institution, the latter isn’t so far removed from the truth.
Craig, you used the word “ought” twice and that reminded me of the great philosopher and fellow Scot, David Hume, with whom you’d no doubt be quite familiar.
So often in this blog’s comments section are quarrels that arise from the problem that David Hume expounded on. The “is vs ought” problem. I think it’s essential reading, like much of Hume’s work.
A primer on is/ought :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
Would there be the same level of outrage at the BBC if Obama had said that he supports independence?
“Would there be the same level of outrage at the BBC if Obama had said that he supports independence?”
Probably more so. Maybe he should just STFU. It’s none of his beeswax.
I’d say that Obama’s declaration of support for the Union is little more than a favor to Cameron and gang.
Were it a declaration of US foreign policy he’d have been more emphatic and it wouldn’t have needed setting up by the Unionist gang.
The US doesn’t see the issue as a core interest.
That’s very interesting in itself and it does sit well with their more general contempt for European interests so far as their projects in Ukraine and elsewhere have shown.
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time European interests have been sacrificed to US hegemony.
ValuePlus
The BBC operates under the rules of its Charter, which obliges it be be fair, honest truthful and unbiased (or words to that end).
They also have what I call the Prime Directive which allows them not to follow the above if in doing so they would support the disintegration of the United Kingdom (again my words).
The organisation which adjudicates whether complaints concerning their lack of adherence to the rules of the Charter is the BBC Trust, appointed by the BBC Governors, who are appointed by a method which bears no relevance to the viewers.
I have seen letters in reply to complaints to the BBC which have challenged the bias and distortions of specific broadcasts and overall bias, which say they (the BBC) have no obligation to be unbiased.
The BBC is an arm of the propaganda fabric which we have been swallowing day and night since its inception by Reith.
Post a Yes vote, the BBC is finished in Scotland and are in fact becoming one of the reasons many Scots want a Yes vote; to shut them down.
“You can choose whatever name you like for the two types of government. I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence “democracy”, and the other “tyranny”.
Karl Popper—
As quoted in Freedom: A New Analysis (1954) by Maurice William Cranston, p. 112
I can’t remember if I have posted this before but if not, I OUGHT to have done so.
Scotlandshire: BBC Scotland Coverage Of The Independence Referendum
24 March 2014 By David Cromwell
The BBC’s ‘Amazing Litany’ Of Bias
Coverage of the Scottish independence referendum, due to be held on September 18 this year, is a compelling example of the deep establishment bias of the corporate media. Some critics have characterised the BBC’s coverage, in particular, as though Scotland is merely a region or a county of the United Kingdom called ‘Scotlandshire’.
The establishment, pro-Union bias of ‘mainstream’ coverage emerges clearly from a careful analysis by an experienced media academic, and by the BBC’s reprehensible attempt to rubbish both the study and its author. The year-long study was conducted by a small team led by Professor John Robertson of the University of West Scotland. Between 17 September 2012 – 18 September 2013, the team recorded and transcribed approximately 730 hours of evening TV news output broadcast by BBC Scotland and Scottish Television (STV). The study concluded that 317 news items broadcast by the BBC favoured the ‘No’ campaign (i.e. no to Scottish independence) compared to just 211 favourable to the ‘Yes’ campaign. A similar bias in favour of the ‘No’ campaign was displayed by STV. Overall, there was a broadcaster bias favouring the ‘No’ campaign by a ratio of 3:2. In other words, there was 50 per cent more favourable coverage to the ‘No’ campaign.
/..
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/759-scotlandshire-bbc-scotland-coverage-of-the-independence-referendum.html
Propaganda as a form of ‘psychological’ violence.
http://www.wheaton.edu/~/media/Files/Academics/Departments/BTS/Conferences/2012%20Ellul%20Conference%20papers/VanVleet.pdf