Astonishingly the Tories have today banned Murdoch’s Sky News from interviewing senior ministers, as they think Sky asks too many difficult questions. For now they are only allowing senior ministers to be interviewed by the reliable Tory house propagandists Kuenssberg, Robinson, Smith and their colleagues at the BBC. The stark contrast between the level of critical scrutiny the Tory manifesto is getting from the BBC, compared to their scathing sarcasm about opposition proposals, shows Tory trust in the BBC is well placed.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Anyone have a link for Sky News being banned?
Adam Boulton announced it on air about an hour ago.
Interesting. Sky are claiming to be “hosting the first live studio audience Q&A of the election with Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn – and you can be involved”:
http://news.sky.com/story/quiz-the-leaders-join-the-audience-for-may-v-corbyn-10880674
To back you up. https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/865131349493067776
This happened last night as well. I cannot link direct from Eoin’s twitter for some reason. https://twitter.com/medialens/status/865130143756333056
Thanks!
I have a sneaking suspicion that Theresa & Co would like to lose this election, rather than be forced to continue supping from the poisoned Chalice. IMO the parties of opposition to rather too keen to accept her offer of a “snap election”. They should have politely declined and insisted she serve the full term of Office, along the lines of; “you’ve made your bed, so you’d better lie in it” kind of attitude.
soz…were rather too keen
“I have a sneaking suspicion that Theresa & Co would like to lose this election”
____________________
That is your right but it is codswallop.
Well, we shall see on June 9th, whether it’s codswallop or not. IMO this is a good election to lose.
Glad to hear someone else voice this suspicion – thought it was just me.
Well, well.
What with his former protégé Tony Blair having sleepovers with his ex-wife, and the Tories kicking out all his reporters, we might see Murdoch endorsing Corbyn yet…:)
JSD,
It would be a nice thought to have the Murdoch stable of MSM tripe endorse Corbyn, alas ain’t going to happen I’m afraid. However, seems old folk may cotton on to the fact that they are screwed under the Tories with the new ‘proposed’ death taxes, which it seems even many Tory policy groups seem opposed too. Doing voter registration again this morning in South Wales and no politicking allowed today in Wales – strange that!
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, JSD……
At least, little chance of the risk of Corbyn having sleepovers with Murdochs current wife. . . .
By only allowing one biased media to interview government ministers sends out the wrong message. Are they incapable of ‘defending’ their own manifesto? Why should they not be asked the hard questions if they are as terrible as the Prime Minister at being unable to face real people and real questions they should not be holding the positions they are. They are a disgrace and Europe will have a field day walking all over them.
They will regret that decision, imho, depending on Sky’s ability to steer past Ruperts murderous aims in the ME, they could present some devastating two weeks for the Conservatives.
Does that mean Sky will be totally free of Tory election broadcasts? Or will they be replaced with a poster saying ‘ Sky has been banned from reporting the Conservative campaign after asking questions’.
My sincere thanks to the Conservative Party for this double salvo into your pedicured tootsies.
Chairman May, a woman after John McTernans heart…_
A woman? And there was me thinking…no, I suppose robotics haven’t got that far quite yet…
“Chairman May”
…like that.
Mugger Theresa?
Mugger Theresa – brilliant!
Hope Boris Johnson is allowed to be interviewed, that will be a laugh
Nick Robinson “Today” superficially sounded quite hard on Mr. Hunt when questioning him about the proposed changes to funding care for people in their old age. But Hunt always pushed his way to finishing his answering a way that Labour politicians are rarely allowed to. You could hear the incredulity in his voice when being pressed on difficult questons. He really is an unpleasant fellow. I think that Robinson’s well-publicised, cancer problem have made him atypically to the left in his views on health; all the better for that!
Yes, Mr Hunt pushed hard but Mr Robinson pushed back equally hard and, I think, got the better of it. It was certainly made clear that the money to fund the new provisions would not be coming off the proverbial money tree.
Yes, Robinson got in a few digs towards the end that Hunt was offering up “slogans”. I was pleasantly surprised by how rigorously Hunt was challenged in this interview.
I agree. My impression, from the way the BBC news bulletins present the news in general and from the way in which political interviews are conducted on programmes like the Today programme is that the indignation about BBC “partiality” so present on this blog is greatly overstated.
Hunt’s likely for the chop anyway. Which some may say accounts for the slightly harder ride he got.
“My impression, from the way the BBC news bulletins present the news in general and from the way in which political interviews are conducted on programmes like the Today programme is that the indignation about BBC “partiality” so present on this blog is greatly overstated.”
____________________
That is your right but it is codswallop.
As i listened this morning to the interview with Hunt, I was quite shocked at the way in which the conservative proposal pulled no punches in its honesty. It is a form of death tax insomuch as people will be mortgaging their house – in a subtle way – to pay for their health care. I don’t think Robinson could do anything but point out the corollary that the inclusion of the house value was much higher than the new limit proposed. It is a gaping own goal.
It was unusual for the BBC to point out so blatantly the obvious consequence. It didn’t happen the other day when Hammond got his figures wrong.
So yes, there is bias towards the tories on the BBC and it is brought to light when something like this happens.
I think the Tory plan is to put this new dementia tax in place so parasites like Branson and his Virgin Care have legal claim to some peoples’ properties in the same way care homes do. These properties will have to be sold after death to realize the cash, no two ways about it. Cash parasites are not going to be satisfied with part-ownership of numerous houses.
Maybe this is the first step towards the voluntary euthanasia bill. Death Tax vs Death Or Tax.
Totalitarian ‘Teresa May’s Team’?
Well, I heard Nick Robinson interrogating Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt about the Conservatives’ social care proposals on BBC Radio 4 this morning (at about 08h15).
It struck me as a tough interview and yet further proof that all this talk about certain BBC correspondents being cheerleaders for the Conservative Party is just hyperbole from ant-Conservatives.
Before some imbecile attempts to divert by pointingt to the typo : “anti-Conservatives”
Do you think electoral fraud is the way forward, nevermind?
why are you asking someone who witnessed election fraud on a massive scale and reported it to the EC, whether it is ‘the way forward’?
reform of the unfair disproportional electoral system is the only way forward. If given the chance and Independence to sort it out, it would be easy to sort out. fine and ban these cheats.
Hope that helps you voting, you are registered, are you?
Anon!
Are you referring to a recent post from Nevermind, in which he suggested that people should profit from the absence of I/D checks and turn up at polling stations to cast a vote on behalf of other electors whom they know will not go to vote?
I am indeed!
He’s been posting under a different handle (Theresa’s EU pawn) for a while in the hope we’ll forget about it!
I didn’t spot that, Anon1 ! Is that really so? I was under the impression – having once been rebuked for posting briefly under the rather transparent aliases of “Amos” and “O’Neil” – that it was good form to inform readers of a change of moniker?
I twigged only when he started droning on about Norfolk waste incinerators.
“The interview was tame compared to anything asked of Labour during the last year plus and the BBC has disgraced itself absolutely,”
___________________
Well, there you go : our opinions differ. You are convinced that the BBC has it in for Mr Corbyn and I believe that it treats interviewees in a broadly similar fashion.
That’s the virtue of liberal democracy as opposed to totalitarian regimes – we are allowed to disagree and neither of us will be persecuted or done away with for disagreeing.
Don’t you agree?
I realize the Conservatives have no idea about running even a corner-shop, H. But calling them ‘Ants’ is going a bit far. Oh-maybe not. Excellent comparison. Industrious, but totally pointless.
Banning certain journos and aspects of the media? It’s getting more and more like a fascist dictatorship. Still, to ban Murdoch seems like a massive own goal. You can see why the Tories feel safer with Kuenssberg at the BBC; she’s happy to parrot entire lines of their propaganda downloaded from their website and pass it of as impartial political comment and, just last night, she concluded a report on the Tory manifesto citing it as a ‘hardheaded’ statement on ‘getting the job done’, as opposed to ‘a hearts and flowers manifesto’….yeah because wanting to end elderly loneliness, child poverty, homelessness and unfair work capability assessments and reassassments for disabled people is just ‘hearts and flowers’ to be sneered at isn’t it?
Cunliffe
“Banning certain journos and aspects of the media? It’s getting more and more like a fascist dictatorship.”
__________________________
In a totalitarian state (a fascist dictatorship if you will) journalists are agents of the state and are forbidden, inter alia, to deviate from the official line.
In a liberal democracy, journalists are free to write what they like, subject only to the laws of libel and, in some cases, the general line of the newspaper they represent; different newspapers of course have different lines, as is normal in a liberal democracy with a free press. Political parties (because in a liberal democracy, there are political parties as opposed to a single party) are by the same token free to decline to be interviewed or questioned by particular journalists. Liberal democracy does not confer the right for every journalist to insist on being allowed to interview or question in person whichever politician he wants to interview or question.
I recommend some reading on totalitarianism and liberal democracy.
“In a liberal democracy, journalists are free to write what they like, subject only to …”
… their world view matching that of the establishment that pays them.
That’s all you needed to say, Habbs.
indeed Dave
But we’re not just talking about a particular journalist not having the right to question a politician are we? We’re talking about an entire news channel being embargoed
“I recommend some reading on totalitarianism and liberal democracy.”
Better yet read some history. And discover that totalitarianism is a form of liberalism rather than its antithesis. The theory that liberalism and democracy are concomitants is readily disproved by examining the history of imperialism. Fascist ‘Totaliitarianism’ is something that occurs when imperialism returns to the metropole. And imperialism, as British history shows, can co-exist very easily with liberalism.
Nothing was more ‘totalitarian’ than the rule of the imperialists and their colonials over the indigenous peoples (and imported slaves) of the empire. Indeed it is undoubtedly the case that the great ambition of the Nazis was to establish, in Russia, colonies of their own , ruling the natives who survived their arrival and genocidal plans, much as the Americans ruled in their domestic empire and the British ruled in India.
Would it be too paranoid to wonder if this is part of a subtle manipulation of the public’s perception of any supposed relations between the Tory Govt and Murdoch, leading up to a decision regarding Murdoch’s bid to take over Sky? You know, to create this I idea of Govt impartiality, whilst perhaps oiling the cogs of the deal? They have been getting on rather well up until now….
I know what you mean. Surely the Tories are too manipulative to make such a massive own goal? Perhaps this is more of a free pass in disguise?
To evaluate your suggestion, Macca, one would need be know how matters stand, as of today, on the Murdoch bid for Sky. Can you brief readers on that?
….afraid not, and certainly not with a view to getting into justification tennis with you, sorry.
I was just thinking out loud. That’s allowed isn’t it?
It has been noticeable for a long time that any speech by Theresa May ends with “I’ll now take questions….Laura”
The BBC & other media are so bias it’s embarrassing & they are a disgrace to the profession. Thier propaganda is reminiscent to the Nazi propaganda. We really have been dragged back in time by the Conservatives & the media. Most people are seeing through it thanks to the Internet and people like you & Peter Stefanovic. Keep up the good work.
“We really have been dragged back in time by the Conservatives & the media.”
In fairness I think it’s just more visible today because of new media and the resulting push back. Blair, Thatcher? Not to mention 40 years of state and BBC sanctioned paedophiles feasting on children like ruddy vampires. All part of the same problem.
Oh really, agree with me or else! Dreadful evil people with Victorian standards. No sane person of any religion or none,can in all conscience vote for these fascists. They have a leader whose Christian beliefs only go as far as chocolate eggs.
I hope these Fascists get what they deserve from the Other right wing media: a bloody hard time!
Anyone still paying for a tv licence is funding the tory party
Although some say public grillings encourage macho posturing PMQs and aggressive press and public interrogation of party leaders allow voters to test a potential PM’s mettle.
In last election Paxman’s picturing of how Ed would fare if left in a locked room with Putin was one of the factors that made voters see him as lightweight.
Given May is all about strong and stable in a dog fight let’s see her take on some tough live debate, or we can but infer she is flyweight and knows it.
Sky is in a loop at the moment,
They have to demonstrate to Ofcom that they have no bias as part of Murdoch’s “Fair & Balanced” Fox lie can be used for his complete 100% take-over of Sky.
So for now they’ll bend over backwards, including clearing out the stable a Fox News, to give them the Fit and Proper requirement some small credibility.
It’s all spin, Sky will become Fox News UK should Ofcom yield.
Hi Craig,
Keep up the good work!
I recently complained about a Laura Kuenssberg piece about Jeremy Corbyn on a BBC News website (that was taken down shortly after it appeared) Their response suggested that ‘What Laura Kuenssberg is saying is simply that Jeremy Corbyn is sticking to his guns and not watering down his key beliefs.’
So I wrote back saying that they had replied to me saying:
‘As we replied a couple of days ago, rather than scramble to cover up our bias for fear it would be unpopular, the BBC is planning to double down, to outline proudly that its role is to provide our audiences with an impartial analysis of key political developments, based on its knowledge and expert judgment.’
which was paraphrasing the report that Laura Kuenssberg had posted about Jeremy Corbyn:
‘As we reported a couple of weeks ago, rather than scramble to cover up his past views for fear they would be unpopular, Jeremy Corbyn was planning to double down, to outline proudly his views on foreign affairs ‘
Guess what – they denied replying to me in those terms!
The BBC has disgracefully given up its claim to be an independent source of information. Reporters like Laura Kuenssberg no longer pretend to report news but instead see their job as giving opinions, interpreting the news from their own, clearly biased, point of view.