We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A Monday morning rant about the BBC The BBC does not even pretend to be impartial these days. Iain Dale, the blogger for those junkies of Westminster politics, notes that for the second week running, the Andrew Marr Sunday politics show did not have a single guest from the opposition Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties. There may be a suggestion that the broadcaster is going along with the government’s refusal to put on any ministers if their opposite numbers appear on the show.
I happen to think this is, unwittingly of the BBC perhaps, a good thing. By making the bias of that channel so blatant, it advances the BBC closer to the guillotine. At least when Fox News puts “fair and balanced” on its strapline, we know it is having a bit of a snigger.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I think Fox News was found to be the most balanced of all the networks during the 2008 election in the USA. Cheap asides about Fox News are not warranted. Full-frontal attacks on the BBC are, on the other hand.
When did the BBC EVER pretend to be nonpartisan & unbiased?
It still does. go and read any corporate PR blurb about that organisation.
The only reason that FoxNews may not appear to be balanced is in the eye of the beholder.
All their panel discussions include liberals and conservatives, and whenever conservatives like Brit Hume and Charles Krauthammer appear, there are always liberals (Juan Williams and/or Mara Liasson, among others) to balance the thing out.
The four main “talk show” hosts run as follows:
Van Susteren: liberal-leaning centrist
O’Reilly: populist
Beck: populist
Hannity: conservative
Among their show anchors, Geraldo Rivera is a populist/sensationalist, Chris Wallace is left-centrist, and Mike Huckerbee is actually a conservative Southern Democrat (despite his membership of the Republican Party).
The business reporters are, to a man/woman, free marketers and equally scornful of government, liberal or conservative.
What characterizes all the Fox talking heads (except for the known Lefties like Juan Williams and Mara Liasson) is their ability to criticize the Left (and often the Right), regardless of topic. And even those two are not unfailingly supportive of the Democrats.
It’s because all other U.S. media outlets are rabidly liberal, that FoxNews may come off as conservative. Actually, they’re more populist than anything else.
And, of course, FoxNews features more, and more beautiful, female presenters and hosts than any other network. (Evidence here, here and here, just for starters.)
Oh, and every time I want spousal permission to buy a new gun, I just leave BBCNews on the TV for The Mrs. to see.
In 2007, the BBC displayed a poster in its headquarters showing Bush with his arm extended in a wave. In the background, the poster shows Hitler in a Nazi salute. The poster obviously intends to compare Bush to Hitler regardless of the idiocy of the comparison. The BBC can no longer distinguish between the president of a republic who submitted to the requirement of a re-election campaign (and has now submitted to term limitation) and a dictator who never did either. The BBC cannot tell the difference between a dictator who had his political opponents either shot out of hand or imprisoned in concentration camps, and a chief executive who permitted his political opponents to gain a legislative majority. The BBC cannot even tell distinguish a vegetarian from a rancher or a teetotaler from a dried-out alcoholic.
Unlike my British friends, I could watch the BBC World News free of charges since it is broadcast by my local PBS station. I’d rather watch an infomercial for kitchen gadgets. At least a kitchen appliance huckster knows what he’s talking about.
In 2007, the BBC displayed a poster in its headquarters showing Bush with his arm extended in a wave. In the background, the poster shows Hitler in a Nazi salute.
I’m well aware that a leftish attitude is expected as standard of BBC staff, knowing as I do quite a number of BBC staff. However, do you have any actual evidence for that statement, which you are retailing as a fact?
…
It is not just the BBC that is vulnerable to that trick. Because all British broadcast media are required to illustrate political balance, the government can inhibit them from discussing any particular issue simply by failing to put up official spokesmen or making no comment. It is particularly effective when it can be suggested to be party political, where the “balance” rules are at their strictest.
Having manfully resisted the urge to rant on the subject of the BBC, (for the sake of my blood pressure), I’m finally driven to comment by David Cameron.
It seems that fearless Dave has promised to freeze the licence fee this year and ‘review’ it every year thereafter. Wow. That’s telling them Dave.
Perhaps he’s finally beginning to realise that being NuLab lite will not garner him any respect from the beeb, since even on the odd occasions they criticise Gordo, they do it from the far left. They’re more sort of Old Labour – without the pipes and with more women and minorities obviously. And more internationale.
Let’s face it, the BBC know how your life should be lived far better than you ignorant peasants do, and while they are politically neutral, it stands to reason that they should be paid a lot of money for telling the democratically elected politicians exactly how they should be governing the country, and ultimately the world.
So just shut up and keep giving them the money.
so they are actually aware of their own absurdity? I am not so sure
Tanikawa, perhaps you should read Kim’s thoughtful comment above. I think Fox News is run by smart folk, in fact.
Talking of which, thanks for the great photos, Kim! Yum-yum.
Condemning the bbc based on Andrew Marr is like condemning fox news based on the insane rantings of o’reilly.
If you hate the bbc for the license fee and the fact it forces you to pay whether you like what marr says or not, say so. Just attacking what amounts to op-ed fluff pieces is pretty inconsequential.
Personally i’d still take the bbc’s slanted take on certain areas of news (producers, editors and presenters take a bow) over what else is available. Considering Sky News is horrible, ITN is worse and Channel 4 seems to be staffed by rejects from the Socialist Workers Party.
However, do you have any actual evidence for that statement, which you are retailing as a fact?
I suspect that would be Robin Aitken, who, if he didn’t originate the story, at least confirmed it in his book, “Can We Trust The BBC?”
Cited here. (Link)
Of course, Photoshop is a wonderful thing, so the article is worth whatever you think its value is.
There’s an interview on Youtube with Robin Aiken, but no supporting graphics, although he makes the claim.
Although it looks like this (Link) might be the original (commercial) source.
I do not know if you are a regular reader, but I should point out that I, along with other contributors, have frequently attacked the BBC’s licence fee and the underlying business model of this state brocaster. A search in the archives will show this.
I chose to pick on this particular show because the BBC tries to justify its tax partly on the grounds that it is an impartial news service. You seem to want to shrug off this example, but that’s letting them off too lightly. Sorry, no sale, old chap.
I think Sky News is often far better, in fact. Good point on Channel 4, though. There is something about Jon Snow’s sneering, snide delivery that makes me homicidal.
I am not able to watch BBC domestic output, but if their news is worse than Sky it must be truly awful.
I watch Sky every day to try to keep up with UK events and it is almost always unbearably trivial.
Kay Burley and Jeremy Thompson clearly regard themselves as stars.
I do not.
Jeremy Thompson’s phrasing and intonation are awful.
Jeff Randall appears to try to be doing a hard-man act at times.
Adam Boulton is pretty good, I suppose.
Clearly the best journalist/presenter on Sky, and on any British TV channel I have seen, is Tim Marshall.
He most definitely has ‘good explain.’
But his gravitas doesn’t make up for the frivolous and superficial nature of the rest of the channel.
Most of the girls are pretty though.
Lukwesa Burak, Jayne Secker,Jo Wheeler and Anna Botting look good to me.
So,again if BBC is worse than Sky it must be terrible.
Kim Du Toit,thanks for the links to the pretties.
Aitken was my source for the story, as RobtE says. Aitken’s book “Can We Trust the BBC?” made sensational claims against the BBC. One, for instance, that when an assassination plot by the IRA failed to kill Prime Minister Thatcher, he heard a BBC newsman say, “Pity that they missed the bitch.”
What does the BBC say about this scathing book written by a newsman with 25 years at the BBC? Nothing. According to Aitken, no BBC program ever reviewed his book or interviewed him about it. Nor can you find any reference to it on the BBC website. I looked. I suppose they think that, as the BBC, they are above criticism even from people who pay license fees.
Fox News is fair and balanced because they exist in the 24 hour news world where the only other inhabitants are CNN and MSNBC. The cumulative effect is fair and balanced. LOL
Of course the B.B.C. putting on Liberal Democrats on would not help it be “balanced” – as “Liberal Democrat” normally means in Britain (unless one is talking about an “Orange Book” L.D.) exactly the same as it does in the United States – i.e. a leftist.
Sadly many of the Conservative party are not exactly Conservative either – certainly Edmund Burke would have denounced them as spend thrift trash.
As for Fox News:
There has been a change.
In the “old days” there was a lot of this “Fair and Balanced” stuff, but actually I hated it.
Why have Hannity “balanced” with Combes? The show is much better without the endless play fights between the two men. In short the “unbalanced” “Hannity” show is much better than last years “Hannity and Combes”.
As for Brit Hume’s show – when Mr Hume was still in charge of it, he is not now.
I disliked the “American All Stars” bit at the end of the show.
It was and is made up of establisment neocons NOT conservatives – and by establisment leftists.
For example, they were ALL in favour of the bailouts – how “balanced” is that. I thought that “balanced panel discussion” every night was the worst bit of unbalanced comment on Fox News – and I still do.
By the way Glenn Beck is no populist.
He is a conservative with strong libertarian leanings.
And he sums up the new attitude.
When asked to get leftist guests to “balance” his conservative and libertarian guests he should said “no – people who want that can watch another station”.
And he said that live on air.
That is how it should be.
No more “fair and balanced”.
Fox News exists to provide an alternative to the leftist network news (and to the leftist cable stations).
I am a viewer – I watch Fox News every day and pay to do so.
And I HATE it when liberals come on – I often turn off at once. I always do when THE ONE is giving one of his speeches (which Fox News carries).
I do not pay my hard earned money to listen to leftists – I do not want to hear what they have to say If that makes me a bigot, so be it.
I do not want “debates” (which are just an exchange of talking points) I want hard news and examination (which takes time) of ideas.
Fox News must be the voice of the opposition to the Obama regime – because that is what we, the paying customers, demand.
Putting on more leftist Liberal Democrats would harldy be a move in the direction of balance on the B.B.C.
As for Fox News – there has been a move away from “Fair and Balanced” since last year and I WELCOME this move.
If I want to listen to the opinions of Sean Hannity and his friends (which I do) why should I have to listen to Alan Combes and his allies as well? Opinions that I have shouted at me (by the B.B.C. and all other British networks) every day anyway?
The old “Hannity and Combes” was an exchange of talking points. Whereas “Hannity” is a show where a man has the time to explain his opinions and invite on other people he respects.
Bill O’Reilly often has on leftist guests – but what does this achieve? At best nothing much – and at once mutual anger (from which the left will select the bits where Bill is angry and play them endlessly).
O’Reilly is at his best when he is talking to people he actually respects – even if he does not agree with their opinions. Such as when he is debating with his friend John Stossel about the drug laws.
Debating with leftists is a waste of time (at best) – they are enemies (and I do not use the word lightly) so there is always going to be more “heat than light” just a load of talking points and setting traps for each other (in order to get stuff to play on You Tube) it is pointless and silly.
One thing I have always disliked is the “Fox All Stars” a group of neocons NOT conservatives, and moderate leftists who meet at the end of what used to be the Brit Hume show.
They all supported the bailouts – that is what “fair and balanced” means in practice, real consersvatives and libertarians get shut out. If the whole of Fox News was the All Stars I would not pay to have the station.
By the way Glenn Beck is no “populist” he is a conservative with strong libertarian leanings (both more conservative AND more libertarian than Bill O’Reilly is – who is really a Catholic moderate – not conservative, who finds himself in a leftist world he dislikes).
Glenn Beck sumed up the change well.
He was asked to bring on more leftist guests to balance his conservative and libertarian guests – and he refused on air.
“People who want to hear them can watch another station – I do not have the time for play fights, I am trying to explain things”.
He was quite right.
The paying customers (of whom I am one) do not want “fair and balanced”.