Today fails again to be a voice for its Conservative listeners

Jim Naughtie didn't quite say 'yes please!' when David Cameron asked if he could talk to a grateful and waiting nation about his plans for a National School Leaver programme but it was a very soft ball interview on this morning's Today programme.

David Cameron gave one of his polished performances - defining his 'modern compassionate conservatism' as about trusting people and sharing responsibility.

My guess is that Mr Naughtie - infamous for letting his Labour leanings slip ahead of the last General Election - would have given a Labour leader a much harder time if he/she was abandoning socialist positions for the centre ground.  Mr Naughtie would instinctively know the concerns of the left-wing activist and would have been able to articulate them.  He failed to quiz Mr Cameron from the right this morning...

• There was no tough questioning on the role of a device like the patients' passport in encouraging state providers to improve their level of service.
• There was no 'how can Britain compete against low tax Central Europe if it doesn't cut taxes?' probe.
• And there certainly wasn't a 'Iraq needs more UK troops to guarantee its transition to democracy.  How can you possibly suggest you and the LibDems are on the same page?' question.

Today and the BBC will never go beyond red corner questioning if it doesn't recruit many more conservative members of staff.  It may need an 'A-List' of its own if it is to be a truly public service broadcaster - injecting right-wing and left-wing ideas into the national conversation.

Comments

[Chris Palmer]

"Today and the BBC will never go beyond red corner questioning if it doesn't recruit many more conservative members of staff. It may need an 'A-List' of its own if it is to be a truly public service broadcaster - injecting right-wing and left-wing ideas into the national conversation."

Those at the top in the BBC don't want this to happen though. If they did, it would happened already - that's obvious. No, those in power in the BBC are quite happy for it to maintain its Liberal Left status.

[James Hellyer]

"defining his 'modern compassionate conservatism' as about trusting people..."

Other than the teachers he wants to tell how to teach, the school leaves he wants to empress, the retailers he wants to stop offering chocolatey bargains...

[Selsdon Man]

You will never change the institutional socialism of the BBC - it is, by its nature, a statist organisation. We should abolish it and auction off its stations.

[Alexander Drake]

Sorry Ed, that won't happen while it's a public sector broadcaster. Don't expect anything else but a left-of-centre worldview from the BBC.

I'd love to see a Cameron government play some REAL guerilla politics, and flog off BBC1 and Five Live. Get some US-style 'shock jocks' on instead of Nicky Campbell and watch the pendulum keep swinging in the big-R Right direction...

[Selsdon Man]

A brand suggestion for Cameron's youth conscription plan - Chav and Dave Conservatism!

[Geoff]

Alexander - yes, true, though we don't want to do it with the obvious intention of making the media swing in a certain direction - even if we may prefer it.
News broadcasting should be neutral and fair, which it obviously isn't at the moment; so as Selsdon Man says correctly: abolish the BBC and sell the frequencies.

You'll get lefty and right-ist broadcasters queuing up to tout their views, and the public can decide what to watch. Better that than the hideous £126 tv-tax for channels I can't stand to watch anyway.

[Hmmmmm]

Could someone please explain to me how a compulsory youth programme is related to smaller government?

I am starting to think that Macmillan and Heath got overexcited in early 1966 and managed to breed....

[Dontmakemelaugh]

I was listening to BBC 5 yesterday, at about 4pm, informing us of Cameron's new position on his (policy?) thinking on the NHS and abandoning his former support for the financial aid to those wishing to go private (I believe he is wrong). The BBC quickly engaged the services of an academic to inform us that Cameron and Blair were wrong. According to the academic Cameron's policy would enfeeble the NHS and put more money into the pockets of commercial companies and their shareholders. I cannot understand the thinking behind such a claim.
The academic had the floor to herself and no other person of different views was produce to counter her claims. Her claims were again heard on the news bulleting.
For more examples of our "Impartial" BBC log on to biased- bbc.
Abolish the TV License.

[Alexander Drake]

You're a fairer man than me, Geoff - I'm not particularly interested in 'fair and balanced' news - unless Fox News becomes the inspiration for Fiona Bruce and Huw Edwards.

Let the lefties make do with Jon Snow - they're into 'niche' reporting anyway.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I am intrigued that after all the accusations of BBC bias against the Conservative Party, contributors here now appear to be criticising a BBC journalist for being too soft on our own leader...

[James Hellyer]

What? By uncritically accepting non-right centre positions he's espoused?

[Graham Wild]

Sounds like a post-modern national service to me to install discipline, respect and responsibility which New Labour has seemed to make people forget about... great idea!

[John Hustings]

"I am intrigued that after all the accusations of BBC bias against the Conservative Party"

The more pertinent bias is a liberal/left one. The BBC is not party-affiliated. It frequently excoriates the Labour government; it just does so from the left.

[Guido Fawkes]

Am confused here - admittedly it is after a long lunch - BBC gives Tory leader too easy a time and is biased.

If the Beeb had given the Tory leader a hard time, what would the charge be?

[Editor]

It's not too difficult Mr Fawkes.

The point is that the Today programme prides itself on holding politicians to account but it always does so from the liberal/ left side of the spectrum.

Cameron is getting plenty of right wing accountability from the likes of The Sun, Telegraph and blogosphere (your blog excepted!) but the BBC isn't scrutinising him in a balanced way.

Some of us have (for a long time) been less concerned about the BBC's party political bias - more concerned at its ideological etc biases.

Even when it has attacked Labour (on subjects like Iraq) it is from the left - thereby helping to fashion a way of thinking hostile to conservative/ small govt/ Eurosceptic/ traditionalist etc ideas.

[Esbonio]

Well said, Editor.

I also waited in expectation of a soft interview. My view was confirmed once the interview was underway and it almost sent me to sleep as I walked my dogs.

[Derek]

Jim Naughtie attended a fringe meeting at the Party conference, after which he remained and chatted to a number of us about the question of media bias. The point he made was that whatever happens in an interview he is often criticised by both the left and the right, either for what he did ask or what he failed to ask. In his defence I must also point out that he has a time limit on an interview and so could not possibly cover every angle.

Having just listened to the interview I thought it was an interesting piece, and DC came over very well, even though he was asked to explain his apparent u-turn on a number of issues since the election. That he did so in a convincing way is a tribute to his undoubted skill as an interviewee, which has been clear since the Paxman interview back in November.

[Mike]

The suspicion has to be that Mr. Cameron knew darn well he'd get an easy ride on the BBC with this policy. Moreover, no one has said this here, but I think one really has to wonder whether that is the main reason why he espouses policies of this sort in the first place.

Bloggers in the U.S. sometimes refer contemptuously to the "MSM" (mainstream media) - usually with the implication that it is slow-moving, monolithic, dull, and frequently inaccurate and lazy. There is certainly justification for levelling those sorts of charges at the BBC. But, unfortunately, public opinion over here is shaped by the BBC and its unacknowledged biases, because its method of funding enables it to get a foot in everyone's door.

The fact of the matter is no one knows if Cameron has any genuine beliefs at all about anything. But it certainly looks as if he wants to pander to the left-liberal establishment - of which the BBC is a prime example - so that he is not demonized in front of the public by them.

[malcolm]

I don't normally defend the BBC, find its anti Americanism,left/Liberal domestic views and biased reporting of Isreal particularly infuriating but I would hate to see it privatised.Outside politics it is by far the best TV and radio broadcaster we have in this country. The pap that makes up the schedules of ITV and Sky is surely testament to that.
Having lived in both Canada and the USA I can assure you the TV there is generally far far worse and because even the half decent TV needs to be paid for it is more expensive for the viewer.
Fox news and the 'shock jocks' I can do without!

[Tom Greeves]

Wise words Malcolm.

There can be no excuse for a licence fee in the modern age, and indeed the whole concept of public service broadcasting is patronising nonsense.

But the BBC is still a great institution. Its services should now be paid for from a mixture of advertising and subscription.

But let's not let the rot that has been rightly identified in this thread cause us to just give up and smash the BBC. That would be folly.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Well anybody concerned about left-leaning sympathies at the BBC should have seen Nick Robinson's scathing report about Charles Kennedy just now on BBC News. Oaten and Opik are both backing him in the forthcoming leadership election.

[Richard]

I find Cameron's "national service" scheme to sound disturbingly Prussian. This country once used to pride itself on its traditions of liberty, including the fact that people weren't compelled to carry out national service. That, we used to believe, was something authoritarian Continental European regimes did.

[Burkean]

I remarked elsewhere that someone in the Cameron campaign had been watching the Francis Urquhart trilogy a little too intently. Now it seems they've cottoned on to FU's big idea to win himself re-election during the King crisis - national service! Good Lord.

[William Norton]

One thing we can all agree on - as compassionate conservatives - is that it is our duty to rally round Charles Kennedy in his hour of need. Log your support here:

http://www.webpetitions.com/cgi-bin/print_petition.cgi?99500307

[James Maskell]

LOL! I think the most compassionate thing we can do is put him out of his misery by not signing the petition.

[kim ll sungs puzzled and depressed grandson]

BBC one day right, one day left. Really depends on the editor of the day. Rod Liddle was editor of Today once. BBC needs to be accountable, but we are exceptionally lucky to have them and the idea of shock jocks as some wally suggested earlier - eugh - as Paris Hilton would say. BBC equals soft power around the world and that gives us a massive advantage over everyone. Cameron is a liberal conservative, BBC is a liberal institution, United Kingdom is a liberal country.

Thank God for that!

[John Hustings]

"BBC one day right, one day left. "

Err. No. The BBC can be relied upon to stay left.

[Wat Tyler]

Ed's comment about the BBC's ideological bias is spot on. DC's cuddle from Naughty is a measure of how far leftwards we've already moved.

A couple of months ago I heard Ed Vaizy say that the BB "had reached the tipping point" and it made me hope that a DC government might actually move on privatisation, partial at least.

Unfortunately, one month in, I now think there's no chance of that. the telly tax and the rafts of BBC drivel will remain.

[john Skinner]

Cameron charm = positive coverage = converts = votes = victory at the next general election = chance to introduce radical policies. Whats your problem?

[Rob Read]

I want to be trusted with my own body.

i want out of the beurocratic treatment rationing disaster that is the NHS.

Cameron is Blair v2.

[Alexander Drake]

Come on Mr Greeves! I value the role that the BBC plays in public life - but why should the BBC run channels that would be commercially viable, i.e. BBC1 and Five Live? It just perpetuates this big, lefty organisation that does our party no favours without any reason to stay in touch with the punters. Keep BBC2 for the edgier shows, by all means, to fulfil its public service broadcasting remit, and Radio 4. But any channel that runs "Fame Academy" should NOT be funded directly by the punters.

Mike is right - the BBC's awesome size and power means its worldview heavily influences how the electorate develops its worldview and politics. So long as that remains the case, we lose out.

[ELEANOR GAY FINN]

I'm probably being naive, but would it not be a good idea for the BBC to have to advertise it's situations vacant in a more varied selection of newspapers ? The Guardian seems to be the main benefactor of this advertising revenue - likewise local authority advertising: both funded by the tax payer.

[kim ll sungs puzzled and depressed grandson]

It doesnt just advertise in the Guardian, it just so happens that the Guardian has the largest media section.

I think if there were more Conservatives interested in going into the media, maybe there would be more right wing press advertising etc etc tail wags dog perhaps?

[Tom Greeves]

I'm opposed to people being compelled to pay for the Beeb, Drakey.

But I think smashing the corporation up would be a mistake.

Sure, you can't justify funding Fame Academy with a licence fee. But it and others are good shows - let's just give people the chance to opt out. Then the Beeb will have to cut its cloth - and some of it staff - accordingly.

ALL news is biased by the way. Even deciding that the news should be reported is a political decision - and it's a hardly a proposition that meets with universal consent - just ask the North Koreans!