BBC and Prescott struck by Pollard's double whammy

Stephen Pollard is on the money with a terrific article in today's Daily Mail (also on his blog).

Mr Pollard notes how the BBC has virtually ignored the Prescott story despite the obvious public interest in how the Deputy Prime Minister has behaved.  He records how Jeremy Paxman concluded Wednesday's Newsnight by saying “This being a high minded sort of programme, we haven’t focused on the third government embarrassment today...”  Mr Pollard sees a great deal in the Prescott affair that should worry the nation's broadcaster:

"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."

The article goes on to document some of the BBC's other biases:

"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."

Justin Webb, the BBC's disgraceful North America correspondent, is Pollard's number one target:

"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."

And another Webb outburst from 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?’"

And the blogosphere is supposed to be nuts?  At least blogs don't levy a poll tax on every home in Britain with a TV.

***

PS My favourite Webbism came in October 2004 - ahead of that year's Bush Vs Kerry contest.  On 'From Our Own Correspondent' Webb told listeners:

"That is why the President has held his own and might well win on November the 2nd. Because backing the President is about faith not politics. In politics when the facts change, you are free to change your view, change your strategy, if necessary. In matters of faith, when the facts change you are comforted by the knowledge that the rational world need not touch the engine that drives you forward."

The right is not only unintelligent... it's apparently irrational, too.

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

It's a complete joke...except that it isn't very funny.

Webb is pretty well up there at the top of the heap I guess...although his predecessor Gavin Essler is pretty extraordinary- eg his week of anti-yank reports from LAtin America

[Jack]

Bite silly for his generalisations but I wouldn't get too defensive Editor. America does have huge inequalities which should be addressed so he is right about that. A joke at the right's expense shouldn't be taken too seriously I would suggest,and most unfortunately he is dead right about the issue of religion and the republican movement in the US. We know that the religious vote was probably the major factor in getting Bush elected.And yes Bush can do no wrong because the nutcases which may be as much as 80% of the Republican movement have faith.

So he is a git for generalising but I wouldn't take it to heart.

[johnC]

Another recent disgrace by the BBC was the amount of time they wasted on the Queen's 80th birthday discussing the pointless question of whether she would ever abdicate - to which the answer is and always has been no.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Mr Pollard notes how the BBC has virtually ignored the Prescott story despite the obvious public interest in how the Deputy Prime Minister has behaved."

I think that, in a week when it has been revealed that foreign murderers, rapists and paedophiles have been let loose on the streets of Britain, the BBC has probably concluded that the British public has more important concerns than John Prescott getting his jollies with the office trollop.

[Richard]

"America does have huge inequalities which should be addressed so he is right about that."

That's a subjective point though. The BBC is supposed to be objective. There are some who would argue it's none of the government's business including vast swathes of the American Right. Some would argue that the best way to address deprivation is to reverse government expansion but I can't see the BBC airing this view.

"A joke at the right's expense shouldn't be taken too seriously"

Would they make a joke at the Left's expense?

"I would suggest,and most unfortunately he is dead right about the issue of religion and the republican movement in the US. "

One could also argue that the Democrats are "unfortunately" left-wing and secular.

Generally I haven't tended to notice BBC bias but this strikes me as pretty convincing evidence.

[Richard]

"the BBC has probably concluded that the British public has more important concerns than John Prescott getting his jollies with the office trollop."

Nevertheless it is major news and a serious omission. They could at least highlight the hypocrisy after he criticised Tory sleaze.

[Northern Tory]

"his predecessor Gavin Essler is pretty extraordinary- eg his week of anti-yank reports from LAtin America"

That's precisely right. I remember the one portraying Hugo Chavez - they completely ignored all of the allegations of human rights abuses and his anti-Semitic statements.

[Michael McGowan]

Iraq under Saddam had much greater inqualities that needed to be addressed. Why was it then that the BBC, the Tories' new bedfellows the Lib Dems, and many on the left of the Tory Party were so keen to see the Baath (aka Iraqi Nazi) Party stay in power? I thought these people were supposed to believe in social justice.

[Editor]

The Church of England and the BBC have a lot in common... America's failures are incessantly examined but Darfur etc hardly gets mentioned. In a brilliant recent article for The Observer Nick Cohen wrote: "If you say there must be higher standards for democracies, you inevitably betray the victims of dictatorships by blocking your mind from thinking clearly and shouting loudly about their suffering."

[Patsy Sergeant]

I absolutely, totally agree with Stephen Pollard, although I haven't had time yet to read his full article only your quotes.

It is just another of the areas that make me get so worked up, that friends as in the Michael Winner ad: sometimes say 'calm down dear...its only dear old leftwing auntie Beeb at it again'. But of course I AM PAYING THEIR B..... salaries, or least me and millions of other people in this country.

AND one of the most insidious things which is happening now, and which I don't think many people care about, is that in targeting ever younger audiences on all their channels, they are actually indoctrinating them before the young ones are even aware of it. Of course I realise I shall branded as a reds-under-the bed fanatic, so be it, I stick to my contention, but I do object to having to pay for the privilege as well!!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Something else that might interest posters about the BBC...

Twenty years ago at this time, i.e. when Chernobyl exploded, on one Radio 4 lunchtime news (either on the day itself, or the next day), the BBC interviewed an english student studying in Russia somewhere. They asked him something like, what did he think about the news of Chernobyl, and his reply, which I hae never forgotten, was 'It is a piece of Western propaganda, I mean you CAN'T SEE ANYTHING, so I don't know what they are talking about'. The last few words may have been slightly different, but I can assure that I remember very well him saying the 'you can't see anything'.

Now I e-mailed the BBC the other day about this broadcast, because although, at that time I was a regular listener to BBC Radio, I never heard a follow-up by the BBC interviewing the same young man about his impressions once it became plain how much damage to humans, animals and the environment by the explosion. My reason for e-mailing them, now, is to ask 'did you follow-up this student presumably a young man - so woefully ignorant?', and if not WHY NOT, since in the interests of being UNBIASED, you should have done.

Up till now I haven't heard a dicky bird from them!!!

[Rob G]

The other aspect of the Prescott affair that needs pursuing is the allegation that he took his mistress on his election "battle bus". Does anyone know whether this has been proved or admitted? If it has, I think that involving a Civil Servant in party politics might be a breech of the ministerial code.

[Edward]

I've said this over at Stephen's place but I'll say it again here. He is spot on with his general critique of the corporation but in this instance I really don't care what Prezza gets up to between the ministerial sheets. I think the BBC did the right thing. The other two stories are genuine scandals of government maladministration and will affect a great proportion of the British people. So long as Prescott hasn't been genuinely abusing his position - and I don't think a quick one in a flat you're living in counts as that - then I'd rather focus on the complete balls-up that is the OPDM (not to mention the NHS and the Home Office).

[Esbonio]

I am with Patsy and Michael on this and cannot agree with Jack and his comments about Republicans. The BBC should have been flogged of years ago when the Tories were in power.

[Ted]

Is this high minded Newsnight related in any way to a programme with an identical name which c-operated with a partisan newspaper to "expose" Cameron's "hypocrisy" on Green issues?

So apparently exposing the real hypocrisy of a man, known according to the Sun as a serial adulterer, who spent years wallowing with obvious joy in similar exposures of the opposition is too low minded for Newsnight. Prescott can't throw stones then retreat to his glasshouse and expect to be safe.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Quite Ted!!!!

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Then there are the typical human rights arguments (which incidentally you never hear from Liberty or Amnesty International, since they have a sense of proportion about such things) about how America/Israel/Britain are the Great Satans as regards human rights. You never hear a peep out of them about China, Russia (still), North Korea, Zimbabwe, the list is depressingly long. Still, since these contries aren't as friendly and open as the USA they aren't bothered by hacks like Webb who like their creature comforts.

[William]

Eisenhower had his driver. Major had Currie. Prescott has his secretary. Human nature never changes. Leave Prescott alone for god's sake. It's his private business.

The Conservative's troubles come from within. We are allowing other parties to represent the views of the majority of electors so we lose support. It's not rocket science.

Caramel might be happy that the media love him, but voters don't. Voters decide elections, not the media (bar a little postal fraud here and there). If you ignore the views of voters, you lose.

Prescott's not the first. He won't be the last. The BBC's a puppet - we all knew that already. Next.

[a-Tracy]

Whether the BBC did the 'right thing' or not isn't the issue is it. It's are they treating this unfortunately regular sort of issue in political life fairly? Did Boris Johnson's shinanegans get a disdainful mention by the BBC or not(and that wasn't even with one of the staff)?

[David Sergeant]

It has been obvious for years that the BBC is biased. As a public funded organisation its staff know with which party their best interests lie. Lets just have it in the open so any viewer will take BBC political broadcasts at a discount.

Another reason is that, since Norman Fowler, no Tories have seriously tried to put right wing Conservative party views. Party leaders just seem to run away when issues get raised. Would John Major have tried yesterday's defence of his position by Blair and if he had wouldn't many objections come from the Conservative party.

[a-tracy]

A point to consider for any office Lotharios out there, getting involved with other members of staff nowadays is a big no NO.

If the relationship turns sour (which they often do if you're just a bit on the side) the aggrieved party could make a case for sexual harassment and in Mr Prescott's case (as he's a public servant) no doubt the taxpayer would have to foot the bill to settle out of court. So in a case it's not just a simple extra-marital affair is it?

[Annabel Herriott]

They always think they are not going be caught out, dont they. Interesting how animal lust blinds the senses. Now HE will be hung out to dry, and SHE will have to give her long suffering boy friend his 6k ring back. I will quite miss the massacre-ing of the english language though, it tended to sharpen up your own grammar when you wondered what on the old booby was on about!

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Here are some paragraphs that appeared on BBC online news shortly after Cameron was elected leader (via EU Referendum blog)

"Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph where he is a senior executive, said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money".

"To describe Cameron's approach to corporate PR as unhelpful and evasive overstates by a widish margin the clarity and plain-speaking that he brought to the job of being Michael Green's mouthpiece," wrote the ex-BBC business editor.

"In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative, which probably makes him perfectly suited for the role he now seeks: the next Tony Blair," Mr Randall wrote.

Sun business editor Ian King, recalling the same era, described Mr Cameron as a "poisonous, slippery individual".

IMHO the impartiality of the BBC regarding the Tories is affected by the fear of being privatised should they be returned to power.
Indeed I have heard a radio presenter, working for a commercial company and formerly employed by the BBC, make the claim that his immediate superior advised him to vote Labour because of that fear of losing their jobs.

IDS set up a committee to enquire into the organisation and functioning of the BBC and, if I remember correctly, had a complaint upheld against the BBC for lack of impartiality whilst reporting local elections. I can't remember what happened to IDS after that (I think he is still in politics). A certain Mr Crick, a sometime reporter and sometimes engaged at the BBC, highlighted allegations against IDS which were investigate and declared unfounded. As I say, I cannot remember what happened to IDS, I am sure someone knows (I came eventually to quite like him)?

I removed television from my home a few years ago. I do not regard the BBC as impartial and I will not voluntarily fund it, unfortunately that means that I cannot watch any television. Biased - bbc is an interesting blog with links.

[malcolm]

Don'tmakemelaugh.You make me laugh.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Don'tmakemelaugh.You make me laugh.

Posted by: malcolm | April 29, 2006 at 18:05

Hi Malcolm! I am pleased to find that you are amused, but let's face it you do not have to have much of a sense of humour to laugh at the present politico scene. Much of it resembles an old Whitehall Farce (probably before your time)including the obligatory running around trouserless.

I must admit I was a bit grumpy a little while back when Cam held his first press conference after being made leader (wait for it, wait for it - that is n't the punchline).
I became grumpy because I believed that Nick Robinson the political head editor of our impartial BBC was somewhat cynical (would you believe that now) when questioning Cam as to his programme for the Conservative Party. My sense of humour deserted me momentarily and I sent our Nick a complaining email. The questions (more like accusations) seemed to follow the same BBC formula used against Michael Howard when he was made leader at his first press meeting. Indeed, I remember Mr Howard thanking (sarcastically) the BBC reporter for his few kind words and for reminding him that "he was something of the night" (it brought a great laugh). Nothing much changes at the Beeb.
Well, Malc I hope the above adds to you amusement and let us hope that we are still all laughing after the next General Election. Yours impartially,