I'm just watching Newsnight and I have a little quiz for you. The following two political stories were covered. One story got headline treatment and was given three times as much attention as the other. Which story do you think the ever-so-neutral Mr Michael Crick got his teeth into?
(Story 1) An unknown Tory official in Bradford who - quite disgracefully - described a Labour councillor as a "cripple" in an email - for which he has apologised.
(Story 2) Ruth Turner - the Downing Street gatekeeper to the Prime Minister - who was arrested this morning over cash for honours allegations and on suspicion of perverting the course of justice.
You couldn't make it up.
Lunchtime update on Monday 22nd January: Guido receives a reply from Newsnight on the affair.
I agree
But where was the Ruth Turner on here today Ed?
Posted by: HF | January 19, 2007 at 23:09
Also agree! And the email was sent last September? Talk about old news and an opportunity to knock the new Northern Group.
Posted by: Perdix | January 19, 2007 at 23:16
I was up at Oxford with Crick and he was a Labour attack dog there. Newsnight is the most biased news programme on TV. When we get back into power we have to Berlusconi the BBC.
Posted by: Opinicus | January 19, 2007 at 23:18
I couldn't believe it. What relevence does Cameron's father in laws property portfolio have to do with the new Northern group? Only goes to reinforce my dislike of the BBC.
Also what's all this about having a Ruth Turner thread. It's a long running Labour problem. I don't see why Conservative Home need cover the ongoing investigation. It's not as if any of us will have anything to add.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | January 19, 2007 at 23:23
Couldn't agree more - yet there are many visiting ConservativeHome who, not seeing the damage the BBC does to the Conservative party, will readily defend the anachronistic Licence fee system. And of course the Beeb has a ready, uncritical champion in Hugo Swire. I don't think he has the wit to understand the problem.
Float off the BBC - let them sink or swim. Let them try to live off their wits - that'll mean slim pickings for most of them.
Posted by: John Coles | January 19, 2007 at 23:40
Which story do you think the ever-so-neutral Mr Michael Crick got his teeth into? Story 1) An unknown Tory official in Bradford who - quite disgracefully - described a Labour councillor as a "cripple" in an email - for which he has apologised.
Having watched Newsnight there couldn't be a more obvious bias. It was clearly designed to pour s--t on the Conservative Party in that area and elsewhere.
I have long regarded the BBC as Blair's ( or any other left-wing) Broadcasting Control. Tonight's broadcast has confirmed my worst fears.
Posted by: Cllr Keith Standring | January 19, 2007 at 23:59
Will the Tories be complaining? They should kick up a fuss and make an issue out of this. The clearer it becomes to the public that the BBC is biased, the more easy it will be for us to push the case for reform.
Posted by: Richard | January 20, 2007 at 00:12
Here is the link if you haven't already seen it: link
You're right, it was a complete disgrace, including the constant subtle and overt references to Mr Cameron's upbringing.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | January 20, 2007 at 00:33
"While I abhor the behaviour of the councillor involved, it is utterly unbelievable that newsnight went with this headline!
It is interesting to note that they choose a story more in keeping with the headline in a local newspaper instead of going with the biggest scoop yet in the Cash for Honours investigation.
The only time I have ever complained about a tv programme was would you believe Newsnight. It was in regards to their hatchet job on Michael Howard in the 05' GE and also a story they ran on Iraq the week before.
I disagree with Andrew Woodman regarding having a thread about the Ruth Turner story, it should have warranted a thread and allowed some discussion because of the implications to the Labour party. They are after all the government and we are the opposition, and sometimes it would make a change to discuss that fact.
Posted by: Scotty | January 20, 2007 at 01:23
Can I recommended that anyone who is as annoyed about this as I am takes the time to register an official complaint with the BBC. I realise that they will likely ignore them, but if we don't complain, we give a free pass to lazy, biased journalism in future because "there weren't many complaints last time". The BBC complaints website is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.
Posted by: Prentiz | January 20, 2007 at 01:49
The BBc 'have your say" section has plenty of opportunites to talk about BB but nothing on teh biggest story of the day. They are bent and getting worse
Posted by: Steve | January 20, 2007 at 03:15
Prentiz, I have taken your advice and complained and I hope that other posters do the same.
Posted by: Scotty | January 20, 2007 at 04:18
I have just made my complaint. Fat lot of good it'll do, but oh well.
Posted by: J-Green | January 20, 2007 at 06:39
HF: "But where was the Ruth Turner on here today Ed?"
Rightly or wrongly HF this part of the ConservativeHome site focuses on Tory news or how the Tories are reacting to other news. All important Labour news stories tend to get a link on the front page but I try and be disciplined in not making the scope of ConservativeHome too broad.
Posted by: Editor | January 20, 2007 at 07:26
I 100% agree. The Newsnight reporting was a travesty of 'Public Service broadcasting. I am not one of David Cameron's greatest fans but I squirmed with disbelief at the mismatch of stories. The vox pops with 'passing' Yorkshire folk were obviously staged. As someone who used to bang on doors in Leeds North East for Kieth Joseph, I know there is support there for the right message. As regards Ruth Turner, even Jon Snow on Channel 4 News gave cheerleader Puttnam a hard time. Please let us all complain - even Raymond Snoddy must have been embarassed !!
Posted by: RodS | January 20, 2007 at 07:27
So the BBC is dominated by Marxists? What's new?
Listening to the car radio during the day I noticed how Brown is suddenly being "bigged up" and humanised by R4. Something then occurred to me which should be worrying for the Tories.
The BBC doesn't always give Labour positive coverage but that's only because they hate Blair since Iraq. Once Brown is PM I'm guessing they will go all out for a Labour victory.
Posted by: Ian | January 20, 2007 at 09:03
There should be an extenal body to the BBC which audits them for impartiality with real teeth to effect change.
And do complain to the BBC and when they reply if you are not satisfied with the answer insist that it is referred up to the Editorial Complaints Unit.
Posted by: John Marsh | January 20, 2007 at 09:04
"Float off the BBC - let them sink or swim. Let them try to live off their wits - that'll mean slim pickings for most of them" - couldn't more agree!
The brass neck of some people here who criticise the BEEB for attacking the Conservative Party...
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | January 20, 2007 at 11:13
Why does Justin Hinchcliffe (or NewChad as I like to think of him) spend so much time attacking other conservatives on this site?
Posted by: John Wilkinson | January 20, 2007 at 12:08
I've never been SO insulting - please don't tell me to get out more! Chad Noble indeed!
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | January 20, 2007 at 12:32
*insulted
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | January 20, 2007 at 12:33
I'm looking forward to the day when the Justin Hinchcliffes of this world depart in droves from my Conservative Party.
They've done it before.
Most of us have absolutely nothing in common with these far-left PC parasites, so why should we pretend that we do?
Posted by: Ian | January 20, 2007 at 12:42
What planet are you on Hinchcliffe? You're taking myopia to a new dimension.
Posted by: Praguetory | January 20, 2007 at 13:12
I'm trying to work out whether Justin is making an ironic comment. I would think it is by anyone else but going on his past form, he could well mean it.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | January 20, 2007 at 13:38
This point struck me too! unbelievable choice from the BBC..I presume the CCHQ will be having a few words with Barron (the editor)
Posted by: FR | January 20, 2007 at 14:42
Is it not about time we all pulled together to attack the BBc - a common enemy
Posted by: Michael Cooper | January 20, 2007 at 16:18
*YOUR* Conservative Party, Ian?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | January 20, 2007 at 16:20
"register an offical complaint"? I have complained before about bias coverage and requested that I have a reply, as they give you the option on their online complaint form. Did I get a reply? What do you think ....
Posted by: Colin Hughes | January 20, 2007 at 16:41
According to This is Bradford, the e-mail was sent by the husband of a Bradford Tory councillor - so not even a Tory official!
My complaint is in too.
Posted by: Valedictoryan | January 20, 2007 at 17:19
I complained immediately. As well as Newsnight, I mentioned news coverage, website coverage and Nick Robinson's disgraceful article on the arrest titled "A Range Of Possibilities".
Posted by: Praguetory | January 21, 2007 at 06:37
I did not know John Hawkesworth had not been identified as sending that Email last September to Kris Hopkins - what is peculiar is that someone forwarded last week - 6 months later to the subject of the Email.
Strange place really - but good to know Newsnight is getting into local matters. Maybe they could cover the ordinary business of the Council so people know what is going on ?
Jonathan - Crick is ex-MGS and was at New College as I recall. Certainly he is a bit odd nowadays
Posted by: TomTom | January 21, 2007 at 09:56
>>Nick Robinson's disgraceful article on the arrest titled "A Range Of Possibilities<<
Is Nick Robinson still a leading member of the TRG? Seems these guys can't even be relied upon to stick by their own.
Posted by: Mark McCartney | January 21, 2007 at 10:16
Typical far-left wing bias from BBC Newsnight, where all their reporters and presenters are elitists toffs. Its ethical man (or ethical asshole which I like to call him) is the main reason why the government are increasing our taxes because of "climate change." Justin the donkey, is such a hyporcite; hes trying to brainwash us the viewer into not taking flight travel while at the same time, him and his family have taken trips to the Carribean while he's performing his so-called ethical duties.
Posted by: Ismail | January 21, 2007 at 23:17
BBC shgould be covered by the Civil Service Code and direct employees forbidden from being party political or engaging in party political activities
Posted by: TomTom | January 22, 2007 at 12:28
Ismail, it's fair to attack the BBC for biased editorial decisions, but ad hominem attacks on individual reporters are unhelpful and counterproductive.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 22, 2007 at 12:57
The thing for the BBC is to Berlusconi it. We should not be cross about the bias but just accept that it is normal for governments to control national media and explain that when we are back in power all the biased journalists, editors and producers will be replaced with one's baised for us. That should concentrate a few minds. In the meantime we should be gathering evidence to support a purge.
Posted by: Opinicus | January 22, 2007 at 14:32
But jonathan surely the Labour Party will still be better than us at the rigging game since they have the longstanding inbuilt 'not one tory in the BBC' advantage. Best to scrap the BBC, that would really damage trostskiist
socialism (aka new labour). If we coupled it with stopping the civil service from advertising exclusively in the guardian, and we cull the top of the civil service of lefties, we could do a good job.
Incidentally scrapping the BBC would have to involve scrapping BBCWorld TV and Radio, otherwise they would be used to rebuild the BBC by labour after they get back into power. All the knowhow would have been retained. A pity, but necessary. Scrap it I say, and let the market give us news like it does in the US!
We may as well talk about scrapping it openly by the way, the BBC can't punish the conservative party any more than it does already!
Posted by: congaconga | January 22, 2007 at 17:43
Text of my letter to the Editorial Complaints Unit at the BBC today
Newsnight [T2007012000GKS010Z2018070]
Dear Mr Dunlop
I have read your reply to my complaint about Newsnight above and I am not satisfied by the explanation offered and would like to take my complaint further.
The Editor’s explanation that this was a misjudgement is an understatement. If it were not that Newsnight, of all the BBC news programmes, has, what the Police call, “previous”, I might be disposed to accept it. But Newsnight has presenters with very close links to the Scottish Labour party and must be as Caesar’s wife. If the Editor put on the first item about the Conservative activist then he either did it deliberately and is biased and should be disciplined or he did it as a misjudgement and shows a serious lack of insight into the political effects of his scheduling and should be sacked for incompetence. In my opinion, there can be little doubt that this running order was chosen to minimise the political effect of a Labour arrest by suggesting that all the Parties are as bad as one another. Personally, I do not think that a four month old email from the wife of a local conservative activist making a bad taste joke about the leader of their council would be considered front page news by any other working journalist. It requires a very large suspension of belief or bias to see this as morally equivalent with the Prime Minister’s right hand being arrested for perverting the course of Justice. Can the Editor confirm that the decision to run with Crick’s story was made after or before the news of the arrest was made? (Crick is or was a Labour party member and former Chairman of his University Labour Club.) If it is indeed after, then I submit that the running order must have been politically biased as no professional journalist would be so blind as to miss the political implications of that running order and juxtaposition.
I would point out that Guido Fawkes maintains a popular and well-known political blog for people with Libertarian and Conservative political views. To smear him as a conspiracy theorist and by implication anyone who has also complained in the same terms, as the editor does, is a laughably bad defence and is very possibly actionable at law.
yours etc
Posted by: Opinicus | January 23, 2007 at 16:34