« Thanks Gordon – you brought the Conservatives together | Main | AUTUMN ELECTION IS OFF »


As well as highlighting the contrasting treatment given to himself and Mr Cable, It's a good point Mr Redwood makes in his article about Ming Campbell being presented as soem sort of wise 'elder statesman' prior to his becoming Lib Dem leader.

But in general, there is nothing new in talk of left-leaning bias on the part of the BBC. It's been going on for years, and for as long as the Beeb only puts job adverts in the Guardian it will no doubt continue.

In the light of all this, I for one am not surprised that John Humphreys gave Clinton an easy ride. Disappointed, but not surprised.

Conservatives should boycott the BBC. No Conservative MPs should agree to appear on any BBC TV programme or radio show; no BBC journalist should be allowed to attend any Conservative conference or press conference.

Only when the Brown Broadcasting Corporation gives us equal coverage with their NuLab paymasters should we end the boycott.

Yes, it's totally unacceptable and so very noticeable during the Blackpool conference.

Is there any mechanism for censure, as it would undoubtedly sully the reputation of the BBC worldwide as a source of unimpeachable news reporting?

Before anyone else goes [sic] it is John Humphries. Know your enemy as they say.

The BBC are chiefly in the entertainment business, which attracts hedonists/liberals (call them what you will) and people who are more concerned about image than practicalities. Moreover, as a state-funded entity, they tend to be instinctively in favour of schemes involving the spending of public money by the government. The BBC is institutionally biased, and in its present form it could never be anything else. Whether it is possible to have an unbiased news source is in any case a point of contention. The BBC's "neutrality" tends to put them on the same ground as the Liberal Democrats, because the Lib Dems occupy a sort of neutral centre ground between the opposing forces of socialism and conservatism (in theory).

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservatives politicians do not go on the offensive with the BBC.
Confronting individual BBC presenters with their bias on live radio and TV is the only way to address it - be they Johno Humphries or the "Chairman" of Question Time.

When the Conservatives do come back to power high on their list of things to do should be inflicting severe punishment on the BBC for years of blatant left wing bias. Boycotting the BBC whilst in opposition is unwise whilst the BBC has such a dominant position in the media. Weakening that position whilst in government is the better option. Cutting the license fee drastically will force a massive staff cut, getting rid of many of the lefties that are currently employed there. Further to this a Conservative govt should insist on the BBC diversifying its recruitment activities and cutting out the nepotism that sees many sons and daughters of employees being employed there. Compulsory impartiality courses for all staff should be introduced and where intentional editorail bias can be proved against an employee dismissal should be mandatory. On top of all this a terrestrial TV broadcast license should be awarded to a right of centre broadcaster.

I agree with Stewart McGregor's suggestions at 16.43.
For the time being though, what does the Beeb's charter say about impartiality where news and information is concerned? If it is to present a balanced view, then it is clearly frequently in breach and the tories should collect some flagrant examples (perhaps John Redwood might be tasked with this job?) and make a formal complaint to the governors.

IRJMilne, no all they have to do is follow Conservative policy of choice, and apply it to public service broacasting.

We have several private sector media companies, so why not have choice in the public sector? What rule is there to say we should only have one public service broadcaster who is in the receipt of the viewers poll tax? Why not create a second public service broadcaster, and let people decide from which they purchase their licence fee? This would bring in competition and choice to public service broadcasting, forcing the strictures of the market on the BBC, making the feather bedded BBC employees have to compete for their living, which should make them more responsive to their licence fee customers, rather than people to preach their left wing politics to, and so might just force a change of political thinking with them..

Last week, News 24 had Chris Leslie on to review the press coverage of the Osbourne speech. He made numerous critical points as he examined the press. Chris who? The Beeb did not mention that he was the ex Labour MP for Shipley, an ex Blairite Minister and would be Labour MP for Hull East.

The Cameron speech on Wednesday was preceeded by an interview with Peter Kellner. Again the Beeb failed to mention that his wife is a Cabinet Minister.


I think its disgusting the way the BBC engages in character assasination whenever they deal with John Redwood. They seem to single John out for rough treatment much in the way that Norman Tebbit was so often unfairly maligned. The BBC should be grateful to John Redwood because whenever John is on a show we the public get a proper politican engaging in proper debate. All credit to John Redwood.

Iain - there isn't any purpose in a public sector broadcaster in that method. Part of the problem is that there is no widespread agreement on what the BBC is for. As a public sector service, it is usually, however, agreed that it should be "impartial". I suspect that this is impossible. I sometimes wonder if it would be helped if the BBC were to be slimmed down, and become a) cheaper and b) more factual, information based. More facts, less opinion, let the public think for itself. Cold facts are cheaper than entertainment. This would make it easier to justify a licence fee poll tax. One might start by axing a few unnecessary channels (a television channel for under 5's?) and notably biased and entirely unnecessary parts of the BBC website such as its "Magazine".

I suggest thev editor starts a list of times the BBC has deliberately manipulated clips to put Tories in a bad light. I could produce about 6 imediately. However, why has it not occured to anyone to think that the BBC's treatment of the Queen was not "mistaken". It was deliberate?

The BBC is subsidised by the licence fee as everybody knows. Perhaps some types of government might EXPECT that the corp: would be 'grateful' (through its reporters) because of this. However can anybody remember the BBC being in any way favourable towards Mrs. Thatcher, John Major, or indeed any recent Conservative Prime Minister. The answer to that is NO.

One has to draw the conclusion that socialist dogma and a socialist government does not tolerate opposition, as kinnock said, 'lets annihilate/crush the Tories - the opposition'. I wonder how much extra Andrew Neill was paid to announce - twice on This Week on Thursday, that the 'Tories are 10points behind in the opinion polls', when in fact that figure was already out of date. Well the corpulent Scot is out of date now!

So it probably is time that the BBC no longer gets a subsidy from the public, and has to compete in the 'market place' like other TV stations.

This is typical of the BBC. Perhaps Conservative spokesmen need to be more combative in interviews and challenge the sort of bias John Redwood points to (I note you introduced me as right-wing Eurosceptic, so why not introduce others such as Mr Cable when you interview them as a EU-enthusiast and left-winger?), but a boycott would be a mistake.

Compare with the treatment of the Bill Clinton R4 Today interview. I didn't listen to it (had better things to do), but the 'plug' for it on R4 after the midnight news the night before said Bill Clinton would be talking about Hillary's presidential hopes. Then in the report of the interview on the 9am news after it, the excerpt that the BBC chose to broadcast was of Clinton saying what a great PM Mr Brown will prove to be. So it seems the BBC wants Hillary to win the US presidency, and works for Gordon Brown.

IRJMilne’s point (1611) that “the BBC are chiefly in the entertainment business, which attracts hedonists/liberals” is interesting one, and may explain a bit their institutional bias against conservative values.

Having said this, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the difficult time the BBC (I can’t recall but think the interviewer was John Humphrys) gave to the Govt minister who was trying to defend Mr Brown’s Iraq visit and spin about sending troops home. Mr Humphrys gave him a rough time on the announcement being at the same time as our conference and breaking of Mr Brown’s promise to make announcements in Parliament. It is good to acknowledge it when the BBC does something counter to its usual bias.

Before Being Corrupt (BBC); Amaze the Media and vote already online about the EU.

Vote YES to Free Europe Constitution at www.FreeEurope.info!

The BBC is presently referring to

"the very common misconception that, somehow, educational excellence is something that can only be achieved by financial and academic selection"

in it main news item in its Education News section. It really does make one think that privatisation might be the way forward.

Everything about the BBC revolts me: coarse accents, vulgar programmes, and persistent all pervasive left wing bias. This is especially the case on BBC4 which pours out a stream of "cultural commentary" predicated on Marxist assumptions. Any notion of free standing artistic excellence is treated with suspicion, if treated at all. When art is discussed it is viewed as a "product" of its time. For this reason we get endless stuff and nonsense about third raters like Bram Stoker or Conan Doyle and nothing on the really great. Anyone for Homer? Dickens? Gustave Flaubert? In one way, I am relieved that such writers are not subjected to the tin-eared judgement of BBC pinkos, but the point is about the intellectual source of the corporation's output. It is exclusively leftist. Who, for example, advises them on history? Classical Liberal Niall Fergusson? Or deterministic Richard Overy? No prizes for guessing. As for their education policy - for the BBC certainly has one - it is a left as left can be. Notice the way they elide "financial" with "academic" selection to suggest they are one and the same. How can we fail to remark that they are openly campaigning against selection? Of course, now they have the same excuse that Labour itself is using: all the front benches are opposed to selection so there is no bias. The folly of the tory modernisers haunts us still.

A lot of valid analysis, but most of it partisan winging, and some rather dangerous non solutions.

I find it frustrating aswell - one of the reasons we took a knock over the summer was the BBC reported the government much more favourably, almost a love in.

In 2003 they fell out very badly with Blair, and a secondary issue was that from about 2005 even they got a bit bored with us doing badly and there not being a contest.

But for all that, I don't want an American style junk set of programs with adverts. The BBC does have many good people working for it aswell, funds specialist programs, and is highly respected abroad. We should look at ways of putting more independent monitoring in, but a vindictive we'll do to them what they did to us is not the way forward.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker