I despair sometimes that society as a whole has lost all sense of how a democracy ought to operate. State abuse has become the norm.
I am astonished that there is not greater reaction to the BBC role in Obama’s statement against Scottish independence. It is now confirmed that not only did No. 10 ask Obama to make the statement, they set up the BBC to ask the question that prompted it.
For a state broadcaster, with a legal obligation to neutrality in the referendum campaign, actively to participate in a stunt plainly aimed to boost one side in the campaign is beyond disgraceful. There is obviously a realisation at the BBC that they have done something very wrong indeed – all of the BBC’s own coverage with unprecedented reticence omitted totally the fact that it was the BBC that asked the question.
This ought to be an absolutely huge scandal which leads to resignations at the BBC. Yes, it is not unprecedented for officials to ask a journalist to ask a helpful question. The Tories might well ask the Sun or Telegraph to ask them something. But it is a completely different thing when it is a state broadcaster legally obliged to neutrality and part of a referendum or election campaign.
That the BBC truthful report that there were no WMD’s in Iraq led to forced resignations, while this twisted propaganda interference has no result, is a sign of the collapse of democratic values in society – and the expectation of them.
What astonished me was that Obama said two things. Neither were a surprise. One was that he’d prefer Scotland to. Stay in the UK. The other was that he wanted the UK to stay in the EU. Why this latter statement was almost wholly unreported is beyond me. It’s the BBC and Nick Robinson running with the Tories.
I listened with interst, but ultimately great disappointment, to yesterday’s recording of Any Questions, on BBC radio 4. The bias of the audience was of Ukranian proportions, with a roar of approval for anything pro-Union, and a ripple of polite applause, or even boos, for anti-union statements.
This was particularly true in the question involving Obama, and those who dared to engage in “Obama-denial” got quite a rough ride. One thing I did learn from this programme, however. There is a very strong pro-union theme being directed through twitter. In the interests of democracy, social media ought to be subject to the same controls as public broadcasting at pre-election times.
@ Haward, Remember, Dave wants the UK to stay in Europe, he just wants to change the relationship.
People have reached that dangerous stage where they feel it is pointless to complain, because ‘they are all the same’ and nothing will change.
Depressing sometimes!
Question time is a staged event were propaganda is cemented into the wider public who calls itself politicall engaged.
Nothing will change this, because we have also forgotten on how to unite, reagrdless of our own small/great points and differences.
The BBC is really weak, this is just another show to prove it. Their insecurity over tenure, their set in their way MI controlled news agenda, demands that they suck up to party of the day.
One could think that only a license/ tax boycott can change this.
What off those interlectuals who profess to be democrats at heart, what of the Charter 88 campaign and their demands for a fairer voting system?
Such a referendum should ideally be run by the electoral Commission, not by the politicians it involves and directs.
But the electoral Commission is in the same boat as the BBC, a bloated clique who’s wages are dependent on a franchise from the party of the day.
Tax boycott anyone? we can do what Starbucks does all the time.
> a sign of the collapse of democratic values
No, it’s a sign of democratic values doing their work. Voters don’t care about your legality, neutrality, etc. If they have any rational basis at all for how they vote, it’s usually in the form “what’s in this for me?”. They therefore tend to choose politicians who are most skillful at presentation and flattery, qualities not entirely congruent with probity.
We do live in interesting times. Where will our downward spiral take us next?!
As a genuine question, does the BBC actually have a legal obligation to neutrality in this situation?
As a State Broadcaster, is it not obliged to serve the interests of the State, however broadly defined? The elected government of any State should be the determiner of what the States’s interests actually are, if this determination is left to the unelected we get into the world of Spycatcher.
Surely a State is not obliged to be indifferent to the question of its own future
?
Probity R.I.P. esp. when governments murder citizens they have a duty to protect and national security is used against them to hide truth.
As an example New York has an encapsulated surge of lung cancer, multiple melanomas or ‘Hiroshima’ disease… -kept under wraps??
Where will our downward spiral take us next?!
http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcawine649nae1.tgk4.html
Well, Tim, if that is so why should the public finance a state megaphone that is not operating on voters mandate, but is pursued/obsessed by vested interests?
The BBC is long overdue for a break up, and Lord Coeey is not the right person to achieve such change.
Its past support of criminally insane abusers, their clique employment policies, not to speak of their policies of criminalising those who do not heed their demand for this license tax, all points to the ministry of Truth.
It is doing this nationally and locally, its not that our local stations are un biased. Here in Norfolk the BBC’s Nickolas Conrad, will always come out in favour of his own nest, the local establishment and their interests, he has no crux with challenging the established order or the Tory Mafia.
Nevermind – true, but the State gets taxes for all sorts of things voters disapprove of.
I am interested in the immediate desire people have to label things they disapprove of as “illegal”. As Was said of Napoleon ordering an execution. Worse than a crime it was a mistake. Whether something can be (narrowly) described as legal does not make it OK.
@Nevermind. I’m with you on that one. Tnhe state may well want to protect itself but if it is acting in its own interests and against the peoples’ interests why should they pay it to further subjugate them…
Thanks Tim, you must be as livid as I am over the CoE’s banning its clergy from affilliations to the BNP/National Front, as if it is their remit and desire to influence politics.
The ban, imho, was aimed at UKIP and its supporters, it says, watch out you might be next and it has exchanged a moral high horse for a rather priggish donkey, mind after the revelations of their past picadillos they deserve an ass for a ride.
What I can’t understand is why the Scottish govt or SNP don’t sue the BBC? Is it legally not possible?
Mark, you may be interested in “Voices From The Grave”, a presentation by Wayne Madsen which covers and fleshes out the Carnaby story along with DC Madam, Barbara Palfrey and Phil Marshall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNsh-1p8us8
It is truly outrageous, but I am most happy about it, as it may get people not only involved in stopping Obama’s world governance but also alert them to man-made surprises like earthquakes, tsunamis, and the like to get them to do his bidding.
does the bbc have duty to be impartial according to its charter.?
Nevermind – I am clearly too stupid to get the connection. For the record, the CofE is still the State religion, but seems at least clever enough to have realised that BNP affiliated clergy would be bad for business. I understand that the CPGB was officially atheist, so they should not have faced the problem from the other political direction.
Craig:
“This ought to be an absolutely huge scandal which leads to resignations at the BBC.”
Yes indeed, but the fact that it doesn’t lead to resignations at the BBC is not just a reflection of the values of the BBC and our ‘democracy’ at present. It becomes the baseline from which future judgements are made.
In the future, the BBC can overstep this particular boundary in the knowledge that ….
(a) it has done so before and got off with it.
(b) the public’s expectations of neutrality have been lowered by the previous incident.
This sort of effect is constantly occurring in our ‘democracy’. Every time a politician/corporation/government body/public figure survives the exposure of their wrong-doings, it becomes easier to repeat it in the future. The boundaries of survivable illegality are being constantly rolled outwards.
I wonder if controlled exposure of wrongdoing in some circumstances isn’t a deliberate policy to create a society which increasingly has given up on holding its leaders to account.
Peacewisher
“In the interests of democracy, social media ought to be subject to the same controls as public broadcasting at pre-election times.”
____________________
That, if I may say so, is a remarkably sinister statement.
*******************
I would not wish to live in the kind of world you and various Eminences have in mind.
The press conference (ie where the corporate media stooges were called in turn by Agent Cameron and Obomber in turn to ask pre-arranged questions) was being shown on the Parliament Channel repeatedly yesterday.
Briefings
G7 – Obama and Cameron News Conference
Image for G7 – Obama and Cameron News Conference
Not currently available on BBC iPlayer
Duration: 45 minutes
Recorded coverage of President Obama and prime minister David Cameron holding a joint news conference at the G7 in Brussels, from Thursday 5 June.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047qlr6
and three times more –
BBC Parliament
Sat 7 Jun 2014
22:00
BBC Parliament
BBC Parliament
Sun 8 Jun 2014
01:55
BBC Parliament
BBC Parliament
Sun 8 Jun 2014
05:05
Outrageous.
DISMANTLE THE BBC
Tim
“As a genuine question, does the BBC actually have a legal obligation to neutrality in this situation?
As a State Broadcaster, is it not obliged to serve the interests of the State, however broadly defined? The elected government of any State should be the determiner of what the States’s interests actually are, if this determination is left to the unelected we get into the world of Spycatcher.
Surely a State is not obliged to be indifferent to the question of its own future
?”
_____________________
I was about to make exactly the same point.
Very well said (or asked, if you will).
As a complement : I see the sense in the BBC being even-handed when it comes to elections since the elected govt gets to define the interests of the State (as you correctly note). But this is a referendum not an election, and moreover a referendum the outcome of which will determine the extent of the State in the future. I see no reason, therefore, for either the State not to take a position against independence or for the BBC to follow the line of the State.
I said here yesterday that the Bitter Together crowd are getting desperate. They have abandoned Acanchi/Esler and are now employing Saatchis.
~~
Alex Salmomd was on Marr this morning but I did not watch it. Switched off after a surfeit of Lagarde whom Marr described afterwards as sophisticated and soignée. What a crawler. I think she is rather masculine.
Scottish independence: Alex Salmond dismisses more powers pledges
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27753059
Til
“I am interested in the immediate desire people have to label things they disapprove of as “illegal”.”
______________________-
That observation is also pertinent. The desire you mention merely reflects emotion and is usually based on erroneous readings or interpretations of law.
Wait for the ConDem SPADs to arrive here. Those that have not been sacked recently that is.
Value Plus
“What I can’t understand is why the Scottish govt or SNP don’t sue the BBC? ”
_________________
Sue it for what, exactly?
Tim, you are not stupid at all, just to say that these lines are blurred between the done thing and excesses.
“Whether something can be (narrowly) described as legal does not make it OK”
Tax evasion is technically illegal, but it is OK to do it here, is it not. The COfE might be as pompous to describe itself as the state religion, but that does not mean its ok for them to meddle in politics.
Are we not all gods children? and who will be next on their little list?
The BBC serves them all, there is a clear support for the existing establishment, not the democratic manipulated mandate.
Should it be illegal to pervert the cause of democracy as a public servant? Here is a small local example.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/dismay_in_reydon_over_southwold_s_go_it_alone_plan_1_3633304
Mary on the subject of Mme Lagarde
“I think she is rather masculine.”
______________________
What, I wonder, are we to make of the above remark, which I suppose contains a note of criticism?
Does it mean, for example, that, in general, female leaders and politicians should “look (more) feminine”?
Or is it specific to Mme Lagarde, in the sense that she lacks certain (undefined) “feminine characteristics” and that this supposed lack somehow impairs her in her function and actions?
Or might it even indicate that Mary believes that women (most of whom, by definition, look more feminine than masculine) are better leaders than men?
I suspect that answer there will come none…
_____________________
Habbabkuk against racism, fascism and sexism.
Another post presenting the same old same old as a surprise.
Lawbreaking? LLLOL. Quick, let’s compose a letter from news junkie groundhog day lala land:
Who are the Greens? I thought the BBC had officially established that UKIP should now be regarded as the protest party.
Yes, it should cause a scandal. I would suggest that the reason it doesn’t (or hasn’t) is because this sort of thing has been going on for so long; at least since the Bliar era. People just notice it a bit more when their ideas/opinions/party etc. are on the receiving end of the unfairness. The Beeb are past masters at fobbing off/ignoring complaints even from some relatively big hitters.
It is worth pointing out that Salmond and the S.N.P. have some clout. Not as much as others, perhaps, but more than some poor sod on a council estate or even a local councillor who gets caught with his hand up a fair maid’s blouse or makes an utterance of which the neutral and impartial Beeb disapproves.
Essentially these people have a sense of self-importance and impunity which is jaw-dropping. The sooner the licence fee is canned and they have to go out and find proper jobs the better.
The 6 posts (so far) from Habbabkuk are either interrogatory, diversionary or interjectory.