The BBC squirms

Fran

Well said Sir. There's an interesting slant on BBC 'impartiality' from Irene Lancaster, now in Haifa, Israel, and no stranger to BBC studios herself. She reports that "one of the better BBC producers," contacted her in the wake of the recent NUJ boycott of Israel, and said "that he really appreciated his time in Jerusalem and generally enjoys being in Israel." http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/the-national-un.html Unfortunately, Irene continues "The tragedy is that I cannot publish his name on this blog." Now, I wonder why that might be?

Chris Goodman

You can always turn over and watch another broadcaster instead. Oh wait a minute. Due to the unique way it is funded, you still have to pay for them. BBC employees passionately believe in redistributing wealth to themselves as a reward for telling us what to think. What a contemptible relic of the socialist ‘new society’.

Ross

I haven't bought a TV license since the twentieth century. As long as you remember that the inspectors have no right to enter your home and that detector vans don't actually detect anything, it is a pretty easy fee to opt out of paying.

Richard Havers

Be careful what you wish for. An imperfect BBC will be a lot better than a ratings grabbing commercial station. Don't get me wrong, I still think there's a lot wrong with the Corporation, I'm just fearful of what might happen.

Chris Goodman

Presumably Richard you approve of the idea that a State newspaper delivered to every door in order to counter ‘ratings grabbing’ free market. I went to a State funded ‘community college’ most of the teachers of which made no secret of their political sympathies (one teacher [and he was no exception] explicitly instructed us to vote Labour) I went to a State funded university whose lecturers were so politically bigoted they made my comprehensive school look open minded. I would return home to watch a State funded BBC (in the name of balance you understand) assiduously explore every conceivable variation of the puerile reflections of Hampstead Leftists while excluding or demonising disapproved. The BBC is contractually obliged in “old fashioned” programmes like Question Time to have a “Tory” on the panel, but all the journalist comments and “expert” testimony in all the rest of its output [BBC News and Current Affairs, which they genuinely seem to think is some sort of jewel in the crown of the nation] is relentless in its Leftist idiocy. Even the television audiences of Question Time [despite being “scientifically” selected] are so absurdly weighted to the Left that they positively foamed at the mouth in joy when the Twin Towers were attacked in the USA, a view which bore no relation to the general view of the nation. Now it is true that most of the Penguin books I used to educate myself with (it turns out) written by Stalinists, but by ignoring the council subsidised “Independent” bookshop) and buying books from the ‘ratings grabbing’ free market I was also able to buy books which opened up perspectives other than the State approved socialism that State funded institutions fed me all my life. Although the market orientated Channel Four news is biased to the Left, there have been occasions where I have watched programmes on Channel Four which have deviated from the usual socialist think - it is unthinkable for example that David Starkey would ever have been commissioned by the BBC to write a constitutional history of England. I even remember once watching a programme on Channel Four that speculated that the Battle of Waterloo was about two visions of Europe – and that the Napoleonic vision that Wellington defeated had triumphed once again in Europe with the active consent of the British establishment. Again this is not something the BBC would ever broadcast. Now I know I am meant to accept all of this, just as I am supposed to be grateful (for example the truly pathetic service supplied by NHS General Practitioners in my area) and not think (indeed not be allowed to think) that it would be better if I could spend my own money on professionals whom I respect (to carry on with the example of healthcare on those doctors for whom I have some respect) than have it taken from me and have wasted on services that have little interest in customer satisfaction. To return to the newspaper example, with which I began, I have no desire to fund The Guardian or Independent newspaper. I have absolutely no objection people spending their hard earned cash on such newspapers if that is their wish (unlike the Left who hate the concept of a free press with a passion - notice how the outrage that The Sun exists disappeared overnight once it supported New Labour) just as I have no objection to people spending their money on a State health service or a State education system if that is what they want to do, but I persist in the conviction that I would like, thank you very much, to make my own decisions about what newspaper I would like to read. Like most people I would be happy to put money into a charitable fund which helps those who cannot afford vital services, but I see no reason why the money so raised should feed the maw of a self-serving Leftist establishment (of which the BBC is a central prop) which have not only bloated like parasites since 1945 but who poison their host with their sanctimonious nihilism. P.S. I apologise for the rant!

Larry Weber

For three years in the 1960's I enjoyed living in Cornwall. I grumbled about a six pound BBC license fee, but then I came home to the states and the commercials became increasing obnoxious and long. Would that we had a license fee in the US vice those terrible commercials. Question for the BBC: Since the public must contribute a license fee, is it not incombent upon the producers to air progarms that cover both political sides of ths issue, conservative and progressive (socialist)? L.K.Weber

Jeremy Jacobs

Stephen, why not start a campaign to end the licence fee?

ben findlay

"The BBC gets lots of public money. It doesn't have to grub around in the market place.." This is a statement of fact. Whatever you already know about Mr. Humphrey's views, surely you can see you are being lazy and specious in reading "profit is nasty, and tax funding is the only moral form of income." into that quote. I think you have a nasty habit of reading the worst intent into quotations. Lighten up a bit! It'll force you into making better arguments for your case.

Joshua

What Pollard is primarily ticked off about is that the BBC is virulently anti-Israel. In that he is correct. He is mistaken though in believing that this would be remedied if the BBC lost all or part of the enormous public funding that comes its way every year. One only has to look at the "anti-Zionist" prejudices of the vast majority of the journalists in Britain to see that. The problem is that Britain is a virulently anti-Semitic nation (it managed to disguise that fact for decades because of its role in the war; the reality was that she collaborated in the Holocaust at exactly the same time she fought the Nazis). It is because she is a virulently anti-Semitic nation that she is the leading centre for both hatred of Jews and also Israel in Europe. It really is that simple. There is only one real remedy, at least for the Jews of Britain, and that is for them to up sticks and head for less hostile pastures. And things have gone so far in Britain that I would even include nations like France and Belgium in those less hostile pastures. Then again, if Britain had been invaded in 1940, Jews would also have had a much greater chance of survival in France and Belgium.

AcidDrip

Chris goodman thanks for your rant.. it makes sense and rants are good if you don't rant at the wife I find! As for the original point about the BBC attitude to profit .. well it just reflects the jealousy that most people feel towards those who make profit not wages.. wake up and start a business if you think it is so easy is what I say!

Martin Morgan

BBC's Nick Assinder on "anti-war" George Galloway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6902635.stm I always thought he was pro-war, just rooting for the other side. What a loveable rogue, eh?

Robert Wilson

Posted by: Joshua | Monday, July 16, 2007 at 9:53AM The above post is troublesome rubbish: Churchill was a Zionist. The sooner you upsticks the better. Your fellow Jews are most welcome in Britain (we could do with more of them), but they can do without your self pitying stupid nonsense. There are some moronic anti-semetic thickies here - they do not need your help, so grow up.

Dennis Sharpe

I agree with a lot of the criticism of the BBC but cannot see a commercial organisation putting on such a varied programme at the Proms

ben findlay

Come on Stephen you lazy arse! What do you think this is - a summer holiday camp?

Fabio P.Barbieri

Robert Wilson, Joshua is a detestable troll who has battened on Stephen's blog since long before Stephen came to The Spectator. Don't feed him. As for the BBC: I loathe it too. The trouble is that the alternative is Robber Murder. Classic case of having your choice of the devil and the deep blue sea.

Eric R.

Joshua is no troll. He is a truth-teller. It's just that most Brits cannot handle the truth. Well, he's right. Britain is a virulently anti-Semitic nation, and most Brits long for a Judenrein state, just as it was from 1290 to 1656.

Jeff

The iraqi dinar is a new and evolving currency. It's unstable situation in Iraq now, but we still have a hope.