One of the reasons we have been posting less frequently on this website is that others are doing our job for us, often rather better than we can. On a number of our favourite issues – global warming, the Family Court system and social service abuse of it and so on – the mainstream media have swung sharply to our point of view. Well, not the Guardian, obviously, but you'd hardly expect it to, would you?
Here is Rod Liddle writing in the Sunday Times about another of the bees in our grumpy bonnet, the deeply biased and Guardianista propagandist BBC ...
The BBC has been accused of endemic political bias again – this time by one of its own executives in a study it commissioned itself. As a consequence, it has commended itself for its brilliance, honesty and impartiality. Times change, but the BBC never does.
Helen Boaden was the executive, a former head of news, now in charge of radio. Of course, Boaden was speaking in the past tense: the BBC “had a seep liberal bias on immigration”, she told the former ITV chief Stuart Prebble's inquiry. Back in 2004 it was biased, she reckoned.
This is the thing with BBC executives – they always admit to bias in the past and stoutly deny that it still happens. The last-but-one-director-general (if you're keeping count), Mark Thompson, said the same sort of thing – the BBC has been biased against those who wished Britain not to join the euro, but not any more. Tell me: how many BBC documentaries have you seen in the last nine years that have been mildly critical of our immigration policies and the problems these have occasioned the indigenous population? That'll be a nice round number, then.
The BBC today is even more politically correct than it was in the days to which Boaden referred. Do you think, or example, that UKIP gets a fair crack of the whip? The party is featured less often than in 2007. Its politicians are interviewed as if they were xenophobic loons who've arrived her via teleporter from 1952.
What about the BBC's coverage of the wonderful Arab spring? Short of wearing beards and shouting “Allahu akbar”, could its reports have been more partisan? The jihadists had to shoot an awful lot of Christians and eat the occasional soldier before the reporters stopped calling it a jubilant Arab spring.
Prebble concluded that the BBC had shown bias on immigration and our membership of the European Union, and advised that the corporation's producers should “challenge their own assumptions” - a stern injunction, as you'll agree. I can see them now, sitting around a table, challenging their assumptions.
The point is that they do not think of it as liberal bias. They think of it as niceness and decency; lovely, middle-class people who think the world should be like it is in Balamory. The equations are laughably simplistic: Assad and Mubarak and Gadaffi were absolutely horrid – so we should be on the side of those fighting them. Immigrants are absolutely terrific people who've had a really rotten time of it, so we should give them all support.
You will hear this naivety on pretty much every BBC news channel. Someone from a charity or pressure group will be interviewed, demanding that the government do something. Usually it's a demand to spend more money. They will be treated as if they were unchallengeable arbiters of truth and the minister who is resisting the demand is a heartless fascist.
Someone did a study, many years ago, of the BBC's approach to charities and pressure groups and concluded that if the government acceded to every demand, we would need the GDP of five USAs. I would pay double my licence fee to hear some pious, whining and self-interested third-sector panjandrum given a good kicking by John Humphreys or Justin Webb. But it tends not to happen, doesn't it?
Anyway, David Liddiment, a member of the BBC Trust, greeted the Prebble report by saying that he was delighted the corporation had been sort of exonerated. So, Mr.Prebble – that was £175,000 of licence payers' money well spent, then. Huh?
The GOS says: Seems an odd thing, doesn't it, to complain about liberal propaganda? But it's a real problem, and the reason is that propaganda from that particular sector of the political spectrum is deeply insidious. When Nick Griffin or Len McCluskey try to win us over, we don't have any trouble resisting, do we, because we know they're self-interested polemicists?
But the BBC, now ... you can't help believing everything Kate Humble or David Attenborough tell you about global warming, mass species extinctions, the destruction of the ice-caps and the heat death of the universe because ... well, it must be true, mustn't it ... they're so nice?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2013 The GOS