Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#1
"The BBC Trust has ruled that a controversial programme about welfare reforms, written and fronted by the Today presenter John Humphrys, breached its rules on impartiality and accuracy.
The programme The Future of the Welfare State was first broadcast in November 2011 and featured Humphrys going back to his "poor, working-class" birthplace of Splott in the centre of Cardiff...
...Before the programme was broadcast, Humphrys wrote a personal opinion piece in the Daily Mail to publicise his views and the programme. In it he wrote of "the predictable effect of a dependency culture that has grown steadily over the past years. A sense of entitlement...
... in recent weeks, the welfare secretary, Iain Duncan Smith,
who used to preface his remarks on Today about benefits with a positive reference to Humphrys' programme, has become exasperated with an apparent leftwing bias of the corporation. Earlier this month the cabinet minister hit out during a bad-tempered interview with Humphrys on Today over his cap on benefits,
accusing Radio 4's flagship programme of using "politically motivated" people to attack his policies. Duncan Smith had the day before been rapped by the official statistics watchdog for misusing benefits cap numbers...
...Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, said: "These are major issues of public interest deserving of robust debate and challenging media coverage but which, crucially, also require journalists to speak truth to power, rather than speak untruths about the powerless. If they don't, television audiences and the public at large will continue to be denied the debate they deserve.
"This programme, like too many media stories, failed the public by swallowing wholesale the evidence-free myth of a 'dependency culture' in which unemployment and rising benefit spending is the fault of the unemployed.
"As well as telling the truth about the lack of evidence for the 'dependency culture' narrative, media coverage on social security must give due coverage to important matters like the lack of jobs, poverty pay, zero hour contracts, the high costs of childcare, the high cost of housing and the disappointing performance of the Work Programme."..."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/30/bbc-welfare-reforms-impartiality-john-humphrysIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
they get accused of right wing bias by the left and left wing bias by the right which suggests to me that they have got the balance right.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Tom Austin wrote:"The BBC Trust has ruled that a controversial programme about welfare reforms, written and fronted by the Today presenter John Humphrys, breached its rules on impartiality and accuracy.
The programme The Future of the Welfare State was first broadcast in November 2011 and featured Humphrys going back to his "poor, working-class" birthplace of Splott in the centre of Cardiff...
...Before the programme was broadcast, Humphrys wrote a personal opinion piece in the Daily Mail to publicise his views and the programme. In it he wrote of "the predictable effect of a dependency culture that has grown steadily over the past years. A sense of entitlement...
... in recent weeks, the welfare secretary, Iain Duncan Smith,
who used to preface his remarks on Today about benefits with a positive reference to Humphrys' programme, has become exasperated with an apparent leftwing bias of the corporation. Earlier this month the cabinet minister hit out during a bad-tempered interview with Humphrys on Today over his cap on benefits,
accusing Radio 4's flagship programme of using "politically motivated" people to attack his policies. Duncan Smith had the day before been rapped by the official statistics watchdog for misusing benefits cap numbers...
...Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, said: "These are major issues of public interest deserving of robust debate and challenging media coverage but which, crucially, also require journalists to speak truth to power, rather than speak untruths about the powerless. If they don't, television audiences and the public at large will continue to be denied the debate they deserve.
"This programme, like too many media stories, failed the public by swallowing wholesale the evidence-free myth of a 'dependency culture' in which unemployment and rising benefit spending is the fault of the unemployed.
"As well as telling the truth about the lack of evidence for the 'dependency culture' narrative, media coverage on social security must give due coverage to important matters like the lack of jobs, poverty pay, zero hour contracts, the high costs of childcare, the high cost of housing and the disappointing performance of the Work Programme."..."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/30/bbc-welfare-reforms-impartiality-john-humphrys
Tom - you should get a job with Labour as a spin doctor.
Humphrey's documentary was a rare piece of truth and candour from the BBC. This story is actually a prime example of the BBC's inbuilt left wing bias.
The BBC bosses hated Humprey's honesty and what they are really saying to their journalists is don't dare to produce anything that goes against the BBC pro-EU, pro-big government, pro-dependency culture, and generally pro-left line.
This is just another example of why the BBC should lose its exclusive right to licence fee funding.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#4
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#5
The BBC ought to be privatised. Most countries with a State broadcaster also have a Ministry of Information.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Terry Nunn
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,321
#6
As I remember, Brian Redhead was very pro-left.
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#7
Make the licence fee optional and encrypt BBC programmes, we all have so much choice now the fee simply can't be justified.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#8
Tom Austin didn't wrote nuffin.
All I did was to bring to the attention of all the a ruling of the BBC Trust, as reported, and as ever afforded all the opportunity to read the whole thing for themselves.
"Humphrey's documentary was a rare piece of truth and candour from the BBC."
With that statement Barry, you have hit the nail on the very head. For it was adjudged that the programme was more personal opinion from JH than the much admired even handed and fact laden norm;the very signature of Auntie, and that much of what he did say could not be substantiated.
All are free here to push for their own preference, even if that is only for a BBC that agrees with their own view, irrespective of the facts.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#9
Perhaps the fact that the Left perceive a right wing bias while the Right see the opposite is empirical proof that the BBC has, generally, got it about right?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
There is no right wing bias at the Beeb at all. It is a smokescreen from a company that has, in the past, been forced to admit its bias. Remember we are talking a left bias, not a Labour bias or LibDem bias, I not not suggesting a party political bias at all as they would be just as happy with the dripping wet Tory lefties.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#11
They can report what they like as far as I'm concerned, I just bitterly resent having to pay for it.
Its like being forced to buy the Guardian
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#12
#9 closely resembles #2, which is not a terrible thing.
You may be right (again) Barry. Perhaps after all, the BBC stance is not Party Political it is its lack of spin that jars. After all, the little bit of background information within the report was that IDS had recently himself been chided for his 'spinning' facts.
Ah but, how can anything be true if it does not fit one's own view?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#13
The truth is not the issue, we all choose what to believe.
I notice you dodge the issue of the licence fee Tom, why should I pay for something I don't want or need?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
i don't resent paying a licence but do believe that the bbc should be about public service broadcasting and not about having stars being paid massive wages - that is for the commercial channels.
if they cut out sports pundits, soaps and anything to do with celebrity it would bring the licence fee down to about £.30.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#15
#13
"Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?..."
-Should there be a BBC? YES!
-Should such an organisation be free from commercial breaks? YES!
-Should such an organisation be cleared of expensive talking-heads? YES!
-Should the BBC be a beacon of truth in the world? Absolutely.
I am none too happy with the BBC-TV output, and its reputation for innovation has suffered more than its feather-bedding of executives recently.
BUT!
A stringently fact-based beacon, such as the BEEB, is essential. The world would become a much darker place without the BBC, and I am cognisant enough of the fact that the world is under no obligation to match my view all of the time.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#16
Tom still dodges the licence fee
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#17
And around and around we go. Proficiency at circles is a given, but how about triangles?
'argumentum ad hominem'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#18
No Tom, around and around YOU go.
Why should we be coerced into paying for something we don't use or want? Its the equivalent of me filling your car up with petrol.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#19
Well it was an interesting review, and as was required opened up a hornets nest.
The license fee itself for the programmes produced is to high in my opinion, but that may well have to be the case to pay the high earners as was quoted by howard.
The BBC should be able to make such programmes, but with should be able to stand up to the content being debated with such groups as the child poverty group, rather than a one sided right wing view.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#20
Were you, David, that naughty little boy that would not take his medicine?
Sometimes life is more 'need' than 'want'. The same, spurious, argument could be had about NI. The 'Island-man', wants for nothing and is complete unto himself...and he resides in Utopia.
Nobody 'needs' TV cooking shows, but it may well be that through exposure to these programmes that the desire to eat out is kept alive in the general public, to such an extent that Menus and Flyers are in increasing demand...
...guess all the swanky eateries will have to wait for their local Utopian to return to the mainland of Reality.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
