FACTS FOR THE MEMORY....
>> Sunday, April 18, 2010
Here is an interesting exchange you should read....
On 7th April on the TODAY programme, champing
at the bit to link David Cameron to Richard Nixon for his use of the phrase
‘the great ignored’, M/s Berg falsely claimed that Richard Nixon coined the
phrase “The silent majority”.
The phrase 'the silent majority' was
actually coined by De Gaulle's Prime Minister Pompidou after De Gaulle called
parliamentary elections in 1968 and saw his party achieve the first absolute
majority in the history of the French Republic (clearly not something the BBC would wish to link David Cameron with).
The compiler of our B-BBC digest
Graeme sent a complaint to the BBC
8th April and copied it to the Conservative Party. He received a reply
15th April from BBC Complaints
Correspondent Liam Boyle which compounded falsehood upon falsehood.
See
Graeme's response below:
Dear Mr Boyle,
Thank you for your email.
Firstly, I note that when I submitted
my complaint via your website no reference number was generated or automated
email acknowledgement sent. This is very bad practice for dealing with
complaints and is an indication of the bad faith in which an endemically biased
BBC acts.
What, in my view, starkly
characterises the bad faith of today's BBC
and its contempt for democratic values is your following direct
falsehood:
Sanchia Berg's report
for the 'Today' programme on April 7th did not claim
that President Nixon coined the phrase the "silent majority"
that President Nixon coined the phrase the "silent majority"
Sanchia Berg's exact words
once more: "Over 40 years ago Richard Nixon
coined a new phrase 'the silent majority' ... "
I transcribed these
words carefully from the recording you carried on your website. Of
course, you only carry these recordings for 7 days. I wonder if it is a
coincidence that you only respond to my complaint with this direct falsehood
after this recording has been removed?
Fortunately, the recording still comes
up under a search (see below) and I was able to confirm the 100% accuracy of my
transcription. As someone who adheres to the democratic standards the
Gramscian BBC has such contempt
for, I do not use the word "lie" to describe your direct falsehood as
I do not have the incontrovertible proof necessary that it
was intentional. However, on the basis of the systematic bias of the
BBC over the years I have every
reason to believe it was.
Mr Boyle, you're dealing with someone
who as a Tribunite member of the Labour Party in 1979 thought the only real
bias at the BBC was towards the
left and was against it as it was bad for democracy. I am absolutely
certain that Mr Cameron does not have the moral bottom to deal with the threat
the Gramscian BBC poses. I'm
sure you can continue to pursue your subversive ends with such patent
falsehoods with impunity till the Gramscian left has finally brought down
British democracy, which I'm sure it will. What you will
never escape though is that there will always be people like
me willing to remind you what your moral choice in life says about
you as a human being.
God bless,
Graeme...
21 comments:
I used to post before you introduced the practice of signing in. I have often been tempted to do so since, in order to counter some of the nonsense posted on this site by contributors.
This could have been an interesting exchange but we do not see the original complaint and we do not see the response.
<span></span>
<span>An automated acknowledgement is generated. He should check his junk mail. (I will refrain from accusing him of lying here!)</span>
<span></span>
<span>The suggestion the complain was answered after the recording was no longer available (even though it is) fairly typical of the paranoia of some internet types. </span>
<span></span>
<span>As for the insinuation of lying, this would be more of said paranoia and internet forum type behaviour.</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
<span>The basis of the complaint, that is that this was some 'subversive' attempt to link David Cameron with Richard Nixon, what with Nixon being a bad guy, again is ludicrous. I would encourage you to listen to the report. Anyone who thinks it was saying 'David Cameron is like Nixon, therefore both are bad guys' didnt either listen or understand the report. I would give Today listeners a bit more credit. There were a range of voices heard, some complimentary of Cameron. It even includes one woman's comment about the influx of immigrants. Something the BBC would NEVER broadcast according to some.</span>
<span></span>
<span></span><span></span>
<span>Here is what Wikipedia (lazy I know) says about the phrase 'the silent majority':</span>
<span></span>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority
<span></span>
<span>De Gaulle may have invented the phrase, but that is really not the point. </span>
<span>I hope its not necessary to go into further explanation.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Having said that, the reference to 'coin' a phrase suggests he invented it and it seems he did not. I don't see any further conspiracy involved however.</span>
<span></span>
<span></span>
This is a rant not a complaint. It's worded to guarantee that it will never be answered. The BBC's complaint system is convoluted enough enough without giving excuses to ignore complaints.
There are two complaints here. One is a factual error. The second is that the reader will infer from the factual error a connection between a 'disgraced' former politiician and a current politician where none exists.
The rest just obscures these two legitimate complaints.
Most complaints are rants. But that is not a reaosn not to answer them and its not a reason the BBC uses. If you request a reply through the website you should get one. Unless you are abusive or they've stopped replying because you sent the same complaint hundreds of times.
Not sure what's convoluted about it, seems straight forward, its all explained on its website, handily called bbc.co.uk/complaints.
Unfortunatley, suggesting that its a legitamate complaint about the 'connection between a 'disgraced' former politiician and a current politician where none exists' suggests you didn't listen or understand. Pity.
Erik said "<span>De Gaulle may have invented the phrase, but that is really not the point."</span>
Actually mate...THAT is the point! It was invented, coined, said first by, never before heard before...this event in French politics YET the BBC very deliberately is trying to link Cameron to Nixon because as everyone knows, Nixon was evil.
So, if people believe Nixon was "evil" and the BBC can link Cameron to him then people will not vote for Cameron because they will believe he is exactly the same as Nixon.
On a related note, I was watching the BBC show the other night talking about Presidential debates in the states and was taken by the reference to the Tory PM back in the 60's who was "eton educated".
Not quite sure what relevance the PM's educational background had on the program (given that he probably went to Eaten maybe 40-50 years BEFORE becoming PM...but the link is very clear. Toff's run the tories, working classes run labour.
Mailman
Mr Morales, I'm glad you've taken the trouble to register, as bothersome as I know it is. Let me quote your closing remark:
"<span>De Gaulle may have invented the phrase, but that is really not the point. </span>"
Let's be clear here: Sanchia Berg falsely claimed Richard Nixon coined the phrase 'the silent majority' and Liam Boyle falsely claimed she didn't, and you say that falsehood upon falsehood at the BBC doesn't matter? For those of us who put democracy first Mr Morales, it does matter.
Had this original false claim come from BBC journalists who value their professional integrity like Robin Lusting or Andrew Neill I would have consdidered it an honest mistake and not worth making a fuss about, but M/s Berg is part of the BBC's rolling 'vote Labour' campaign.
Here is another example of M/s Berg's desire to denigrate Mr Camerson with the following gratuitous comments while asking a question about his National Citizen Service proposal:
<span>"It would come in if David Cameron won the election, if the Conservatives were in power, and then it's going to be somebody, you know, from an extremely privileged background, whose own community service was volunteering when he was at Eton to help old people in Windsor. Do you think that will put people off, or do you think they will just focus on the idea and what it will mean for them?" </span>
<span></span>
<span>http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/too-posh-for-sanchia.html</span>
<span></span>
Her bias is more covert than her colleague James 'if we win the election' Naughtie or John 'the job of the TODAY programme is to set an agenda' Humphrys, she tries to manage a 'look, no hands' subtlety to her bias, but to anyone honest and politically literate it's there to see and makes her unfit, like many of her colleagues at the BBC, to be employed by it.
Here's a link to her trip down memory lane on the 5th anniversary of the TODAY programme's anti-Iraq War activism [Con't/...]
<span><span>"fairly typical of the paranoia of some internet types" hmm so your point is everone on this site is a </span></span><span><span>conspiracy</span></span><span><span> </span></span><span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span><span><span> type ,and you think this site is a </span></span><span><span>conspiracy</span></span><span><span> against </span></span><span><span></span></span><span><span>the bbc? bit paranoid aren't you?.</span></span>
But the fact is Today did use the ref to Nixons<span> “The silent majority” when </span>Cameron said <span>‘the great ignored’,</span> not the same so why make the conection to Nixon not <span>Pompidou ?
</span>
[Con't/...]
<p><span><span><span>You’ll note that she doesn’t so much interview but reminisces with Clare Short and Lindsey German as the fellow anti-war activists that they are (and you’ll note that she doesn’t inform viewers that ‘Stop the War Coalition’ Convener Lindsey German was on the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party – the </span><span>BBC</span><span> never do mention that) and has a critical interview with José MarÃa Aznar.</span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span> </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/countdowntowar.shtml</span></span>
</p><p><span><span> </span></span>
</p><p><span><span><span>As I’m sure you can appreciate Mr Morales, we didn’t include the whole of Mr Boyle’s letter for reasons of space, we included what was germane and it was entirely in context.<span> </span>However, judge for yourself below.<span> </span>On B-</span><span>BBC</span><span>, we’ve got nothing to hide (you’ll notice that neither is there a reference no in his reply):</span></span></span></p>
[Con't/...]
<p><span><span><span>You’ll note that she doesn’t so much interview but reminisces with Clare Short and Lindsey German as the fellow anti-war activists that they are (and you’ll note that she doesn’t inform viewers that ‘Stop the War Coalition’ Convener Lindsey German was on the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party – the </span><span>BBC</span><span> never do mention that) and has a critical interview with José MarÃa Aznar.</span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span> </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/countdowntowar.shtml</span></span>
</p><p><span><span> </span></span>
</p><p><span><span><span>As I’m sure you can appreciate Mr Morales, we didn’t include the whole of Mr Boyle’s letter for reasons of space, we included what was germane and it was entirely in context.<span> </span>However, judge for yourself below.<span> </span>On B-</span><span>BBC</span><span>, we’ve got nothing to hide (you’ll notice that neither is there a reference no in his reply):</span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span> </span></span>
<span>Dear Mr Thompson
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Today' as broadcast on 7 April.
I understand you felt Sanchia Berg's report showed bias against David
Cameron and the Conservative Party.
Sanchia Berg's report for the 'Today' programme on April 7th did not claim
that President Nixon coined the phrase the "silent majority" but alluded to
the fact that he popularized the expression - indeed he went on to win a
landslide victory in 1972. This following was the cue for the report in
question:
"Conservative leader David Cameron yesterday said he was fighting to
improve the lives of 'the great ignored' - the hard-working, tax-paying,
law-abiding majority. [Con't/...]</span></p>
[Con't/...]
<p><span>Similar language was used during the Nixon era in the </span><span>US</span><span>, when the powerful
idea of "the silent majority" became the prominent phrase.
Reporter Sanchia Berg investigates who make up the 'great ignored'."
The reason for referring to President Nixon was not to associate David
Cameron with "a reviled politician" but because President Nixon had brought
the expression to public prominence. There were echoes in David Cameron's
speech the previous day with speeches made by President Nixon. The report
alluded to the historical context and then explored in more depth what
David Cameron might mean.
'Today's' report focussed on what David Cameron meant by the phrase the
"great ignored". Sanchia Berg went to Folkestone - a Conservative
stronghold - and her interviews with local people about their understanding
of the expression included at least one interviewee who spoke approvingly
of it and of his intention to vote Conservative.
We are committed to honest, unbiased reporting and are determined to remain
free from influence by outside parties, whether political or lobbyists.
Impartiality forms the cornerstone of </span><span>BBC</span><span> News and Current Affairs and we
have nothing to gain by weighting our coverage in political terms or by
allowing influence from any other outside body. [Con't/...]</span></p>
[Con't/...] <span><span>I acknowledge you may continue to feel differently about this report and I
can assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This
is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all
programme makers and commissioning executives within the </span><span>BBC</span></span><span>, and also
their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other
comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the </span><span>BBC</span><span>.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Liam Boyle
</span><span>BBC</span><span> Complaints</span>
<p><span></span><span><span> </span></span>
</p><p><span><span><span>Graeme Thompson</span></span></span></p>
deegee, I informed the BBC that I was making my complaint against them to the Conservative Party and merely sending them a copy for logging purposes as I have no confidence in the professional integrity of the BBC to investigate complaints. Nevertheless, and maybe because they knew I'd sent the complaint to the Conservative Party, I got the reply I did, that says a lot about the BBC and its relationship with the truth. My follow-up isn't a complaint either, its an expression of my contempt for the BBC's wilful disregard for its duty to impartiality.
If, as somone who I know feels the BBC is strongly biased, you still have faith in the BBC to deal objectively with complaints, then good on you, but as far as I'm concerned the only thing that will restore impartiality to the BBC is something on the lines of a Parliamentary BBC Standards Commissioner with draconian powers to hire and fire.
Erik, let's see if I can help you out here. Sanchia Berg linked Cameron's use of the phrase 'the great ignored' with Nixon's use of the phrase 'the Silent Majority' on the basis that Nixon coined that phrase and he didn't. Mr Boyle falsely claimed she didn't do that and she did. Fair-minded people might take this as an indication that facts dont matter to the BBC but promoting an agenda does. Now elsewhere on this thread you've been given a wider indication of M/s Berg's desire to denigrate David Cameron and of her partisan reporting in general. Would you like to explain why it would be unfair to believe that M/s Berg got her facts wrong due to her keeness to link Cameron to a disgraced politician? If not, then, like you said, 'Pity'.
What's wrong with rants? BBC news's famous analysis, which it modestly and often tells us is of excellent quality, consists of little more than mini rants. In the shallow, superficial world of BBC news things are very simple - Obama, Castro, JFK, Labour, greens, Palestine etc always good, Nixon, Thatcher, Reagan, Conservatives, Israel etc always bad.
Thanks for posting this. I'd be interested to know what "echoes" of Nixon speeches this Beeboid is talking about. That's as telling as anything else.
"<span> If you request a reply through the website you should get one. Unless you are abusive or they've stopped replying because you sent the same complaint hundreds of times. "</span>
Or they do not have a satisfactory explanation. I recently complained to the BBC on their use of the word "denier" in relation to climate change. I was not abusive. I just pointed out the historical connotations associated with that word. Yet I have never recieved a reply.
The BBC are running out of excuses for their bias.
JHT, I used to make a good number of complaints to the BBC but now I dont bother. I make them to the injured party (ie nearly always the Conservative Party) and leave the ball in their court to take action, while making sure the BBC get a copy so they can't claim that noone complains about them. For what it's worth, here's the original complaint I copied to them. As metioned, maybe I got an answer unlike you because they knew I was just logging my complaint with them not making it to them:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressReleases
<span>JHT, I used to make a good number of complaints to the BBC but now I dont bother. I make them to the injured party (ie nearly always the Conservative Party) and leave the ball in their court to take action, while making sure the BBC get a copy so they can't claim that noone complains about them. For what it's worth, here's the original complaint I copied to them. As metioned, maybe I got an answer unlike you because they knew I was just logging my complaint with them not making it to them: </span>
<span></span>
<span>I am not making this complaint because I have confidence in the professional integrity of the BBC to deal with complaints against its bias, I dont. I am making this complaint against you to the Conservative Party and am merely using this facility to record the fact that you have received it. Below please find the text of the complaint I have made to the Conservative Party against you:
In a report on BBC s Radio 4 TODAY programme yesterday Sanchia Berg tried to create a link between Richard Nixon and David Cameron.
"Over forty years ago Richard Nixon coined a new phrase The silent majority [....] There s a distinct parallel in David Cameron's new idea, the great ignored . ... "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8606000/8606567.stm
Most politically literate people will be aware that it was De Gaulle who coined phrase the silent majority , not Nixon. Of course, running an honest report linking Mr Cameron's phrase with that of the great figure of De Gaulle would run the risk of giving kudos to Mr Cameron. There are no prizes for guessing why the TODAY programme would want to create a linkage instead with one of the most reviled politicians of the 20th Century.</span>
<span><span>JHT, I used to make a good number of complaints to the BBC but now I dont bother. I make them to the injured party (ie nearly always the Conservative Party) and leave the ball in their court to take action, while making sure the BBC get a copy so they can't claim that noone complains about them. For what it's worth, here's the original complaint I copied to them. As metioned, maybe I got an answer unlike you because they knew I was just logging my complaint with them and making it to the Conservative Party against them: </span>
<span></span>
<span>I am not making this complaint because I have confidence in the professional integrity of the BBC to deal with complaints against its bias, I dont. I am making this complaint against you to the Conservative Party and am merely using this facility to record the fact that you have received it. Below please find the text of the complaint I have made to the Conservative Party against you:
In a report on BBC s Radio 4 TODAY programme yesterday Sanchia Berg tried to create a link between Richard Nixon and David Cameron.
"Over forty years ago Richard Nixon coined a new phrase The silent majority [....] There s a distinct parallel in David Cameron's new idea, the great ignored . ... "
<span>http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8606000/8606567.stm</span>
Most politically literate people will be aware that it was De Gaulle who coined phrase the silent majority , not Nixon. Of course, running an honest report linking Mr Cameron's phrase with that of the great figure of De Gaulle would run the risk of giving kudos to Mr Cameron. There are no prizes for guessing why the TODAY programme would want to create a linkage instead with one of the most reviled politicians of the 20th Century.</span></span>
'<span>Let's be clear here: Sanchia Berg falsely claimed Richard Nixon coined the phrase 'the silent majority' and Liam Boyle falsely claimed she didn't, and you say that falsehood upon falsehood at the BBC doesn't matter?'</span>
It would appear so. Interesting, if unsurprising. However, of some concern speaking as one required by law to pay for an objective national news reporter.
Apologies... 'rant' over.
Oh come on - of course it was an attempt to link Cameron with Nixon: it was the sole point of the piece. If that wasn't the point of the piece, what was? I honestly can't imagine. What's more, if the intention wasn't to make the connection, why did the programme go to the considerable effort of splicing together clips of Cameron and clips of Nixon? Frankly, I can't think what more the reporter/editor could have done to glue together a connection in the public mind.
The second point to make is this: it takes an unusually thorough knowledge of recent Western political history to have made this connection. Indeed, the whole premise of the piece was positively recherche. For the average listener - no, even for the well-informed listener - the whole piece was just odd. My immediate reaction was just 'Crikey, what sort of a mind could have thought of that?'
The third point is this: if this was just an honest (if rather bizarre) attempt to pursue parallels between David Cameron and late 20th century US politics, surely the starting point would have been between Cameron's 'Big Society' and LBJ's 'Great Society'? I'm not saying the parallels are close or interesting, but then again, neither was the Cameron/Nixon parallel.
But overall, Mr Morales, I find your insouciant denial that the purpose of the piece was to link Cameron with Nixon just plain bizarre. I would, quite seriously, be interested in your explanation of what the piece actually was about, since it seems to have esacaped me.
Who would have thunk it:
BBC compliants man is Labour candidate!
http://order-order.com/2010/04/19/labour-candidate-is-bbc-bias-complaints-judge/
Post a Comment