| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| BBC gaffe reveals true colors (yet again) |
| 2005-03-03 |
| THE BBC's reputation for fair and balanced reporting was at risk last night after top broadcaster James Naughtie blurted out his pro-Labour sympathies. In a live chat with ex-Treasury chief Ed Balls — weeks before the May 5 election — he asked: "If WE win the election, does Gordon Brown remain Chancellor?" He struggled to recover, saying: "If YOU win the election." The blunder came on Radio 4's flagship Today programme. Mr Naughtie has frequently given Conservatives a rough ride in interviews while apparently giving Labour frontmen an easy time. The veteran anchorman is author of a biography of Gordon Brown and is close to Tony Blair and other Cabinet ministers. But he surprised his own colleagues yesterday by blurting out his true colours on prime time radio. The slip-up is particularly embarrassing after the Beeb found its newsmen had swallowed pro-EU propaganda without finding out the facts about Europe. The Tories are already at war with the Beeb over its allegedly one-sided coverage of the 1980s miners' strike in last week's BBC1 film Faith. And it follows Lord Hutton's bombshell report last year criticising the BBC's Iraq war coverage. Blunders by correspondent Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme were followed by the suicide of MoD scientist Dr David Kelly and the resignation of two BBC chiefs. Tory ex-Cabinet minister Norman Tebbit pounced on Mr Naughtie's comment. He said: "How often a slip of the tongue betrays the true thoughts in the mind of the speaker. We could all see the shape of the cat in the bag, but Mr Naughtie has now let it out for all to see." Broadcaster and ex-Labour MP Brian Walden said: "It's not usual for a broadcaster to betray their true allegiances." |
| Posted by:gromky |
| #15 And just what the hell would you know? Well, I must have seen dozens upon dozens of its articles on the net over the last few years. It does seem like the furthest away from sources easily available to the British public, the more blatant the deception, misleading and plain-out lies. But you're correct that I've never read a paper copy, I'm going by what I've read in it over the net. I simply assumed the same standards of journalism applied in both electronic and paper versions of it. "Don't mention the pro-European Sun competitor The Mirror much, do you, Fleet Street Professor?" Indeed. I know less about its standards, since I've come over fewer articles by it over the year, and it seems fewer people have bothered to post its articles on Rantburg. Be sure to post Daily Mirror articles regularly, and in a couple months I'll have formed an opinion to it as well. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-03 6:32:26 PM |
| #14 No bulldog....don't stop. It's both good and true. |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-03-03 3:47:47 PM |
| #13 That was beautiful BD... You had me at "insufferable..." |
| Posted by: Slomort Shoque7331 2005-03-03 2:21:22 PM |
| #12 But what do you really think, Bulldog? |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-03-03 1:48:47 PM |
| #11 9.88! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-03-03 1:45:02 PM |
| #10 Bulldog - putting the RANT into Rantburg. Bravo! |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-03-03 1:08:46 PM |
| #9 Calm down Bulldog, you'll only make him loonier and even more hypocritical. |
| Posted by: Charles 2005-03-03 12:38:45 PM |
| #8 The Sun's always a bit more careful when talking about... And just what the hell would you know? Don't you think you come across as absurdly arrogant trying to lecture other people about the journalistic character of a newspaper you've probably never seen an actual copy of, let alone read one, that's published on the other side of the continent to you and that has the highest readership in its coutry? Have you ever read The Sun, or just come across the occasional article online which you disagree with? You know less about The Sun than you know about American culture, which is half-truths and leftoid bullshit, you insufferable prick. Your ignorant postulating is in the same league as the moronic bigotry of people in this country who have never read another newspaper yet claim theirs is the only accurate one - usually because it misses no shameless opportunity to tell them so. Most of the time they don't even know how few people waste their money on the crap they subject themselves to. Idiot. Don't mention the pro-European Sun competitor The Mirror much, do you, Fleet Street Professor? When it comes to journalistic standards, a tabloid more to your taste whose editor was fired for publishing an entirely faked front-page story tarring British soldiers with *LIES* about abuse of prisoners gets no mention. Tell me the last time The Sun similarly misled its readers. You flaming hypocrite. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-03-03 11:41:59 AM |
| #7 You can't believe a word of this - it's The Sun. /moonbat The Sun's always a bit more careful when talking about interviews actually witnessed by many other Brits who would perceive lies in reporting easily. It's *lots* easier to lie shamelessly when they are instead talking about an interview given in an obscure journal - then they can simply refuse to give the actual name of the journal and few people will ever realize the deception. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-03 11:13:39 AM |
| #6 gromky - I think you overlooked the '/moonbat' tag. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-03-03 11:05:19 AM |
| #5 No blood for TV taxes! Or, uh, something... |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-03-03 9:58:59 AM |
| #4 The Tories should make ending the license fee a campaign issue. They have nothing to lose. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-03 9:55:06 AM |
| #3 Funny - I say the same thing about the New York Times. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-03-03 9:48:03 AM |
| #2 You can't believe a word of this - it's The Sun. /moonbat |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-03-03 9:11:10 AM |
| #1 Oh my, naughty, naughty, Naughtie. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-03-03 9:05:52 AM |