Another reason to remove the Beeb’s privileges. (One that would be the case regardless of which party was on the receiving end.)
Another reason to remove the Beeb’s privileges. (One that would be the case regardless of which party was on the receiving end.)
The BBC practically incited the murder of Pim Fortuyn.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1966979.stm
Although it appears that the BBC showed poor judgment, I suggest we should avoid jumping to a conclusion on the basis of an article in the Daily Telegraph, which for good reason is known as the Torygraph. I recommend readers consult the BBC’s defense of its heckler programme at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4483337.stm The program is being screened this evening. I think we should wait for the reviews.
I have read the BBC story on Pim Fortuyn and I cannot understand why your correspondent Pete T thinks that the BBC “practically incited” murder. Perhaps he would be willing to explain his argument.
Test.
Mark, I wrote a long reply but Tom’s software seems to disapprove of the response saying “Your comment was denied for questionable content”.
My comment contains no profanity, no incitements to violence, or incivility.
Oh well, I’ll email it to you.
I apologize for that. If you email it to me, I’ll try to post it. The comment software sometimes refuses to accept “too many” URLs in the comments or ending comments with (as I just recently found out) multiple periods. I will ask my webmaster friend how I can eliminate that annoying feature. In the meantime, please send me your comments and I’ll try to post them. Or fiddle with them (like deleting periods at the end) and try it again.
Re: Mark Brady
The article is a hatchet job painting Fortuyn as dangerous extremist. Given Europe’s long history of left wing terrorism, I would suggest such repeated dishonest caricature is all that is required to get someone killed.
Skimming through the article the first thing you encounter is a carefully selected picture of Pim in a maniacal grimace followed by……The Wedgewood cups shake, and the small dog quivers.
….The finger jabbing and shouting reminded me of the time I had taken tea with Jean-Marie Le Pen … that and the dogs. …..The Dutchman even has a rather garish family portrait of himself …..but the reasons people vote for them are the same: fear and alienation. Fear of outsiders, fear of crime, fear of change….And with that he smiled a big, slow self-satisfied smile.
—————-
Given the author’s repeated negative editorializing throughout the interview, I would suggest the purpose of the coverage was not to inform but rather to demonize and manipulate public opinion (this is usually what happens when the government runs the media).
The Beeb has a long history of supporting statism however and whenever it can. It’s no suprise to us that it would arrange heckling of a party leader its own leaders despise. Mark Brady’s defense of one of the pillars of the British welfare state is typical so many who let a misplaced “patriotism” lead them to support a hoary (and whorey) parasitic institution that presumes to dictate to us — at taxpayers’ expense! — what we should think. It’s high time to cut off the Beeb’s licensing fees and let it try to survive on the market.
I’ve now reread the BBC interview with Pim Fortuyn and read the other items on the BBC website to which Pete linked in his reply, and I stand by what I wrote in my original post.
Pete writes: “Given the author’s repeated negative editorializing throughout the interview, I would suggest the purpose of the coverage was not to inform but rather to demonize and manipulate public opinion (this is usually what happens when the government runs the media).”
Kirsty Lang, the interviewer, is no fan of Pim Fortuyn but I don’t count that against her or the BBC. I don’t see why interviewers should necessarily remain neutral either when they conduct or write up their interviews. On the other hand, I certainly don’t think she sought “to demonize and manipulate public opinion.”
I find John Simpson’s evaluation of Pim Fortuyn both informative and fair-minded and I would not call the BBC’s profile of his killer “gushing.” I don’t see how people who read the article would come away sympathetic to Volkert van der Graaf.
A nameless correspondent writes: “The Beeb has a long history of supporting statism however and whenever it can. It’s no suprise to us that it would arrange heckling of a party leader its own leaders despise. Mark Brady’s defense of one of the pillars of the British welfare state is typical so many who let a misplaced “patriotism” lead them to support a hoary (and whorey) parasitic institution that presumes to dictate to us — at taxpayers’ expense! — what we should think. It’s high time to cut off the Beeb’s licensing fees and let it try to survive on the market.”
I’ve always been opposed to financing the BBC through mandatory licence fees. I therefore welcome the fact that in recent years the BBC has derived an increasing share of its revenue from selling TV programs and other commercial ventures and I look forward to the time when the BBC is stripped of its legal privileges and finances all its operations through the market.
That said, it isn’t only the Conservatives who accuse the BBC of anti-Conservative bias. On many occasions Labour has criticized the BBC for anti-Labour bias. Indeed, over the years people of every political persuasion have accused the BBC of bias against them. I therefore recommend that readers suspend judgement about any particular complaint until they’ve read what the BBC and independent commentators have to say about it. And that’s what I wrote in my previous post if readers care to check.