Blair government attacks the BBC, while attempting to "plant" the news.

April 27, 2005 1:47 PM

Blair government attacks the BBC, while attempting to "fix" the news. In the aftermath of the Hutton Report fallout, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott reopened the war of words between Labour and the BBC by accusing the BBC of slanting their news coverage of the war in Iraq. Apparently, an Iraqi friend of Prescott's, Shanaz Ibrahim, was refused a (unscheduled) interview. What Prescott fails to mention, however, is that Ms. Ibrahim has lived in London for over 30 years, and is married to Abdul-Latif Rashid, the brother-in-law of Iraq's president. So... where have all the *real* Iraqis gone, anyway?
posted by insomnia_lj (18 comments total)

that's nothing.

this is what's important
posted by quarsan at 1:58 PM on April 27, 2005

The Evening Standard won't miss an opportunity to have a pop at the Beeb, will they? Even when it's over a non-story like this.
posted by blag at 2:50 PM on April 27, 2005

Can Blair fix all the news, all the time?
posted by telstar at 2:57 PM on April 27, 2005

American fuckjob politics = UK fuckjob politics (- polite) (- bad teeth)


News at 11
posted by stenseng at 3:03 PM on April 27, 2005

Yeah, kinda like that BBC planting hecklers at a Howard campaign rally.

Guy Black, the party’s director of communications, has made an official complaint to the corporation after the Tory leader was shouted at and branded a “liar” during the meeting in Horwich near Bolton last Wednesday.

In a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC’s director of news, Black claimed the actions of the corporation’s staff breached its guidelines, which call for “the highest editorial and ethical standards from the BBC”.

According to Black’s letter, the party discovered three people in the crowd had been equipped with radio microphones to record the meeting. He said they had been “recruited by the corporation” to heckle Howard.

The three had been provided with the equipment by a BBC crew that had been admitted to the rally.

The hecklers, two men and a woman, reportedly shouted “Michael Howard is a liar”, “You can’t trust the Tories” and “You can only trust Tony Blair”.

“It was deliberately arranged to generate a false news story and dramatise coverage,” wrote Black. “I do not believe that the BBC should be in the business of creating news.”

posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:10 PM on April 27, 2005

The heckling, though a damned stupid idea, was apparently part of a broadcast documenting the history of heckling.

Apparently, it also showed members of the Lib Dems and Labour Party being heckled.

BitTorrent, anyone?!? ;-)
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:09 PM on April 27, 2005

Trust Steve_at_Linwood to jump and shout about the straw that is in his opponent's eye, while he wistfully ignores the beam that lies in his ally's...
posted by clevershark at 4:11 PM on April 27, 2005

Trust Steve_at_Linwood to jump and shout about the straw that is in his opponent's eye, while he wistfully ignores the beam that lies in his ally's...

Blair is completely in step with Bush. Blair is a member of the Labour party. The hecklers were at a rally for Howard who's a Tory. What am I missing?
posted by jperkins at 5:26 PM on April 27, 2005

jperkins: What am I missing?

The link from insomnia_lj, explaining that it was part of a show recording and that the Liberal Democrats and Labour were also heckled, but haven't complained.
posted by Gamecat at 6:25 PM on April 27, 2005

The link from insomnia_lj, explaining that it was part of a show recording and that the Liberal Democrats and Labour were also heckled, but haven't complained.

Got it. Thanks!
posted by jperkins at 6:41 PM on April 27, 2005

insomnia_lj posted "So... where have all the *real* Iraqis gone, anyway?"

Long time passing? Oh, when will they ever learn?
posted by orthogonality at 10:05 PM on April 27, 2005

The whole "heckler" incident seems a lot like grandstanding on the part of the Tories, not the BBC. I would read this first which pours cold water on the whole thing:

Accused by Mr Black of breaching BBC guidelines on "surreptitious recording" Ms Boaden defended the corporation and refused to apologise - accusing him of blowing "the whole episode out of all proportion"...

...she disagreed that they were "clearly hostile to the Conservative party" and went on to say the Sunday Telegraph quotes "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair" are "simply untrue".

...Ms Boaden also said there was categorically no intention to create news, saying: "No news was created until your letter was supplied to three national Sunday newspapers."

...She said: "Even without the seizure of that BBC equipment this would not have been secret recording. Nor do I believe the programme is in any way partial. We also show members of the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties being heckled."

Nothing to see here other than another attempt to dig at the supposed "liberal media" by a political party desperate to make any gains it can.
posted by axon at 2:34 AM on April 28, 2005

BLIARS AND BU(LL)SHITTERS
posted by acrobat at 6:12 AM on April 28, 2005

The link from insomnia_lj, explaining that it was part of a show recording and that the Liberal Democrats and Labour were also heckled, but haven't complained.

And this says what about my comment? You are assuming more that I wrote. Forgetting the issue of political bias, the BBC was creating, not reporting the news.

This is like the BBC doing a broadcast documenting the history of political assassinations, so they hire some hit-men to take out a few pols.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:43 AM on April 28, 2005

That's one view: another is that the BBC was simply creating a political documentary which incidentally became a news story thanks not to the BBC, but to the right-wing press and the Tory PR machine.
posted by axon at 10:02 AM on April 28, 2005

Real news organization heckle electronically.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:03 PM on April 28, 2005

Steve_at_Linwood: I was responding to jperkins, because I suspected that had missed insomnia's link, which I thought offered a valid counterpoint to your link. I was not commenting on your comment at all.
posted by Gamecat at 2:22 AM on April 29, 2005

Forgetting the issue of political bias, the BBC was creating, not reporting the news.

Remembering the fact that S@L doesn't have a clue what the BBC is, what it does, and where this particular show fits into its output.

See, Steve, you obviously think the BBC is primarily a news-gathering organisation, based on your own experience of what gets shown on PBS, the BBC News website and possibly BBC America. Not so. That's like someone thinking General Electric is a news-gathering organisation based solely on watching NBC's Nightly News, CNBC and MSNBC. (And never watching Bravo or Telemundo.)

The programme in question was being made for BBC Three, a lowbrow, entertainment-driven digital-only channel, the home of 'Liquid News' and other fluff. It wasn't a product of the news department; it wasn't David bloody Dimbleby doing it.

(Admit it: you've never actually watched BBC Three, have you, Steve?)

This was much more like one of the reportage segments on The Daily Show. Does Rob Corddry 'create' the news for CBS? (Insert Dan Rather joke here.) He and the other Daily Show reporters did that kind of stuff at the two political conventions last year.
posted by holgate at 3:11 PM on April 29, 2005