Tuesday, 20 April 2010

BBC Over-Exposure of Clegg?

Deja Vu
Today, like every other weekday, began with the usual routine for me: up at around 6.30; ablutions; cup of coffee; quick spin of the hound; 7.30am sharp, Liberal Democrat News conference on three BBC channels....

Hang on. What was that last one again? A Liberal Democrat News Conference. Every damn morning I'm faced not with the latest news about scary ash clouds not damaging 747s at all but still closing down the country, but with Nick "My Dad's Richer Than Dave's Dad" Clegg banging on about hopeless Libdum 'policies' (today it was the turn of the bankers. Vince wasn't there, though. Curious, that). He gets a full half hour of free airtime from the BBC every morning just when most people will be checking out the news, too.

I did what I usually do, seeing as I haven't heard anything fresh, or worthwhile, from the Libdums for months, and switched back to the Murdoch channel. They don't carry it - usually. But shock horror! There he was again! Trotting out his endless, codified claptrap once more, relentlessly. To be fair, though, Sky only aired the first bit (praise the Lord).

But the BBC. Sheesh! They've got a nerve. If you only watched the BBC's news coverage, and only in the mornings, you would be forgiven for thinking the Libdums were the only party in the country. So why is the Beeb blatantly backing the yellows now? Well, not only are they biased, but they're not even that bothered about hiding it any more - perhaps as this latest scandal about a now-suspended BBC 'complaints' manager (and Labour candidate) partly demonstrates. It seems their tiresomely - and tirelessly - left wing editors and managers have finally decided that Labour can't win, so, with brazen cynicism, they're going to try to make sure that if they can't have their beloved party, they'll make it as hard as possible for the Tories to form a government by splitting the vote.

Sound crazy? Just remember who we're dealing with here. They despise the Tories quite a lot more than they despise the Liberals, half of whom are 'social democrats' (socialists) as it is. Whatever the ins and outs of it, and I doubt it's a conspiracy, but it is undoubtedly an attitude, the BBC is now buying into the hung parliament trope (or 'balanced' parliament, as it was referred to on the Today programme by one of the presenters this morning, no doubt in deference to Alex Salmond), and buying in big style.

This only annoys me slightly less than shutting down the entire UK's aviation industry because the Met Office and the EU says we have to. I put the BBC into the same category as those two menaces to a free and productive society.

But before we put all the BBC chiefs up against the wall, can't we just have a little less of the Libdums? Pretty please? It's getting beyond a joke.

Or is there an argument for letting Clegg get overexposed, so everyone can eventually see him for the pseudo-socialist, public school-educated airhead that he really is? And how utterly shallow and confused the party he leads is in reality, too? Interesting conundrum to me, that.


  1. The BBC has always been biased, but as Lady Williams said this morning, all the press have routinely ignored the Liberals. The BBC is Labour, and most of the rest of the media is Tory except the Mirror and the "Gwadreoin".

    So it's a bit of a shock to us all to see so much of the Liberals.

    It has frightened the butt off the other two big parties though. Dave has had to change his broadcasts to slate the Liberals, and Peter Mandleson has done a U-turn on PR.

    It will be interesting, I think, to see what is made of foreign affairs this week. The debates are so controlled that we won’t get a full picture, and of course if you don’t have good digital, or have a Sky box thingy you won’t be able to see it, but it could be that the big two will be hammered for taking the country to war, or backing it. The Liberals along with the Celtic parties voted against the war.

    But the audiences are very carefully selected and the questions vetted. It is possible that subject may get only the briefest of attention.

    Of course as a news story, it has merit all of its own. We may be seeing a seismic shift in British politics... or maybe not.

  2. I'm not so sure, tris. What I've seen recently has hardly been balanced - and I've been around the block a few times (or is that round the bend? Never mind).

    The media Tory bias narrative has never convinced me. The bias I've only seen, especially since '97 and the 'new consensus', but well before that time too, aside from a few diehard Tory rags, has been almost universally Labour. The point is, you see, that whether you count nulab as Labour or not, the coverage was mainly still pro-it and anti-Conservative party. Perhaps it's different in Scotland, but I doubt it.

    That's why I think the BBCs recent over-exposure of Clegg, who is not the leader of Her Maj's Official Opposition, whether anyone like that or not, but the leader of a small third party, is therefore an interesting development. But, I do not want him to gain any traction because I for one do not believe in Salmond's divisive 'balanced parliament' idea. A hung parliament is just that - hung. It can't take any decisions. It's like a sort of proto-PR. A nightmare, where smaller parties dominate proceedings, thereby creating a democratic deficit for the majority parties: the will of the country's majority opinion is no longer adequately represented.

    Well, anyway, I might have a soft spot for nationalism in Wales and Scotland, but I certainly don't for Salmond. As far as I'm concerned, Scotland should get its independence, but not by ruining Parliament or the electoral system, and certainly not from the likes of him.

  3. I think the BBC are desperate. They know the Tories despise them, and have some scores to settle. They also know that cuts to the licence fee would be popular. (Note the Tory plans to use some of the licence money to roll out broadband.)

  4. Would they really be that venal? Yes, they would, judging by what I've heard and seen so far. "Desperate" is dead right.


Any thoughts?