BBC

The unofficial alliance of the BBC and Guardian


Cross posted by Raheem Kassam, Executive Editor of The Commentator 

Spirit. I’ll tell ye. ‘Tis not vain or fabulous

(Though so esteemed by shallow ignorance)

What the sage poets, taught by the heavenly Muse,

Storied of old in high immortal verse

Of dire Chimeras and enchanted isles,

And rifted rocks whose entrance leads to Hell

 John Milton, Comus (1634)

In his masque in honor of chastity and free thinking, John Milton introduces to his audience the virtues of recta ratio, the ability to exercise reason and restraint in the face of temptation and libidinal desire.

Of course, Britain’s media “behemoths” representing the Islington-dwelling liberal intelligentsia are already beyond reproach, having fallen between the rifted rocks of Hell long ago.

Thus Comus was created and thrives in the form of The Guardian and the BBC’s somewhat overt friendship. It appears in our media as the three-headed chimera, with the lion head of The Guardian, the bleating mouth of the BBC goat and the small yet venomous serpent tail of The Independent. Comus continues to lure anyone who will entertain him into his lair of necromancy.

Earlier this week, The Commentator broke the story that the BBC, between April 2010 and February 2011, procured nearly 60,000 copies of The Guardian and over 10,000 less of the nearest right-leaning paper, The Daily Telegraph. Also, the BBC curiously procured inordinate numbers of The Independent (43,709).

The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade argues a “so what?” case, making the point that The Guardian and the BBC effectively stand for the same thing. This is the very problem.

The Guardian has a circulation of about one-third of its right-wing competitor, The Telegraph, and yet it enjoys a significantly larger presence within the confines of Broadcasting House and the BBC beyond. The Independent, with a daily circulation of only around 90,000, was bought in almost the same quantities as The Telegraph, a paper that enjoys some six times the daily public consumption.

What this tells us of this unofficial alliance, or Comus as we have come to know it, is that there is little wonder why on key issues, the BBC and The Guardian differ very little.

Distinguishing between their lines on the National Health Service, on European integration, on climate change, Israel and the Middle East, and economics is becoming more and more difficult.

Many of their staff is indeed interchangeable, with former Guardian editor Allegra Stratton now perched at the Beeb as political editor. The Guardian’s trans-Atlantic buddy, The New York Times, today procured Mark Thompson, of BBC fame, as its new president.

The Beeb’s own Andrew Marr has noted:

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organization with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

Swallow that alongside the stark admission from Roy Greenslade in The Guardian Tuesday, responding to The Commentator’s exclusive

“There are so many similarities between the BBC and the Guardian… Both are imbued with a public interest ethos… It is therefore fair to say that the corporation and the paper have deeply ingrained shared values.” 

But much like Comus, these two organizations, alongside The Independent, appear to lure in the public with its promises of guilt alleviation and the scapegoating of certain nations or ideologies. This basic level of seduction, in appealing to a falsified notion of conscience, asks that the reader abandon rationality and indulge in often morally depraved or unscientific reporting.

We’ve seen this over time. With The Guardian’s obsession with “the Jewish lobby,” their intractability over climate science — despite being disproved time and again — and recently with our scoop on the BBC and its implacable hostility to the State of Israel (refusing to even acknowledge that it has a capital city, no less.)

And so it is up to us to act as the Attendant Spirit of this saga, who instructs on how Comus’s captive can be freed. Sabrina, the water nymph who ends up finally liberating the captive lady, can only do so due to her steadfast virtue and rejection of Comus’s necromancy. We must urge the public to exercise such chastity.

Over time, the liberal-left media will be shown to be the aggressor with the public conscience as its captor. Those who work relentlessly against the media bias are the Spirit and Sabrina, and inevitably, will triumph.

8 replies »

  1. “Many of their staff is indeed interchangeable, with former Guardian editor Allegra Stratton now perched at the Beeb as political editor.”

    No great shock or scandal there: people in the mainstream media sometimes move from one employer to another. That happens in all industries.

    Also, as The Commentator knows, “the scapegoating of certain nations or ideologies” is not confined to the lib/left press. Witness the thinly-veiled Muslim-bashing of several right-wing publications/organisations.

    That said, the statistic re Guardian circulation at the BBC is interesting and well worth drawing attention to.

    I can’t remember who it was, but a former BBC journalist drew attention to the corporation’s over-reliance on The Guardian in his memoirs last year.

  2. “Distinguishing between their lines on … on climate change,”

    “these two organizations ….(ask) that the reader abandon rationality and indulge in often morally depraved or unscientific reporting”

    So acceptance of the overwhelming scientific view that man-made climate change is a reality is “unscientific reporting”. This tells us all we need to know about this writer. He hails from the far reaches of no-nothing right wing extremism.

    Incidentally I’d be interested to hear instances of Guardian/BBC morally depravity. The mind boggles….

    • “This tells us all we need to know about this writer. ”

      No, it tells us about your penchant for time warn phrases which stereotype people on the basis of one held view.

      What I’d like to know is how overwhelming scientific support for man-made climate change translates into your very unscientific views of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    • So acceptance of the overwhelming scientific view that man-made climate change is a reality is “unscientific reporting”.

      We know very little and there have been many theories about that.

      One thing we do know is that the Global warming camp tends to push its theories forward as proven science and often threatens Scientists who refutes parts of it.

  3. The unholy alliance would also be accurate.

    Neither give a flying fig for accuracy when it comes to factual reporting, both editorialise without checking their facts as long as it fits their pre-conceived agenda.
    You might remember Adam that a short while back I sent you a link to a report in ‘The Independent’ (not a paper that is sympathetic to Israel) about a report for the BBC Trust (that is the revamped Governors of the BBC) by Edward Mortimer about the BBC’s coverage of the ‘Arab Spring’
    In the report is the following section,

    “The report also highlighted the dangers of the BBC’s broadcasting of user generated content (UGC), mostly filmed on mobile phones, during the Arab Spring. Research carried out for the BBC Trust by Loughborough University found that 74% of the UGC clips had been broadcast by the BBC without caveats regarding their authenticity.”

    Really, the BBC and The Guardian broadcast/ publish items without caveats about their authenticity? What a surprise!