Friday, July 12, 2013
Asking The BBC If They Want To dispute Their Own Admission of Censoring Dissidents
A few weeks ago I was at a "Brian's Big Debate" in which I said that the BBC provide far less airtime to UKIP spokespeople than our standing in the polls warrants and that the BBC was thereby failing to live up to its legal Charter duty of "balance". He forcefully replied that the BBC select for coverage on the basis of elected Parliamentary representation (though I assume he meant purely the Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments & for programmes not originating in Scotland, purely the Westminster parliament As you may know UKIP is the 2nd party, currently, in the EU Parliament, the only UK body in which results are proportional to voters wishes so I assume that has never paid any part in your calculations .In the most recent council elections all 3 main parties posted within 6% of each other but presumably those elections don't count towards your formula either. At the time Mr Taylor cut off any further debate on that subject.
However it is clear from what he said that far from this being a denial of bias it is an open official admission of it. That you do indeed quite deliberately censor coverage according to some formula, ignoring the interest of voters, who are your customers and from whom you demand a licence fee not varied according to electoral representation. For example UKIP is clearly among the main 3 parties in polls for UK coverage and at 8-9% regularly in Scotland, also outpo9lling the LDs & Greens, yet UKIP's coverage is well under 1% of UK, let alone Scotland, making the BBC mathematically at least 95% corrupt.
Not, in principle, different from the way broadcasters in the old USSR used to limit news coverage to what leaders of the elected party wanted ignoring both facts (in the way the BBC openly censor dissent and lie to promote the evidence free catastrophic global warming scare) and what their listeners might have wanted (granted more difficult to measure there).
Doubtless if you wish to retract this admission of censorship you will let me know, with full details.
I would like to ask, under the Freedom of Information Act, what that mathematical formula is and when it came into effect? For example when the SDP was formed, or even before, it was not censored from the airwaves on the grounds that zero people had been elected under their standard. Since this is entirely an editorial matter the exception of protecting journalistic sources, regularly used by the BBC, cannot be applicable to the formula.
A further point is that pure amounts of coverage do not reflect the attitude applied. For example most interviews with UKIP seem to ignore policies (such as our economic policies which, as you know, could get us out of recession very quickly if the ruling parties wished) in favour of some variety of "some people say you are racists, how do you answer them". If unbiased you must usually open interviews with Tory/Labour/LibDems with a variant of "Some people say yours are a party of war criminals and produce unrefuted evidence for it" or greet Green representatives with "Some people say that the green movement has killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined and can prove it".
Again, under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to request examples of when this has been done - mathematically the BBC must have tens of thousands of examples, though I confess to never once having heard one.
I await your response, within 20 working days if confining yourself to the FoI matters or within a week if disputing Mr Taylor's open admission of bias, in despite of your Charter and legal duties.
The BBC don't usually reply to queries and I certainly to not expect a responsive answer to when they last treated a politician of the cartel parties as they normally treat ours.
On the other hand if they can't answer then Brian's remarks stand as an admission of a deliberate and calculated censorship of dissent.
Incidentally this from the New Statesman does a rundown on the last 704 appearances on Question Time and finds:
"leading trade unionists combined have been on less than Nigel Farage! In case anyone needs reminding, trade unions are the largest voluntary organisations in civil society with a combined membership of some six million. Farage is the leader of a party whose supporters can fit into my living room. And if that wasn't bad enough, his odious minion Paul Nuttall has been on twice too. So why are UKIP way overrepresented on the panel and a mass movement of millions virtually ignored?"
That's 11 out of 704, 1.5% out of a party with about 15% of the country.
To be fair the twat who wrote the article is, not uncommonly for the "new left", a double barrelled twat so he may have a very big living room.
He does manage to find a right wing bias but only by saying that the historians, scientists, economists and suchlike serious people are right wing and pretending that the BBC Labour with 148 slots approved "comedians" do not have BBC approved politics.
Doubtless BBC supporters would hold this up as the "we are criticised by both sides so we must be right" defence whereas I take it as the "when you are complaining when the only possible bias is already in your favour it is evidence that you are used to extreme and unrelenting bias in your favour" - see also the Green woman complaining when Peter Sissons asked her a real question.
Si is, arithmetically,"Labour with 148 slots" and the support of over 30% of the electorate really underrepresented compared to UKIP with 11 and about 15%. Or is Labour getting 5.7 times more than they should?
Perhaps as a scientific experiment the BBC could spend 6 months reversing the ratios (Labour with 26 and UKIP with 148) and the same in the rest of their coverage and see how the polls move? Who could object to trying that?