Last week saw a negative campaign against the Tory Party from the BBC
Three key things happened that were heavily reported and eclipsed Covid and Brexit in the BBC running order:
Cummings departure
Devolution disaster
Priti Patel
It was a veritable feast on which the BBC and other parts of the Media gorged. All three happenings eclipsed the other day after day.
But what really happened about Cummings departure?
The PM has decided to reset his government. A key action was to rid himself of the old advisers who were battle hardened in winning the Brexit referendum and the 2019 election. However, they were not equipped to advise a government on policy.
The PM had a talk with them and they agreed to move on and regroup the next time a campaign needed to be won.
The BBC though decided to gloss over these facts see the Times Article for facts. Instead they focused terribly on Carrie Simons, rehashed Barnard Castle and relied on negative comments and tittle tattle from unnamed sources.
Viewers were deliberately left with the impression that the PM was weak, indecisive and had failed to demonstrate leadership.
Is that true or was he stitched up?
The second happening which pushed Cummings off the stage was the PMs remark that Scottish devolution was a disaster
Again, not letting the truth get in the way of a good story the BBC decided they would interpret his comments as a slur on Scotland. They rolled out the usual crew of Independence like Sturgeon, …., and neglected to offer balance and Ministers supporting the PM were ridiculed on air by BBC journalists who were trying to get sound bytes and agreement that the PM had slandered the Scots.
The truth is Scotland’s implantation of devolution has been a disaster as the SNP have failed to take advantage of what they were offered.
Read this for the state of Scotland under the SNP. But for the sake of balance read the SNPs own evaluation of leaving the Union.
The third happening last week was Priti Patel and the Ministerial code
Whether she did break it or not is not the issue. The good old BBC went on a biased campaign as to whether anyone they interviewed would agree she should be sacked or resign. All the usual suspects were trotted out denouncing her with, again little support but where it existed the supporter was ridiculed.
Read the Number 10 summary for the real facts.
Upon resigning, Sir Alex said:
“I recognise that it is for the PM to make a judgement on whether actions by a Minister amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code. But I feel that it is right that I should now resign from my position as the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on the Code.”
It seems few journalists had read the summary in full or the announcement from Sir Alex and had probably used researchers to summarise the summary, because the nuances were very different in the report to what was published.
Patel statement in full:
“I am sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people. It has never been my intention to cause upset to anyone. I am very grateful for the hard work of thousands of civil servants who help to deliver the Government’s agenda.
“I care deeply about delivering on the commitments we have made to the people of this country and I acknowledge that I am direct and have at times got frustrated.
“I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his support. The Permanent Secretary and I are working closely together to deliver on the vital job the Home Office has to do for the country.”
Advisers advise and Minister’s decide!
The truth is that an adviser wrote a report which concluded that she had, in his opinion, come close to breaking the code.
I posed the question; are the BBC and the Tories at war?
For me they clearly are and it is largely because the BBC is not providing leadership and giving clear direction; and most importantly enforcing it.
For a start it reinforces the belief that the BBC is out to punish the Tories for Brexit which the we’re against.
It highlights the fact that most journalists appear to think they are more important than the story. Emily Maitlis, Emma Barton, Laura Kuenssberg and Kirsty Wauk all have aggressive and disparaging styles. They seem to be more interested in getting a sound byte that gets reported widely than in understanding the situation.
A journalists job is to interpret the news for viewers and readers, and put it in context for us as opposed to them creating news. They should watch Andrew Marr for a master class in helping an audience understand the situation and the consequences.
Tim Davie, the new BBC DG has his work cut out to remove the bias as he has said he will, but perhaps he should start with a clear out of journalists who believe they are more important than the story. Too keen to get their point of view over and open to charges of trying to shape public opinion; they know who they are!
Journalists are there to report the news, not make it. John Doyle, November 2020