The BBC is asking whether the Clash's brilliant "London Calling" really a good song to promote the 2012 London Olympics? Well, it certainly sums up how I feel about the coming London based glorified international sports day...

Bias and the BBC

One of the most common complaints levelled at the BBC is that it is biased. Typically, people accuse it of propagating the opposite views to their own. The burden of proof is somewhat slight for many people when they talk about the bias of the BBC – little more than the BBC happens to have said something with which they did not agree. As such, the BBC is placed in an impossible position. It means that the BBC simultaneously has to represent every view in our diverse country or run the risk of being biased. Given the impossibility of the former, therefore, the BBC ends up being accused of the latter.

Furthermore, is there any real way of not being biased? I mean, even if the BBC editorial staff go into a project with an entirely open mind, if there any real way in which anyone can put their innate biases to one side and be completely neutral? I try to be neutral when I read any article or book, but I know that my prejudices and biases lurk in the background. For example, when I read something about Gordon Brown I try to keep an open mind and look at the content of what he says, but I can’t quite get over my natural antipathy towards that ghastly man. I know I am biased, despite my best efforts not to be.

Of course, it doesn’t matter if I am biased – I make no attempt to pretend otherwise. Plus, no-one has any right to really call me on the content of this blog. You don’t pay for it, so you don’t get a say in what I put on here (although you can respond in the comments section, obviously). However, the BBC – at least on some levels –is still presented (and arguably presents itself) as a public service. Part of the issue is that, whether we watch the BBC and its output or not, we still contribute to it if we own a TV through the licence fee. People feel the right to demand neutrality from the BBC because they have little choice but to fund it. The same is not true of every other media outlet that springs to mind. Don’t like the bias of Fox News? Well, you don’t have to pay for it. Likewise, don’t like the bias of The Guardian? You don’t have to buy the paper (not least because you can get the content for free online). Whereas the BBC…

I don’t think we could make the BBC absolutely neutral, and even if we could, I still think that some would deny that neutrality because it is impossible in a pluralistic culture like our own that is filled with incommensurable values to meet the expectations of one and all. So the best thing we can do is remove the demand that the BBC be neutral. So let’s remove the one thing that allows every licence fee holder in this country the feeling that they have a say in the output of the BBC. Quite simply, let’s end the licence fee.

Doctor Who and Scheduling

It looks likely that, in terms of viewers, Doctor Who had its worst opening night since the show came back on Saturday. Still streets ahead of the last season of the classic show, mind. That struggled to breach the four million mark way back when Battlefield began.

Of course, there are a number of different reasons why the viewing figures might be down (but remain far from catastrophic). The warm weather will have meant that some (in my completely biased opinion) utterly mental people may have rather stayed in the garden that coming indoors to watch Doctor Who live. Plus, the way we watch things has changed. The vast majority of TV I watch is watched online, and I think this may impact of the ratings for pretty much everything bar live contests (like The X Factor) and live sporting events where, if you don't see the live transmission, you run the risk of someone telling you the result and thus having the whole thing ruined for you.

But there is something the production team can do to get better ratings. Something relatively simple (even if achieving it is not). And that's get the transmission time moved back to 7pm. I always got the impression that RTD fought tooth and claw to get the show on at 7pm, and he was exactly right about that. 6pm is too early - it's too late to be the afternoon, but too early to be the evening. Furthermore, many people who work on a Saturday are only just heading home at 6pm, meaning they miss the initial transition. By 7pm many of them will be home, and ready to start watching.

So if the producers want more people to watch then they should have that battle with the BBC and get the show on at 7pm. Forget the weather and the use of internet TV; decent scheduling is as much a part of the popularity of the show now as it has ever been.

Quick Question

What is BBC 6 Music, and why should I care that it is being closed down?*

*It is still one question, just with two parts.

Oh, seriously, who fucking cares?

This is the very definition of a private matter. It should not be the top story on the BBC News website. The world is headed to hell in a handcart, and our state broadcaster seems to think that the most important thing happening on this planet right now is the desperate pleading of a randy golfer.

For fuck's sake...

BBC Priorities...

So, a leading body that researches climate change has been apparently exposed as telling the odd lie. The potential implications for the climate change lobby are massive. And God love the BBC, they are even reporting this story. In their Technology section:

The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

And:

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

Yes, because it is all about the (possible) hacking, isn't it? That's the crucial issue here. Silly me, thinking that the media might report on the apparently egregious and gross distortions perpetrated by those who would want to radically change government policy based on spurious and often fabricated evidence. But no. It is all about the alleged hacking.

Fucking hell. And I wonder why some people claim that the BBC is biased?

Nick Griffin: Let The Moron Talk

Like many other people I'm sure, I heartily enjoyed watching Nick Griffin get his ass sorely whupped on Question Time. What is even more startling is that it was a panel that largely consisted of second rate (political) personalities. Just imagine how broken Griffin would have ended up if it had been a panel of real heavyweights. Intellectual heavyweights, I mean. Rather than the likes of Griffin, who are just really heavy because they weigh far too much.

But this really does bring into sharp relief the crassness of the likes of Peter Hain and that baying mob outside of the BBC yesterday. Because all those who wanted Griffin banned from Question Time and unable to debate on a national platform would have denied us the wonderful images of Griffin smirking, squirming, dissembling and desperately trying yet failing to salvage even an ounce of credibility from what was effectively an hour of political suicide broadcast live on TV. They would have have denied us the chance for Griffin to air his moronic, ignorant, paranoid and repugnant views and thus show them up for what they are - odious, racist and pathetic.

This won't bury the BNP - unfortunately, there will always be an audience for the knuckle-dragging racism of that party. But the oxygen of publicity is not something to fear with the BNP. Griffin shows that the oxygen of publicity is lethal to the BNP; it simple shows that the ignorant would-be emperor really has no clothes on, and his policies are best classified as repugnant racism.

If we truly want to bury the BNP, then give them a half an hour on Prime Time TV each week to debate anyone with more than a IQ of 32. Let them talk: the more they talk, the more idiotic they become and the more support they will lose. Let them talk: give them the biggest microphone in the country so that we can see just how repulsive they are and how stupid it is for anyone with even an iota of intellect to follow them.

BBC v. The Government

Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw on the BBC, apparently without a sense of irony or self-awareness:

The £5 billion corporation “probably has reached the limits of reasonable expansion”, he said, and hinted that the “multimedia empire” needed to be cut down in size.

And:

Mr Bradshaw said: “Although the trust has performed better than its predecessor, I don’t think it is a sustainable model in the long term. I know of no other area of public life where the same body is both regulator and cheerleader.”

Whilst I can support a reduction in the vast bureaucracy and monolithic structure of the BBC - particularly if it comes with a reduction in the licence fee - I can't but note that Bradshaw's criticisms of the BBC could also be leveled at the vast, ever-growing government of which he is a part. By all means note that the BBC's current model is unsustainable, and that the organisation should be reduced in size and that the burden on the British people should be reduced, Mr Bradshaw. But don't be afraid to apply the same analysis to the government. Because that behemoth is in need of even more urgent reform than the BBC.

And you can do this, Mr Bradshaw, because you are both a regulator of the government at the same time as being its cheerleader...

The Norwich North "Debate"

Norwich North candidate Craig Murray has got himself into a tizzy about not being invited on to a BBC debate between the "main candidates" in the Norwich North by-election:

The local BBC are broadcasting a live TV debate between the "Four Main Candidates" - none of whom has anything interesting to say - on 22 July at 22.15. I am excluded lest I say something voters might actually care about.

Of course, there's nothing quite like a would-be parliamentarian being slightly petulant to win the voters over. I wonder what Mr Murray will do next - perhaps sit in the corner and rock back and forth, muttering that they are all against him.

However, despite the tone of Murray's post, there is a real problem highlighted by Murray. Firstly, out of 12 candidates, the BBC have selected four to be the main candidates. Why four though? Why not five? Or six? And what selection criteria did they use? Something about past and present electoral history in the area. But what if Labour wasn't in the main four parties most likely to win this election? Would they not be invited to the debate? And what if the BNP or UKIP were one of the four parties riding highest in the polls/electoral history? Both scenarios are a possibility in some areas, but I suspect that Labour would still be in the debate whilst other parties wouldn't get the invite. 

Because these aren't the "Four Main Candidates". These are the representatives of the Four Established Parties. The Four Mainstream Parties. Three of those parties represent a simple maintenance of the status quo with minor tweaks, whilst the Green's represent a mad yet strangely fashionable combination of communism and environmentalism. They are not the future - they represent the past and the really rather crappy present. Whilst the focus on these parties might discount the loopy candidates, it also discounts other small parties who have a valid point to make and who are just starting to contest elections.* Besides, in the interests of free speech, shouldn't the loopy candidates be able to have their say in debate as well?

The grudging concession on the BBC precis of the programme that there will be "comments" from the other candidates in the broadcast does nothing to dispel the gross favouritism shown to the parties of the status quo. You could argue that the BBC is in charge of its own programming, and therefore can decide what to stick on our screens. But the BBC is a public service funded by those who pay the licence fee. And their clear bias in their "debate" creates the perception that there are only four real candidates contesting this election. The reality is somewhat different, and if the people of Norwich North really want a change, then the BBC should be prioritising the views of the lesser known candidates rather than burying beneath the bland statements of the parties of the status quo. 

*Yep, I'm talking about one party in particular here. Obviously. 

Compare and contrast two stories on the BBC news website. First we have the news that it is all going to be ok again - according to the British Chambers of Commerce - and the recession is going to end:

Its report, based on a survey of 5,600 companies, found there had been "welcome progress" in confidence levels between April and June.

On the same day that another recognisable retail chain disappears down the economic u-bend:

The coffee chain Coffee Republic has gone into administration, becoming the latest victim of the economic downturn... Administrators at KPMG have warned that job losses are "inevitable" at loss-making outlets.

It appears to be a contradiction - how the recession be ending at the same time as hundreds of jobs go on the line? The answer is simple - economics tend to be a little bit more complicated than the broad strokes painted by both politicians and the media. Businesses will continue to go under and jobs will be lost even as the recession ends and recovery begins. Even when the recession ends we're still going to feeling it. That, unfortunately, is real life.

I can't wait to see, though, which of these stories Gordon decides to comment on. I suspect he'd be more likely to claim credit for the muted good news from the BCC than note the demise of one of the numerous coffee outlets on the High Street. However, I'm making a big assumption here - that Gordon is going to comment on either of these stories. He may find something far more important to comment on. Like the death of a dubious celebrity or something...

Illustrating Expansion

I'm not one of these people who wants to bang on endlessly about how biased the BBC is. Yeah, I think there probably is a bias there, but I reckon there is a bias at every news source. It is a mark of the readers intelligence that they are able to differentiate the facts of a story from that bias.

That said, every now and again I see something on the BBC news website that really jars with me. Like this photo, attached to the link to their latest story about expanding Heathrow:

Sweet Jesus, it is difficult to think of a less appropriate image for a story about airport expansion short of posting a picture of 9/11. In that picture the plane looks like it is intimidating the house at best. At worst, it looks like the plane is about to land on the house. Or just crash straight into it. It seems to shriek "if the airport is expanded, then planes will land on your house."

There's going to be a big debate about expanding Heathrow; pictures like this simply do not help that debate.

Kevin Spacey and the Free Advertising

What the fucking hell has happened to the BBC News website? It looks like it has been redesigned for simple people with poor eyesight. I haven’t seen such a poor redesign since I changed the template for this blog just before Christmas!

Anyhoo, Kevin Spacey - thespian, director and theatre promoter - is bellyaching about the BBC showing those endless, dreadful audition programmes for those endless, dreadful musicals. However, his complaint isn’t about the quality of these shitty, sub-Pop Idol shows, but rather a whine about how unfair life is:

"I felt that (a musical audition programme) was essentially a 13-week promotion for a musical - where's our 13-week programme?"

Yeah, it probably was a promotion for the musical. I haven’t watched any of these endlessly tedious audition shows. To be honest I would rather destroy my own eyes with hydrochloric acid than sit through 40 minutes of precocious, talentless, attention seeking fuck faces screaming/whining/squawking/doing-anything-other-than-singing their way through a collection of musical standards that make me wish for the long, slow death of Andrew Lloyd-Webber. However, someone, somewhere finds these sort of shows entertaining. Believe or not, millions of people do. I don’t know why - maybe something to do with poor diets; maybe something to do with inbreeding. But millions enjoy these shitty shows, which is why the BBC broadcasts them. I rather doubt that millions of people would tune in for a 13 part audition series for Speed-The-Plow, or whatever bag of crap Spacey is promoting at the moment.

In fairness, he has started to flesh out his ideas for a TV programme. It would be:

"…to help kids find their own sense of self-esteem, confidence and ability to collaborate. These are interesting ideas, now they're not sexy so maybe they don't want to put them on air."

Probably best that Spacey doesn’t try to make kids sexy; that would open up a whole world of trouble from the likes of the News of the World. However teaching kids to feel more confident and collaborate would not just be tedious, it may be best covered off by institutions other than Spacey’s Old Vic. Like, you know, schools.

But Spacey is pushing for his dull version of a shitty programme format:

"I have spoken to your chairman but he has yet to get back to me"

Possibly because he has better things to do (although Lord knows what) than reply to hissy actors belly-aching about how unfair life is. I’d like the Chairman of the BBC to come back to me on my idea for a TV series, called You’re a Cunt, but my grip on reality appears to be slightly more sound than Spacey’s. I accept that the Chairman probably cannot reply to every ranting twat with a half-baked idea for a TV series.

*Seriously, it would be a winner. Basically it is a 26 episode TV programme where I go round and call every single politician in the country a cunt. I mean, it must be good. I’d watch it!

PM to launch local poll campaign...

...reports the BBC.

The world waits with baited breath for the man who can make failed terrorist attacks seem boring to announce how he is going to fight an election that won’t really change anything at all. I’d love to be at the launch but unfortunately I have something more interesting and fun to do. I’m going to sit in the corner and hit myself repeatedly in the face. With a tyre iron.

It is telling that the BBC can’t make this news exciting. All we have is the same phrase repeated over and over again – basically that Brown would like a better showing in these elections than what happened last May. No, really? A politician wants to do well in an election? Crazy stuff.

I thought it would be an impossible task to make the endless Democrat primary season over in the US seem interesting. But I reckon that these local elections might just manage the impossible…

Saturday Evening TV

Wasn't going to write this post as it will have the propensity to make me sound like a gushing fan boy, but the last two episodes of Doctor Who were frankly fucking spectacular. The fact that a British TV series managed to show a drama questioning the nature of war, love, being human and immortality is surprising in itself, given the general standard of British TV today. It is something else that these themes were explored in what is nominally a kid's TV series on Saturday evenings, between the People's Quiz and the National Lottery results*. And with such great artistic success too.

I appreciate that Doctor Who is not to everyone's taste, but if you've haven't tried the new Who yet then I would recommend tuning in this Saturday to watch Blink - it is written by Steven Moffat, who has produced The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances and The Girl In The Fireplace - three of the best episodes not only of the revived series, but also the series as a whole...

*Possibly, possibly not what was on TV on Saturday nights on BBC 1 - but I am 100% sure that whatever bookends Doctor Who on Saturday nights is trite shite.

BBC Bias

I've long suspected the BBC of a pro-Palestinian bias, so maybe I am reading too much into this. But nonetheless I find the way this article is written as quite a striking example of this subtle, almost subliminal, bias.

The headline is “Captured Israeli 'in good health'”. Good news, I hear you say. But for me the real story is only mentioned in the fifth paragraph – with the militant’s statement of "We are ready to keep him for years so long as our demands are not met." And it is only in the sixth paragraph (of nine) that we hear what compromises the Israelis have made – “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has offered to release "many" Palestinian detainees, if the Palestinians free Cpl Shalit and set up a national unity government that would recognise Israel and renounce violence.”

So, in summary, this is the first announcement since Gilad Shalit was seized last summer about his condition. And yes, it is great news that he is in good health. But I can’t help but feel that the poor sod would also be in good health if he was at home with his family. I would imagine his primary concern is not the fact that he is good health, but rather that he is a hostage, a prisoner of war. And I think the threat of keeping him for many years in spite of the generous and eminently sensible deal offered by the Israelis should be the focus of the story. Not the fact that Shalit is in good health and doesn’t have a fucking cold.

The real headline is "Militants threaten to hold hostage for years". Unless, of course, you are biased towards said militants...