Let Nobody Ever Criticize the American Media

[Guest MikeSC]

Tory fury as BBC sends hecklers to bait Howard

By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor

(Filed: 24/04/2005)

 

The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

 

The Tories have made an official protest after the hecklers, who were given the microphones by producers, were caught at a party event in the North West last week. Guy Black, the party's head of communications, wrote in a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, that the hecklers began shouting slogans that were "distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party".

 

These included "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair".

 

Mr Black's strongly-worded letter accused the BBC of staging the event "to generate a false news story and dramatise coverage. . . intended to embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party". The letter said that BBC staff were guilty of "serious misconduct". At least one of the hecklers was seen again at a Tory event in the North East, Mr Black added.

 

Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a "completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling" and said that other parties' meetings were being "observed". However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.

 

The Conservatives have called for an apology and an assurance that no such incident will occur again. It has also demanded that the BBC promises never to broadcast the footage. The corporation said it would investigate "very fully". It and other broadcasters have a statutory duty to remain impartial during election campaigns. The corporation's guidelines for producers state: "Our audiences rightly expect the highest editorial and ethical standards from the BBC."

 

Tory officials became suspicious at the meeting in Horwich, near Bolton, last Wednesday, when they saw BBC camera crew focusing on the hecklers rather than Mr Howard. They twice challenged the two men and a woman involved, and discovered they had been equipped with radio microphones.

 

Mr Black said that they described themselves as "shoppers". In fact, they were under direction from a BBC team making a programme called The History of Heckling for the BBC3 channel. The programme, whose producer is Paul Woolwich, is in the process of being edited.

 

Mr Black's letter said of the hecklers: "It is entirely clear to me that the success of their presence required an element of performance on their behalf, and that this was a premeditated event intended to disrupt the course of Mr. Howard's speech.

 

"I do not believe that the BBC should be in the business of creating news. It also appears that the same crew was at the Michael Howard visit to Stockton-on-Tees and it can be no coincidence that someone with them was one of these 'hecklers'.

 

"I understand that Sally Freestone, the assignments editor UK Special Events, was 'aghast' that the BBC had engaged in such behaviour.

 

"This is a clear and serious breach of recognised BBC producer guidelines, and accordingly a breach of Section 5.3(b)1 of the BBC Charter Agreement. I also believe that the recordings which were taken of these organised hecklers, of ordinary members of the crowd and/or of Conservative officials who reacted and were recorded, would amount to 'surreptitious recording' under those guidelines."

 

Such recording requires advance approval from the relevant department head, Mr Black noted, and consultation with the BBC's controller, editorial policy. "Is it suggested that these requirements have been satisfied?" his letter asked, before concluding: "My disappointment with the BBC for this attempted coup d'theatre is profound." He addressed his letter to Ms Boaden, who took over as director of news from Richard Sambrook. Mr Sambrook, a key figure in the row between the Government and the BBC over the death of David Kelly, the Iraq weapons expert, is now director of the Corporation's World Service and Global News division.

 

Last night a BBC spokesman said: "This is a completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling. The programme observes hecklers at other parties' campaign meetings and not just the Conservatives. The hecklers were not under the direction of the BBC and their activities did not disrupt the meeting in any way. The incident at the Michael Howard meeting only plays a small part in the overall programme. However, we will be investigating the complaint very fully and will be replying in due course."

 

The spokesman was unable to provide details of any other campaign meetings attended by the BBC3 crew. He said that the hecklers had not been paid a fee, but could not say whether they had received expenses. The dispute is the latest in many rows between the BBC and the Tories. Last autumn the Conservatives lodged an official complaint about Mr Howard's Newsnight interview earlier this year in which Jeremy Paxman questioned Mr Howard about the sacking of Derek Lewis, the head of the Prison Service, when he was home secretary in 1995. A Conservative spokesman claimed that the continued focus on the case of Mr Lewis, almost a decade after the event, showed the "endemic bias" of the BBC.

 

Many Conservatives are still angry about coverage of the May 2003 local elections when - despite the Tories gaining 565 council seats - the BBC focused on the resignation of Crispin Blunt, the shadow trade minister.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...requestid=14627

Man, this seems like a damned good reason to divest the British gov't from the BBC entirely.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So that's what INXS has been up to...

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

That is really odd, considering the stuff they went through when they jumped the gun on the dude who slashed his wrist

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yawn. At first, this story is sensationalized to the point that it sounds like the BBC brought people in and instructed them to heckle. Instead, they simply asked to put wires on people who were already there.

 

Regardless, Britain would go so far backwards if the Tories won that it probably serves the common good.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

...if the Tories won...

 

Boy, you can sure tell 'em...

[edotherocket 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

[Red Baron 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

-=Mike

...And I happen to like Blair...

[NoCalMike 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

-=Mike

...And I happen to like Blair...

yer kidding right?

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

-=Mike

...And I happen to like Blair...

yer kidding right?

FAUX IS EVIL!

[edotherocket 0]

Not to be a wise-ass, but can't you, y'know, be critical of more than one country's media at a time?

 

I personally think a lot of the media coverage we get in Australia on the main news channels is totally balls and I ain't going to let the BBC have any effect on that.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

-=Mike

...And I happen to like Blair...

yer kidding right?

Fox didn't invent documents about Kerry.

-=Mike

...You are aware that a study showed --- and this is truly a shocker --- that Kerry received far more positive press than Bush did...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

-=Mike

...And I happen to like Blair...

yer kidding right?

Fox didn't invent documents about Kerry.

-=Mike

...You are aware that a study showed --- and this is truly a shocker --- that Kerry received far more positive press than Bush did...

Bush got more positive press than Gore in 2000.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

-=Mike

...And I happen to like Blair...

yer kidding right?

Fox didn't invent documents about Kerry.

-=Mike

...You are aware that a study showed --- and this is truly a shocker --- that Kerry received far more positive press than Bush did...

Bush got more positive press than Gore in 2000.

Actually, he didn't..

 

Gore received 40% positive press. Bush received 37%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...7&notFound=true

-=Mike

[I like Forums 0]

So... not criticizing the American media is the best way to go because the BBC does it too?

 

You should probably criticize both and realize that there are many other countries out there that also have a media that may or may not need criticism.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Nice, Mike. Your source is a WaPo columnist arguing that there is a liberal media bias who lists as his only source a Scaife-funded conservative think-tank.

 

 

http://www.journalism.org/resources/resear...ap/bushgore.asp

 

Bush and Gore received roughly the same amount of coverage, with Bush dominating 24% of the stories and Gore 29%. Another 47% were equally about both candidates. This was true across print, television and the Internet.

 

But the parity ends quickly. As we found in two of the earlier studies, Bush continues to benefit more than Gore from press coverage. As outlined above, 24% of Bush stories were positive, nearly double the 13% for Gore.

 

In contrast, the coverage of Gore was more negative. A full 56% of the Gore stories had a negative tone, compared to 49% for Bush. The remaining stories were neutral.

 

Stories that focused equally on both candidates were more neutral in tone, but the critical treatment of Gore still emerged. Twelve percent were negative toward Gore, while only 8% more were negative toward Bush.

 

In addition, while the numbers are small, Bush was twice as likely to enjoy positive coverage in these comparative stories, 7% versus 3% for Gore.

 

These findings are consistent with patterns we found earlier in the campaign. In a study of primary coverage leading up to the conventions, we found the press far more likely to cover the subjects Bush wanted to run on-such as the idea that he was a different kind of Republican-than it was to cover the subjects that Gore wanted to run on-such as his knowledge and experience.

 

There were differences this time too in the major themes devoted to each candidate.

 

Bush stories were more likely to be issue related (37% versus only 28% for Gore.)

 

Gore stories were more likely to be about the internal politics of his campaign—such as strategies for winning the battleground states. In all, 50% of Gore stories were political matters versus 44% for Bush. Given that Gore was failing to pull ahead, these stories were not particularly helpful to the Vice President.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Why do we even bother citing sources? Somebody from the other side always dismisses it. From now on, I'm just saying I get all my news from a pet duck.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Is that wise? I'd say he's a bit one-sided, especially when saying which insurance company to sign up with...

 

[The Czech Republic 0]

I thought you called it like you saw it, duck.

[NoCalMike 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

-=Mike

...And I happen to like Blair...

yer kidding right?

Fox didn't invent documents about Kerry.

-=Mike

...You are aware that a study showed --- and this is truly a shocker --- that Kerry received far more positive press than Bush did...

I wasn't aware CBS invented documents!?! Not like Fox didn't do everything to spread the bullshit of the SBVT without any resistence what-so-ever, unless you call Alan "tap me when it is my turn to talk" Colmes, resistence. To say FNC was not solidly behind Bush is basically the worst case of denial yet to be seen on this msgboard.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nice, Mike. Your source is a WaPo columnist arguing that there is a liberal media bias who lists as his only source a Scaife-funded conservative think-tank.

 

 

http://www.journalism.org/resources/resear...ap/bushgore.asp

 

Bush and Gore received roughly the same amount of coverage, with Bush dominating 24% of the stories and Gore 29%. Another 47% were equally about both candidates. This was true across print, television and the Internet.

 

But the parity ends quickly. As we found in two of the earlier studies, Bush continues to benefit more than Gore from press coverage. As outlined above, 24% of Bush stories were positive, nearly double the 13% for Gore.

 

In contrast, the coverage of Gore was more negative. A full 56% of the Gore stories had a negative tone, compared to 49% for Bush. The remaining stories were neutral.

 

Stories that focused equally on both candidates were more neutral in tone, but the critical treatment of Gore still emerged. Twelve percent were negative toward Gore, while only 8% more were negative toward Bush.

 

In addition, while the numbers are small, Bush was twice as likely to enjoy positive coverage in these comparative stories, 7% versus 3% for Gore.

 

These findings are consistent with patterns we found earlier in the campaign. In a study of primary coverage leading up to the conventions, we found the press far more likely to cover the subjects Bush wanted to run on-such as the idea that he was a different kind of Republican-than it was to cover the subjects that Gore wanted to run on-such as his knowledge and experience.

 

There were differences this time too in the major themes devoted to each candidate.

 

Bush stories were more likely to be issue related (37% versus only 28% for Gore.)

 

Gore stories were more likely to be about the internal politics of his campaign—such as strategies for winning the battleground states. In all, 50% of Gore stories were political matters versus 44% for Bush. Given that Gore was failing to pull ahead, these stories were not particularly helpful to the Vice President.

The same site that praised CNN as being the most fair?

 

Yeah, I take that seriously.

I wasn't aware CBS invented documents!?! Not like Fox didn't do everything to spread the bullshit of the SBVT without any resistence what-so-ever, unless you call Alan "tap me when it is my turn to talk" Colmes, resistence. To say FNC was not solidly behind Bush is basically the worst case of denial yet to be seen on this msgboard.

Except their "bullshit" wasn't disproven.

 

CBS' documents WERE proven to be inauthentic.

-=Mike

[Red Baron 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

And once again, Mike misreads what I just posted.

[SuperJerk 0]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

And once again, Mike misreads what I just posted.

Join the fucking club.

[Jingus 0]

Uh, what's to misread? I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the hell you said in the first place. The English language is lying there dead and bloody on the floor and the knife is in your hand when the cops arrive.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wait, why aren't we ever allowed to criticize American media?

Because with news stations like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN (Ceretinaly Not News) and Fox is far superior than any other nation TV news networks.

Because no US network outside of CBS has so utterly thrown their towel behind a specific candidate.

And once again, Mike misreads what I just posted.

No, you misread what I did.

Join the fucking club.

Want a hand carrying that cross?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Want a hand carrying that cross?

 

Considering you're a burden everyone on this board has to bear, I'd say I already have plenty of help.

[Guest MikeSC]

You know what the funny thing is:

 

I don't pretend to speak for everybody on this board.

 

On the other hand, you seem to think most people here agree with you.

-=Mike

...Hilarity...

[LessonInMachismo 0]

You know what I think the best show in news is? Fox News Watch on FNC on Saturday nights. Try it some time. It's really good.

 

As for the media supporting candidates...don't newspapers endorse candidates for presidency and other offices? SURE, the opinion page does, but that is the whole damn newspaper, really. You usually get the tone of a rag by its opinion/editorial pages.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ha. I try to watch that show every Saturday, although I've been slacking the last few weeks.

 

For some reason I like Neal Gabler but HATE Jane Hall with a passion...

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Ha. I try to watch that show every Saturday, although I've been slacking the last few weeks.

 

For some reason I like Neal Gabler but HATE Jane Hall with a passion...

I like it because at some points it's like a bunch of nerds making fun of each other. Jim Pinkerton is usually the BUTT of the jokes.