How Did The BBC Manage To Screw Up The Interview With Jody McIntyre So Badly?

I gave up taking much notice of the MSM many years ago; it was quite obvious that most everything you saw was propaganda or at least very biased coverage.

In today’s modern age of information overload, it is possible to miss things in the myriad of media outlets.

I had been keeping an eye on the BBC’s live coverage of the student riots in London and had already noted a strong bias being displayed. There were several contradictions in the reporting that was done.

When Ben Brown of the BBC had a chance to interview Jody McIntyre, a disabled protester who had been violently assaulted on camera by the police, the bias and bigotry shown shocked thousands that saw it live. When Bill Turnbull had his chance to interview Jody McIntyre in the morning, he also demonstrated his bias and incompetence. You can watch the interview here.

Kevin Bakhurst, a BBC editor further compounds the BBC’s problems at his blog page dedicated to this story.

From this page we see that Kevin Bakhurst declares “I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it.”

Well, from the hundreds of replies that I have read below Kevin’s blog, it seems that Kevin is one of (if not the only) the few to have seen or heard about this “web campaign” He also completely misses the multitude of points that have been raised by all those shocked enough to have done something about it.

I wonder just how many folks have suddenly woken up with this dash of biased and twisted reality thrown in their faces?

Is this the straw that breaks the camels back?

Will there now (at Kevin’s suggestion) be a series of web campaigns to try and remove public (that is us!) funding from this out of touch dinosaur of biased democracy?

I for one would welcome the opportunity to not pay the license fee and never see anything this crass or repugnant again.

Why can we not opt out?

NoIdea

24 thoughts on “How Did The BBC Manage To Screw Up The Interview With Jody McIntyre So Badly?

  1. Farmerbraun has never paid a TV licence fee in his life. Such a thing no longer exists in this country, it having been abolished in favour of an annual dip into the Consolidated fund, the advantage being that politicians now have a more direct control via a Charter which prescribes a service(sic) to the public. Farmerbraun, not having had a TV in the house for 35 years now, objects violently to a single dollar of his taxes being used to fund the plaything of the politicians.

  2. BBC comment is free, oh really

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
    This comment was censored because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
    This comment was moderated because the removers found it broke the House Rules.
    This comment was removed because the censors found it broke the House Rules.
    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
    This comment has been considered for further referral. Explain
    This comment has been referred for further moderation. Explain
    This comment has been removed for further refusal. Explain
    This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
    This comment is awaiting censorship. Explain.
    This comment is awaiting removal. Explain.
    This comment is awaiting referral. Explain.

    From the BBC NEWS UK site…

    (Where I see the message “This content doesn’t seem to be working. Try again later)

    “Don’t forget, to watch TV online as it’s being broadcast, you still need a TV Licence.”

    So even if I decide to forego all the other TV channels just to avoid financing and watching the BBC by throwing out all my TV sets, I will still need a Licence to surf the web because they can pollute the net and insist we pay them to do so. Even though the hideous content that I am paying for does not work, we still have to pay.

    How fair is that?

    NoIdea

    • A great (and revealing) comment NI. We have no TV License Fee in Australia (tho’ we used to have one for radio and telly abolished decades ago), so it’s hard to imagine how you guys put up with it.

      Some months ago on the DT I read where even your Servicemen in the Middle East had to pay to watch British television on any device – computer, whatever – which I thought outrageous.

      The police assault on young McIntyre was indefensible and that BBC creep who “interviewed” him was guilty of a further verbal assault IMHO. A journalist playing ‘the devil’s advocate’ is one thing – it’s something else entirely to feebly try to justify such belligerent behaviour by law enforcement. It wasn’t too many months ago when another man collapsed and died after such an unprovoked incident and has anyone been charged over that?

      • Hiya Swan,

        I have been keeping my eye on the YouTube footage and the BBC editorial blog.
        The last time I could get YouTube to refresh properly it had 392,490 views with 7,157 comments, whilst writing the last sentence there where another 20 comments added.

        On the BBC editor blog the comments are now at 899 and rising.

        There is it appears a massive wave of disgust at the way the BBC are handling this whole affair.

        Regarding the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 I found this statement at…

        http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/

        “The Independent Police Complaints Commission has announced that PC Simon Harwood, the officer caught on video assaulting Ian Tomlinson shortly before his death, faces internal disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct and could face dismissal without notice.”

        Why is he not facing charges?

        I note this site seem to be having problems with receiving donations from PayPal, is there some kind of pattern of refusal of service here?

        NoIdea

        • The PayPal clue is interesting isn’t it? Who ARE these people? If embarrassed Govts can’t successfully censor the Internet, does PP become the financial arm of Big Brother, choking off funding to sites that publish and promote Inconvenient Truths? (Shut up Al Gore – you don’t own our language….yet).

  3. C’mon. “Hacks are shits”: that’s news?

    Seriously, thanks for posting this. I’d have missed it otherwise.

    I wonder if Ben Brown’s problem wasn’t so much his bias against Jody McIntyre as that Jody, far from being a “human interest” object of pity proved to be articulate and well able to defend himself. (His suggestion that the police were deliberately provoking protesters confirmed what I and others had already concluded from following their recent antics – but his point was well made.)

    Brown revealed his bias when trying to recover lost ground with the sinister suggestion that it’s sort of OK to beat up people in wheelchairs if one disapproves of their politics and the fatuous one that a cerebral palsy sufferer was a threat to the biggest and best of London’s finest. That wasn’t “devil’s advocacy”, it was bullying. It seems to have backfired.

    That said, I don’t see how the incident is relevant to the debate on BBC funding. You can watch hacks on the commercial channels behave just as badly any night of the week. Watch e.g. ITN’s Channel 4 News where the likes of Jon Snow probably qualify for an ASBO.

    • Hiya DaveB,

      It is not that hacks are useless that is news so much, rather that they have shown the blatant bias so fantastically, that they have mobilised several hundred thousand to view the clip on YouTube.

      It appears they have arranged them for themselves a sticky bed to lay upon with the blog of the editor Kevin Bakhurst now showing 946 comments.

      I do not watch or listen to the BBC much; every time I do I see an undeniable bias. I do not want to be forced to pay for something that I am not watching.

      Do they not have the technical skills of all the other channels that require you to pay for them IF and only if you decide to watch what they have to offer?

      NoIdea

    • Thanks Dennis.

      I have been following this and attempting to read all the 1065 comments at the BBC editor Kevin Bakhursts blog. I gave up with following the 7,000 plus comments at YouTube after noticing a pathetic attempt at trolling by someone pretending to be Jody.
      Over at Kevin’s blog, where they had been directing complainants we now see the message…

      “This entry is now closed for comments”

      Where will they send the complainers now?

      NoIdea

      • yeah ive been wondering where i can keep up with the commentary of the people from that blog… i see i’ve found one of you! is there any point in me watching the bbc 10 o clock news to see if they mention anything about any of this??? doubt it.

  4. Looking at Kevin Bakhurst (BBC editor) blogs, his first 15 blogs had not one comment, and then he has 2 then 18 then 1065…

    The 1065 comments are nearly all complaints about the bias and vile condescending attitude of the BBC, they have shut that thread down from further comment.

    Kevin’s previous blog (18 comments) is also about disabled people. This comment section is still open.
    So from this, we can deduce that the blog was not closed due to any standard, blogs shut after 48 hours policy.

    I think I may have to comment on Kevin’s previous blog about this.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/11/access_all_areas.html#comments

    How long will it take them to shut this thread when others realize it is open?

    NoIdea

  5. Wotcha NI my friend.

    Thanks for posting this, I wasn’t aware that this had happened.
    I watched the YT link and found the interview…as any normal human being would…to be utterly disgusting yet at the same time…bordering on the freakishly bizarre. Like… ‘Did you wheel your wheelchair towards the police?’….Err…WTF?

    It’s difficult to fully work out what the BBC’s angle is on this issue. You would have thought that with their well documented history of hatred towards anything ‘Tory’ that they would be firmly sided with the students seeing as they are protesting against our current ‘Tory government’…but obviously this is not the case.

    I caught the end of the BBC’s ‘Politics show’ last Sunday (by accident, naturally) to which the credits played out to ‘The Beastie boys’…’You’ve got to fight for your rights to party’ together with a video compilation made up of police charges, missiles being bunged and general scenes of violence.

    Could it be that they are actively attempting to whip up social unrest?
    We know that the BBC, as is parliament are riddled with our friends ‘Common Purpose’ and we know what their agenda is…to infiltrate, destroy then to re-build with these communist / ‘communitarian,’ EU super state freak shows taking charge.
    I know it sounds a bit far fetched but I have to say that it has been forewarned by the likes of Brian Gerrish (stopCP) and many others who know a great deal more about these fekkers than I.

    There are so many blatantly ridiculous and criminally expensive political moves being made now…foreign aid…ring fenced and then raised from £7bn to 9bn. The climate change act…£18.3bn. Renewable energy targets…£200bn (announced as we struggle through one of our coldest spells on record) £2.9bn to the UN to be pissed on 3rd world wind farms and much, much more fraudulent wastage of our money all of which is gleefully championed by the BBC, and compounding our existing £4,300,000.000.000 debt. What is this meant to do except enrage and antagonise?
    BTW, anyone worked out what the interest is on £4.3 trillion? My calculator won’t take that many zeroes.

    I don’t think that there should be any doubt. The BBC have demonstrated quite clearly that they are now a public enemy whose only purpose is to aid and abet the destruction of the UK hidden behind a cloak of niceness such as ‘Strictly come dancing.’

    If we could obtain enough signatures to refuse payment of the license fee this, IMOHO would be a good start to a return to sanity.
    With the BBC starved of cash to spout its lies and distortions with a clear as glass reasoning behind the boycott, all other corrupt MSM outlets and our absurd politicians would be forced to sit up and take notice.
    Could this ever happen? I dunno. Personally I would like nothing better than to cancel my standing order but I have to admit to being a little perturbed at the thought of court action against me and I reckon most people would too.
    But then what alternative do we have? Riot like the students and fall for the trap? Besides, an effective march / riot needs a narrow focus like the war in Iraq or indeed, tuition fees to be…err…effective, whereas civil unrest against an entire hidden agenda would just be a bloody mess.

    Oh dear. Just thought of a major weakness in my grand master plan. Any cash shortage to the Beeb would immediately be made up from our tax money through the government and nothing would be said of the countries license fee rebels. After all, it’s not like they don’t have the money …’cause you know, they’ve got almost a years worth of Beeb cash to splurge on windmills for poor countries….fuck it then. How’s about a 2000lb JDAM?

    Happy Christmas everyone. Ni…Shall I bring over beer and sausages or just beer?

    • As far as I can tell, the Beeb are worried about Tory Cuts hitting them, so they’ve decided to adopt the “suck up to them occasionally” attitude. Unfortunately, their internal memos might have been overly enthusiastic on what they perceived to be the Party Line than the evil Tories would be themselves.

      The Conservatives obviously aren’t prejudiced against those who are wheelchair bound, just those that waste money.

  6. Ken Backhust wrote that the complaints were a result of an organised web campaign BEFORE the posters on his Blog. There isn’t actually evidence that ‘the bias and bigotry shown shocked thousands that saw it live’. There were about 20 complaints on broadcast, followed by an organised student lobbying of complaints. It’s not diffiuclt to google those sites, they’re on Facebook too. The video was then seen by many more on Youtube etc, who then made complaints on the basis of the interview, and on Backhurst’s blog. Can you also point out where Ben Brown showed ‘bigotry’?

    You accuse the BBC of bias in its coverage of the ‘student riots’ but offer nothing to sunstantiate this. Perhaps, that’s because you believe the MSM is ‘propaganda’.

    Nor do I see what the rights and wrongs of the interview have to do with the licence fee? Is there something about the way the BBC is funded that would have meant the interview wouldn’t have happened on a commercial channel? They’re propaganda too right?

    • Baz

      Thank you for your comment.

      The bigotry shown was obvious to me (not just by Ben Brown, the BBC in general)
      From what I have seen, the pro-establishment, the government are always right and just doing what we voted them in for attitude is obvious, and the rhetoric is plain to see.

      Kevin Bakurst may well have written that the complaints were written as the result of a campaign. If I write that you are part of a campaign, then you must be to, according to your logic.
      Just because he wrote that, does not make it true.

      NOW there ARE campaigns, resulting from the shocking mismanagement of both interviews and Bakhurst’s pathetic suggestion that this was “only” the result of an organised web campaign.
      There where over 5400 actual complaints to the BBC (I was not one of them).
      The majority of folks on the Bakhurst blog had been sent there by the BBC.

      Yes I do agree that the MSM is propaganda, if you had ever been at a news worthy event and seen reality, to then watch the weird twisted version, presented to the public as facts afterwards, then perhaps, you may not be so keen to accept the turgid pap fed to the gullible as truth.

      The connection to the licence fee, is that I do not watch much TV, whenever I do catch something by the BBC, I am always repelled by the obvious difference between what is being shown in front of our eyes, and the stupid and inane commentary that could be from different footage.
      When we are being shown burly coppers smashing kids in the faces, we are told “and here are the violent protesters”

      The constant blitherings on the day of the riots by the BBC, about how “kettling” is such a good idea, demonstrated repeatedly the loose grasp of physics and reality that they have.

      With all the other commercial channels, if I don’t pay, I do not even receive some, this is fine by me. If I do not watch them this does not cost me.
      All those funded through advertisements require no money from me, regardless of if I choose to watch them or not.

      As I am reminded at the BBC NEWS UK page
      (Where I saw the interview with Jody and where I now am getting told “This content doesn’t seem to be working. Try again later”)

      ‘Don’t forget, to watch TV online as it’s being broadcast, you still need a TV Licence.’

      So even if I decide to forego all the other TV channels, just to avoid financing and watching the BBC by throwing out all my TV sets, I will still need a Licence to surf the web, because they can broadcast on the net and insist we pay them to do so.
      Even though the content that I am paying for does not work, we still have to pay.

      I have the choice to watch or not watch the MSM, I am forced to pay to watch the BBC on TV even though I Do not.

      How fair is that?

      NoIdea

  7. Thanks,

    ‘Just because he wrote that, does not make it true.’ – Just as when you state that the bias is obvious, but do not provide any reasoning, it doesn’t make it true.

    You also miss my point about Backhurst’s Blog. The web campaign came BEFORE those who are complaining about being dismissed as being part of a campaign. When hundreds of complaints start arriving, all with the exact same format, except for the part where you enter your name at the top, and you can see the websites encouraging people to complain, then its fairly obvious its a lobby.

    When someone on the internet uses the word ‘propaganda’ I am inclined to dismiss them. The argument is always that you are so much smarter than all those mindless viewers out their, brainwashed of the reality, they are naive. Maybe, or maybe you’re just dilusional.

    I don’t recognise your description of the BBC’s coverage. I’d like to see you point to where the BBC has said ‘kettling’ is a good idea.

    I understand your point about the licence fee. I find that this is the refuge for those who think all the media is biased. They can claim their complaint is about funding it so as not to face the point, that they’re effectivley saying they’re sane and its just the rest of the world thats mad. You’ll find you do pay for commercial channels, every time you buy a product advertised on that channel.

    I don’t think its fair you should pay a licence fee to surf the net. I’ve got good news for you though, you don’t! That point of yours seems rather confused. You only need to pay a fee, if you watch live BBC TV on the internet.

    I wonder why you originally said ‘I will still need a Licence to surf the web because they can pollute the net’ but left out ‘pollute’ when you restated that? Did it make you sound a bit nuts?
    Oh, and the BBC doesn’t force you to pay, the law does.

    • Where are we now?

      The sick brutal pigs batter with sticks
      The wheels of revolution spinning
      No traction gained in the blood of innocents
      Despising those with voices but no choices
      Preying on the perceived vulnerabilities
      Validating hatred by charging children with horses
      Armoured bullies provoking with truncheons and shields
      Criminal Unnecessary Nasty Tactics and power abused
      Hackneyed government Troll mouthpiece vomiting news
      Twisted agendas out on public display
      Feverishly Useless Corporate Kleptomaniacs
      Artificial malevolence forced down virtual throats
      Sclerotic scoffing coppers onomatopoeic ritual filth
      Tangential gentle genital strikes at divergent seizures
      Ticky tacky scob scab mashers flashing bronze badges
      Populace smashed, defiled and denied freedoms
      Comparing the ancient grinding great kingdoms
      What is it with forces and crushing rebellion in squares?
      Why do they refuse to listen to them and hear the legitimate cares?

      NoIdea

    • The BBC’s funding is subject to the decisions of the government of the day. A government that truly represents the will of the people will be able to encourage the kind of programming that will please the unwashed masses. However, we’re all very familiar with the democratic deficit, and the millions that have become completely dissillusioned with politics. The government of the day no longer represents the will of the people as it might have before. This non representative government with its foot on the funding pedal, then sends signals to those who rely on its largesse, signals which may or may not be exacerbated through Chinese whispers. In this example the net result seems to be that the people funded BBC creates programmes that the people by and large do not wish to watch.

      Whether or not the BBC has a certain institutional bias, and I think it does, is also the fault of previous governments who have not held it properly to account. This is the problem with a TV Tax. I might disagree with the content, but I’m still strongarmed in to paying for it, even if I detune those channels and only graze on commercial offerings. There is no accountability.

      Apart from the bias. the BBC really should turn around, and say “look we’ve got all of your money. Because we care about you, we aren’t going to make programmes to fill every single second of airspace, for those of you who are used to watching 20 hours a day of TV, please try to learn to read, or do something else vaguely soul nourishing. If you do you’ll thank us for it.” Then concentrate on world class programmes that the entire world will want to watch, made by people with standard British accents that the entire world can understand. Little England will thank you for the higher quality, and the rest of the world might stop watching so much American TV for a change.

      There is a place for TV produced unfettered by the worries of how its programmes will negatively impact on its revenue stream, but I’d imagine that place is likely much smaller than the BBC would like to think.

      • Oh, and the BBC doesn’t force you to pay, the law does.

        Imagine there were two burger chains, lets call them TV King and McTV. I don’t know why they have the word TV in their names, maybe they want to get across the message that their burgers will whisk you away to a land of costume dramas, or maybe they mean their burgers will allow you to switch off most of your brain functions for a short while and let you sit in the restaurant as if in a trance. TV King’s burgers are much better than McTV’s, and McTV’s are cheaper. Everyone knows this, its just the way of the world in the less cultured end of the High Street. There is a curious thing however, in order to buy a McTV burger, you have to first buy a year long subscription for TV King’s burgers, and after you’ve bought that subscription, all TV King’s burgers are free.

        TV King’s burgers are good, but they insist in dunking them in chocolate ice cream flavoured mayonnaise. Lots of people like chocolate ice cream flavoured mayonnaise, but some don’t. Those some just go straight to McTV to buy their cardboard tasting but chocolate ice cream flavoured mayonnaise free burgers, and they eat them furtively in a run down church graveyard.

        TV King hears of this and sends the bully boys in. The bully boys whip the bland burger out of the guys mouth and throw it to the ground, and extort money out of him, the reasoning given that if they want to eat McTV’s cardboard burgers, they should have know that they needed to buy TV King’s burgers too.

        No matter what the respective quality of programming on each channel, some people find the cost prohibitive, even if they are willing to fund the production of the programmes in the first place. To be forced to pay for one channel just so you can watch another one is frankly a little bizarre.

  8. And Kevin Backhurst never says the complaints are ‘only’ the result of a web campaign, so he shouldn’t be ‘quoted’ as such.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s