I won’t treat you to a Good Friday sermon but I do have a story about an avenging angel and BBC hypocrisy

April 6th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

By
Tom Utley

PUBLISHED:

17:57 EST, 5 April 2012

|

UPDATED:

17:58 EST, 5 April 2012

Conscious bias? The BBC were critical of Health Secretary Andrew Lansley for ordering an investigation into abortion clinics

How many listeners, I wonder, were as baffled as I was by one of the main items on yesterday morning’s Today programme on BBC Radio 4, which went on to lead the nine o’clock news?

Clearly, the show’s producers believed they had stumbled on a shocking case of ministerial wrongdoing. But whichever way I looked at it, the only surprising thing they appeared to have uncovered was that a minister had done the job he’s paid for — and done it quickly, cheaply and well, for a change.

Indeed, I believe this was an absolutely classic example of the BBC’s semi-conscious bias — a textbook illustration of the way in which it moulds its reporting to fit its own world view, while only half-realising that it is saying anything controversial. But I’ll let you be the judge of that.

For those who missed it, the item began with a woman reporter telling us that back in February, an unnamed Downing Street source had been quoted as saying that Health Secretary Andrew Lansley should be ‘taken out and shot’ for his handling of the NHS reforms.

‘It was quickly contradicted by No 10,’ she intoned (balance, you see), ‘but this was a very low point for the Secretary of State for Health.’

Then, in a voice laden with accusation and ironic intent, she added: ‘Two weeks later, the headlines were much better.’

Criminal

What had brought about this transformation, tut-tutted Today’s Sanchia Berg, was Mr Lansley’s response to a newspaper investigation that found doctors in specialist clinics (I’ll tell you which type in a moment) were systematically breaking the law on an epic scale.

First, he wrote an article warning health professionals that they were ‘not above the law’ (how dare he, eh?). Then he asked the official regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), to conduct snap investigations of 300 of these clinics over three days.

Sure enough, the regulator found that 50 were in criminal breach of their statutory duty to their patients. The police are investigating and several doctors have been referred to the General Medical Council for possible disciplinary action.

Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham accused Mr Lansley of wasting money and disrupting other work

Are you shocked, yet, by Mr Lansley’s behaviour? Nor me. But now we reach the nub of the BBC’s charge against him.

Through a Freedom of Information request, Ms Berg tells us — and I wonder who tipped off Today to ask — the Corporation has obtained a letter from the chairwoman of the CQC to the finance director of the Department of Health.

In it, Dame Jo Williams complains that the Secretary of State’s urgent request for the investigation of the clinics meant nearly 600 planned inspections of care homes and hospitals would have to be ‘forgone’ (by which she must surely have meant postponed).

The request had had a ‘considerable impact’ on the regulator’s capacity to deliver its targets, she says. Furthermore, it cost an estimated £1 million (which the Health Department says Mr Lansley would have given her, if only she’d asked).

In case listeners were too thick to see what the BBC was driving at, Today’s producers helpfully wheeled on the Shadow Health Secretary to make the point for them.

Andy Burnham duly accused Mr Lansley of wasting money and disrupting the CQC’s work of safeguarding the vulnerable. And all for the sake of ‘chasing headlines’ to redeem his reputation after the disaster of the NHS reforms.

So far, so strange. A newspaper uncovers widespread criminality in health clinics. The minister responsible requests an immediate investigation, which takes only three days and costs a mere £1 million — less than one ten-millionth of the Health Department’s £105 billion budget.

The scandal is stamped out, the guilty face punishment . . . and instead of patting the Health Secretary on the back, the BBC swoops down on him like an avenging angel, flaming with wrath.

Traumatic

Indeed, the tone is set from the very opening words of the report, with that spurious reminder that someone had said the poor fellow should be taken out and shot. In my trade, this kind of reporting is known as a ‘hatchet job’. The question is: why is Auntie so angry with Mr Lansley?

I reckon I know exactly why. For unless I’m much mistaken, the one and only reason why the BBC went for Mr Lansley’s throat and thought it worth leading its news bulletins with the story is that the criminal behaviour on which he clamped down with such swiftness and efficiency was taking place in abortion clinics. And as we all know, the free availability of abortions is a central tenet of progressive thought, and therefore of the BBC.

The law states clearly that before a termination can take place, a consent form must be signed by the pregnant woman’s supervising consultant and a second professional, who has either seen her or studied her case history. This is partly so that no woman should go through what can be a traumatic procedure without first having discussed it with somebody qualified, who knows about her.

It's almost as though the 'progressive' BBC can't imagine that anyone would oppose the free availability of abortions

It’s almost as though the ‘progressive’ BBC can’t imagine that anyone would oppose the free availability of abortions

The Press investigation found, and the CQC confirmed, that in many clinics, doctors who knew nothing about the patient were leaving stacks of pre-signed forms for others to fill in her details. In other words, they were offering abortion on demand, which is banned by law.

Elsewhere, clinics were said to be conducting abortions only because a woman who was carrying a girl wanted a boy, or vice versa. Whether you agree with Parliament or not, this is also banned.

At this point, let me offer a solemn assurance. Even though this is Good Friday, I’m not about to treat you to a sermon on the evils of abortion. Long experience has taught me there’s no point in trying to change anyone’s mind on the subject.

The pros and the antis (and, yes, I’m an anti) just shout at each other across an unbridgeable divide, with my side proclaiming that a foetus is a human life and the other maintaining, with equal passion, that it’s a woman’s right to choose. We’ll just have to agree to differ.

Lambast

But surely, surely, we can all agree that it is because our publicly funded broadcaster believes abortion is a fundamental feminist right that it chose to lambast Mr Lansley for enforcing the law.

Consider. If the newspapers or the BBC had uncovered evidence of any other systematic criminality in health clinics — particularly private ones, as some of these were — does anyone think it would have attacked the Health Secretary for requesting a prompt investigation?

Does anyone believe that the Beeb, which bewails every cut and lauds every increase in government spending, would have made such a fuss about any other three-day clampdown costing less than one ten-millionth of the NHS budget?

And is it remotely conceivable that, on any other matter, it would have expressed such sympathy for the grotesquely incompetent CQC — whose appalling record over upholding standards of care for the elderly and vulnerable the BBC, to its credit, has done so much to report?

Final question. Last year, BBC TV’s Panorama exposed the scandalous ill-treatment of patients at the Winterbourne View private hospital, which had been missed by the CQC. Does anyone remember Auntie accusing ministers of ‘chasing headlines’ when they moved swiftly to close down the rotten place?

Thought not.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

Newest
Oldest
Best rated
Worst rated

Criticise the BBC and you will always have some character inform you that you have the choice of switching off. This time it is Jane Davies of Swansea (5.23 am) who provides us with that remarkable insight. This is preceded by the equally silly observation that ‘nobody at the BBC is brainwashed’. I think that we can be fairly confident that our public broadcaster is not resorting to such draconian methods of thought control! The real problem with the BBC is that the kind of people it chooses to employ seem to share a lib/left world view which they regard as so self-evidently correct that only grudging and token acknowledgement of alternatives is required of them. These people do not have to be told what to think. They already know.

– KG, London, 06/4/2012 10:06

Jane Davies, Swansea. Don,t talk out of your BBC. Radio in Swansea, yeah right. No leccy there yet.

– george, bristol, 06/4/2012 09:40

The BBC – Lefter by the day and richer with every new licence; All marriages and divorces, young people leaving their family home, newcomers settling in Britain…it all adds to an already fat BBC budget, a public fund that the BBC consumes decade after decade unchallenged. This is the stuff of dictatorship, NOT democracy.

– Bill Tort, Durham, 06/4/2012 09:38

Everyday the BBC Today programme spends most of its time attacking the government simply because it is not Labour and therefore everything it does must be wrong.
Have you ever noticed how many BBC people go on to become Labour politicians? The list is quite long.
When Tony Blair came to power we had 13 years of the Today programmes starting, “Today the government will….” as Naughtie and Montague read the latest press release. Now anyone who takes a line against the government’s proposals is invited to speak, uninterrupted, whilst they criticise anything and everything that the government proposes.

– Deborah, UK, 06/4/2012 09:36

“BBC semi conscious bias”? How about the female presenter on BBC World News the other night reading out the following, “what Britain refers to as the Falkland Islands but what Argentina knows as the Malvinas”.

– Callan, Liverpool, England, 06/4/2012 09:32

James Davies. There is a difference between news reporting and cynical twisting of facts to denigrate. Ad Hominem.

– Barbra , Hampshire, 06/4/2012 09:31

Re. Colin, Coningsby – Agree other inspections set back 3 days. Cost of GBP 1 million, not understood where this figure came from. Can make sense of your calculations, but inspections done by staff moved from other duties. Therefore additional cost should be nil, unless there was an increase in travelling costs. Anybody any idea where this figure came from?

– R. W. Lower, Edinburgh, Scotland, 06/4/2012 09:29

Welcome to DM dictionary.
Today’s phrase is ‘rank hypocrisy’ – the temerity to have a viewpoint not shared by a DM columnist

– Tim Ball, Buxton, 06/4/2012 09:27

The BBC needs to be broken up; it behaves like the mouthpiece of the liberal-left, is blatently and institutionally biased, and is therefore failing to comply with the terms of its Charter.
The potentially profitably elements – ie the populist stations on TV and radio – should be privatised and made to raise revenue through advertising or compete with the likes of BSkyB. People will pay if they want to watch. The remaining stations (BBC 2, 4, Radio 3 and 4) should remain public-sector broadcasting, but the Charter must be strengthened.
Cameron failed when he entered No10. He should have made tackling the BBC a top priority. He’s not even a real Conservative leading a Conservative Government and doesn’t get a fair hearing. Imagine the BBC’s response if we had a REAL Conservative Government.

– Boudicca, Guildford, Surrey, 06/4/2012 09:04

Jane Davies, Swansea, wherever your sympathies lie the remit of the BBC is to report facts not to slant a story so much that it becomes biased. That’s what tabloid red-top newspapers do. We have a choice to buy them or not. We have no choice whether or not to pay the BBC licence (tax). I find it increasingly disturbing that the BBC news bulletins on Radio 4 are becoming more slanted, let alone pieces by individual reporters. This particular example of “reporting” and the subsequent QA conducted by a flummoxed Sarah Montague was an all-time low.

– Ginny, by the sea, 06/4/2012 09:04

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.