[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/31/grant-shapps-bbc-john-humphrys_n_3681445.html?utm_hp_ref=uk[/url

We all know, we can all see with our own eyes how the printed news media are very cosy with HM Government's press office, repeating verbatim spurious "facts" (which are then frequently shown to be exaggeration at best, lies at worse, or quoting from polls on childrens tv at most pathetic), and confirmation of just how much the newspapers have sold their souls comes today by the Tory Party attack on a BBC Trust report which dared to criticise a BBC program for being too biased to HM Gov and for using their press office issued stats as gospel and without any sort of serious questioning.

Grant Shapps waffles on a bit in that interview about something that may or may not have happened almost a year ago (he isn't specific about what it was or even when it was) but he seems to be mightily aggrieved about whatever it was, or wasn't, and then poor old IDS has a go at the BBC Trust for criticising a BBC program that they had managed to infiltrate and get a report out which favoured their policies.

Tell me I'm wrong but do we really want a public broadcaster to just issue government written policy documents and pass them off as news, or even as truth ?

Isn't that where Germany went wrong in the 1930s ?

If we just look at the reporting of the BBCs carpeting of John Humphries ....

Daily Mail
BBC attacks John Humphrys for telling the TRUTH on welfare: Corporation bosses accused of Left-wing bias after criticising respected Today presenter

Virginia Blackburn in the Express
The BBC plumbed new depths in criticising its best presenter John Humphrys for a programme about welfare in Britain, which was in fact an even-handed examination of a blight of our times.

The Times
Lord Patten of Barnes will be questioned in Parliament over the BBC Trust’s treatment of John Humphrys, it emerged yesterday.
Stewart Jackson, a Conservative member of the Public Accounts Committee, plans to challenge the Chairman of the trust over its criticism of a programme by Mr Humphrys on welfare dependency.
Lord Patten is due to appear before the committee in September to answer questions about BBC payoffs, but the Tory MP said he would ask about the way the complaint against Mr Humphrys had been handled.

Guardian
BBC programme on welfare reforms broke impartiality and accuracy rules
The Future of the Welfare State, presented by John Humphrys, failed to back up controversial views with statistics, says trust

... and finally Iain Duncan Smith thought it was a "fair-minded" report. Quelle surprise.


So, basically, a programme was critised for lack of impartiality and lack of stats but, hey, that's a lefty way of looking at it.

And who is going to be in the Palace of Westminster to answer questions about why a biased report was criticised?
That well-known opposition spokesman, ex Tory MP Chris Patten.

Propaganda is the right description and shown up by this grubby episode.

If it turns out that the stats WERE wrong, will the press say so?
If it turns out that the programme was NOT impartial as per the rules, will the press say so?
No, the dog whistle has already been blown and that's what they wanted.

They managed to get a BBC program to report their "facts" on welfare reform according to their own script, then get all huffy when the BBC Trust question why the BBC presenter did not question the "facts".

If IDS had provided the "facts" then I think the Trust was right to question where they had come from and whether any of them had been verified.

The [iMail[/i actually published a correction on 9 July, blaming Conservative Central Office, for the claim that 878,000 individuals had stopped claiming disability benefits rather than face a medical.

It stated: "We are happy to make clear that other important reasons people had for not pursuing ESA claims were that they recovered, returned to work or claimed a more appropriate benefit".

You sense that it was published (and hidden away, of course) while teeth were gritted.

IDS has crowed that the Government Job Website (whose name escapes me) gets 5m hits per day.
That's an average 20 hits per unemployed person PER DAY ... but still he goes on about the unemployed not being strivers.

I cannot be said enough: in a government of odious wipes, that man is a particularly nasty specimen.

Universal Jobmatch

Having experienced HM Gov websites and the number of clicks you have to make before you reach anything productive at all, he is probably misquoting page hits rather than unique site visits, I wouldn't expect him to understand the difference nor would I expect him to differentiate even if he did know the difference, one day when the press pick another flag to sail under they will start to pick away at the lies and misinformation issued from littles like him, but until then, doubt everything.

There are only 250,000 unemployed?



We are on the up

Apologies, it was 50m hits per day.

Quote ="Mintball"The [iMail[/i actually published a correction on 9 July, blaming Conservative Central Office, for the claim that 878,000 individuals had stopped claiming disability benefits rather than face a medical. It stated: "We are happy to make clear that other important reasons people had for not pursuing ESA claims were that they recovered, returned to work or claimed a more appropriate benefit". You sense that it was published (and hidden away, of course) while teeth were gritted.'" www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... tions.html Just for everyones information, so they can copy and paste it anywhere they like for the whole world to see

Quote ="Mintball"The [iMail[/i actually published a correction on 9 July, blaming Conservative Central Office, for the claim that 878,000 individuals had stopped claiming disability benefits rather than face a medical. It stated: "We are happy to make clear that other important reasons people had for not pursuing ESA claims were that they recovered, returned to work or claimed a more appropriate benefit". You sense that it was published (and hidden away, of course) while teeth were gritted.'" www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article ... tions.html Just for everyones information, so they can copy and paste it anywhere they like for the whole world to see

I have a copy as a screengrab.

Remember kids, you don't need to be able to show that any numbers you quote are accurate.

You just need to be able to believe they are, and then you can trot out any old nonsense with an air of authority.

UK Government statistics, about as accurate as the Zimbabwean election count.

Or, more accurately (so to speak), you just need to say that you believe they are.