« Previous | Main | Next »

Angry call to the Listener Log...

Eddie Mair | 09:48 UK time, Friday, 13 July 2007

"Re. The BBC's misrepresentation of the Queen's actions during a portrait session:
"They invited a journalist from The Guardian, the BBC's alter ego, to comment on
the story. Aren't there any other press contributors from the opposite site of the
political spectrum that could be invited on to the programme? Or is this a Stalinist
BBC?"

You could try listening properly you cloth-eared buffoon. Kelvin MacKenzie was on the programme immediately after the chap from the Guardian - was given twice as long on the air and spent all of it lambasting the BBC.

Comments

  1. At 09:54 AM on 13 Jul 2007, jonnie (from Sunny Bournemouth) wrote:

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

  2. At 10:34 AM on 13 Jul 2007, DI Wyman wrote:

    go get 'im boy....

  3. At 11:07 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Eddie,

    "Kelvin MacKenzie was on the programme immediately after the chap from the Guardian - was given twice as long on the air and spent all of it lambasting the BBC"

    Actually, I thought Kelvin MacKenzie was rather understated...if that's 'lambasting',,,

    I still adhere to my original opinion that this half-interesting story of a cock-up of relative insignificance has been given at least three times as much media time as it warrants.

    xx
    ed

  4. At 11:10 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Peej wrote:

    stop beating about the bush Eddie, just say what you really think .............

  5. At 11:36 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    I must say that I approve of this approach to the listening, license paying public. No PC bullshine, just open upand tell them what you think.

    Well done. 9/10 (docked one mark for lack of of profanity). Silver star in your book.

    Si.

    ;-)

  6. At 12:38 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    As a cloth-eared buffoon myself, I really must protest in the strongest possible terms....

  7. At 12:42 PM on 13 Jul 2007, tony ferney wrote:

    Name and shame I say!

    Eddie, were you by any chance inspired by Shakespeare's immortal cry: "Thou cream-faced loon"?

  8. At 02:06 PM on 13 Jul 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Heh, good one. A couple of questions thought:

    1) How *do* you ast a lamb?

    2) Is Buffoon, Geoff 'oon's sister?

  9. At 02:23 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Charlie wrote:


    "...you cloth-eared buffoon."

    Not sure I'd have rated the caller that highly...

  10. At 04:46 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Peter Underhill wrote:

    Please people, the Guardian is an independent trust (the Scott trust as I remember).
    The BBC exists in a unique situation, it is it's own mirror, certainly not perfect, I should know I spent 12 years working there!.
    It is the least worst propagandist to work for, and that really is saying something.

  11. At 05:05 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Peter Underhill wrote:

    Ye Gods and small fishes do we not have enogh right wing, reactionary media already? Treasure the the BBC, for all it's occasional faults, it works, very well.
    Do you want to try better?
    Bet you can't.
    Peter Unnderhill

  12. At 05:38 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    "Cloth-eared Buffoon!" :-)

    Frankly, if Kelvin McKenzie was on, I'm rather glad I missed the programme! You'll be giving air time to that !*$$€^ Piers Morgan next!!

  13. At 06:10 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Peter Underhill, (from the Shire?)

    I second that!
    Salaam/Shalom
    ed

  14. At 12:40 PM on 14 Jul 2007, Frances O wrote:

    I' with Peter, too.

    Least worst is worth preserving.

    And isn't selective deafness a wonderful thing?

  15. At 09:31 PM on 15 Jul 2007, john c wrote:

    Worth preserving, why?, what for?

    I used to believe in the BBC till I made a complaint about inaccuracy on the BBC news.

    I soon realised they were just out for a "story", and the truth was inconvenient. My complaint was correct, but it just got buried in a mass of self righteous editorial bullshit. In other words they decided an editorial position and then made the story fit.

    At that point I do not trust the BBC any more than any other media, so why preserve it ?

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.