Storm over Corfu
I suspect that never before has the holiday island of Corfu received quite as much attention in the British media as it has in recent weeks. The extraordinary gathering this summer of politicians, media magnates and billionaires has spawned a plethora of stories.
At the centre of most of them, of course, have been two major figures in British politics - Lord Mandelson, the new business secretary and George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. What they said, and to whom, has received massive coverage across newspapers and other news organisations, ironically it appears kicked off by a conversation they had with one another at a now infamous taverna on the Greek isle.
Amidst the storm, questions have been raised about the BBC's coverage. Of course those questions are many and varied as always but there has been a particular accusation from some complainants that we did too much on the allegations against George Osborne and not enough on those against Lord Mandelson.
Let's deal with the Osborne story first. Here was a specific allegation of wrongdoing - indeed possible law-breaking - against the man holding the most sensitive post in the shadow cabinet outside of the leader. The claim - vehemently denied - that he solicited a donation to the Conservatives from a Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, and talked about ways to secretly channel that donation to the party, on the face of it could have put him in breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
What's more, that allegation - made in a letter to The Times, who understandably led on the story - came from Nat Rothschild, someone who up until that point at least had been a long-term friend of Mr Osborne's, so much so that he was hosting Mr Osborne and his family at his Corfu home, and his mother had been funding the shadow chancellor's private office to the tune of £190,000. The BBC also learned that Mr Rothschild was willing to go to court to back up his claim and had another witness who would support his story.
In the light of the seriousness of the allegations - and the seriousness of the person making the claim - many BBC News outlets made the decision that this was an important story and chose to lead with it, as did every other major broadcaster and nearly every national newspaper.
But what about Lord Mandelson and his links with Oleg Deripaska? After all, while holding the position of EU trade commissioner he had stayed on Mr Deripaska's yacht in Corfu and indeed had dined with him previously on a number of occasions. This at a time, where he had supported moves to cut EU aluminium tariffs to the enormous benefit of Mr Deripaska, who owns the world's largest aluminium producer.
Well, the first thing to say is that there was no ban on reporting this and other questions, and BBC journalists immediately began looking into them. More importantly, when the BBC had its first opportunity to do a proper interview with Lord Mandelson following his reappointment to the cabinet, before the Osborne story broke, he was questioned robustly about the allegations (which you can watch here).
The reason the coverage so far has not been at the same level as that of George Osborne is that up until now there has been no similar specific allegation that Lord Mandelson has broken any laws. Nor, in Lord Mandelson's case, was there a specific, credible complainant in the same way as there was with Mr Osborne.
Nor does it appear at this stage (though questions are still being asked) that Lord Mandelson breached any EU code of conduct, however questionable his relationship with Mr Deripaska may or may not appear. Crucial to this, is the fact that while the UK ministerial code has rules about a perceived conflict of interest, the code of conduct for EU commissioners does not in the same way. Thus far the European Commission says he has done nothing wrong and has made it clear that the decision to cut aluminium tariffs followed a long debate amongst member states and was supported by them. It was not in his gift.
So, while the story was checked and questions were asked of Lord Mandelson by the BBC, the story did not make it on to our main news programmes. However in our coverage of the allegations against Mr Osborne, we have repeatedly made it clear that Lord Mandelson also faces questions about his relationship with Mr Deripaska.
We also spelt out the tangled relationships involved in the story in enough detail to allow audiences to make their own judgment about what role, if any, Lord Mandelson had in promoting the allegations against the shadow chancellor.
So, editorial decisions have been based on the seriousness of the allegations and the strength of the evidence. That will remain paramount in any future coverage of politicians who find themselves in the spotlight, though I suspect next summer there won't be quite such a rush to Corfu.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
"So, editorial decisions have been based on the seriousness of the allegations and the strength of the evidence."
ie
"We're afraid of Mandelson, but not of Osborne"
Complain about this comment
Perhaps in future you should also take into consideration the character of the person making the allegations.
Complain about this comment
Not sure if this explanation is good enough.
No allegations of law-breaking were made against Osborne until Brown answered a planted question in the Commons yesterday - unless the BBC was already aware of the allegations and had been briefed by Labour early - this does not answer the early intense interest.
The allegations were originally about a lack of judgement - and on this case both Mandelson and Osborne were jointly guilty. Given that Mandelson was in a position of power - more coverage should have been on him.
Furthermore, the BBC shouldn't be hiding behind the letter of the law (both British and EU) and should highlight poor laws (as it does on shows like Watchdog). In this case - the party funding rules desperately need simplifying and EU law clearly need tightening.
Regardless of whether Mandelson hasn't broken a law in Europe - he would have done if he had been acting for Britain - so surely a huge story about why EU is so lenient over conflicts of interest - particularly when it isn't particularly transparent or democratic is long-overdue.
The Times can have it's scoop - it's the job of the BBC to investigate in an unbiased way. The spectacle of Peston reporting biased political gossip on his blog instead of business and economic issues was disgraceful. This is made worse given he is facing allegations from Osborne that he leaked sensitive market data and thus his reporting can be seen as a conflict of interest.
Complain about this comment
I'm no expert on journalism or politics but the coverage on this by the BBC does seem a little - full?
My main surprise was Robert Peston, the business editor, who became involved in a political story and wrote:
'The first thing to say about Nat Rothschild, whom I've met a couple of times, is that he is a tenacious, steely individual - who does not make allegations lightly.'
The insinuation here is 'I know him and he is not a lier therefore someone else is not telling the truth'
This is a very strange thing to say because a) he does not report on politics
b) because you've met someone a couple of times does mean you know them or their motive and
c) I expected better of a journalist who was doing a good job in the recent business climate and was just adding further hearsay which allows the BBC to be attacked.
It could be forgiven as blogs do allow a little more flexability but to have him on national radio for his 'opinion' was a poor show indead.
(this whole episode was handled badly: just look at the Paxman Heseltine interview on Newsnight - very painful for Mr Paxman!)
Complain about this comment
You are just a bunch of labour lovers, and why don't you admit it?
Complain about this comment
The different ways the two stories have been covered is startling. The accusations against Mandelson have been barely covered, indeed Nick Robinson 'resisted' covering them, and is now trying to claim he was 'resisting political pressure'. Then why did he not resist with Osbourne? The two stories are linked, but Mandelsons part was all but ignored by the BBC until late yesterday.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Steve, the main problem is that the BBC has been leading the rolling story of "Brown the superman" for the last couple of weeks. Although it has moderated its reporting with discussion of the financial crisis, there is a clear bias emerging in favour of the ruling party. This is not what the BBC should be doing. This story has only damaged its credibility on impartiality further.
As for Mr Rothschild, if you knew that he was once a friend of Osbourne you'd also know that he has a somewhat "wild history" and is probably not pursuing a line of attack against a senior politician over.
Complain about this comment
nortongriffiths @2
Nat Rothschild's business relies on his reputation. If he gets a reputation for screwing over friends in public like this then his business is effectively over.
He's got an awful lot to lose if he's shown in the wider world to be untrustworthy at the end of it.
Complain about this comment
I'm really not getting it here. Mandy has slid back to pole position-even better than before because he is not answerable to the Commons while in the other house. His relationships with the rich have always been a problem but we don't see it as part of national news on the 'main news programmes' . T Blair just loved the rich and powerful and was investigated in the cash for honours. And of course he was not by any means the only one .
Yet the fact that Osbourne 'talked' to a rich oligarch is worth pursuing again and again while the country is in dire trouble economically and there are many stories out there about connections between all parties and rich powerful people.Your decisions look decidedly dodgy.
Complain about this comment
"The reason the coverage so far has not been at the same level as that of George Osborne is that up until now there has been no similar specific allegation that Lord Mandelson has broken any laws."
Does this mean that now you have discovered that there is no substance to the allegations that the law has been broken that the BBC will publicly apologise to George Osbourne?
Of course I would expect such a public apology to be given much less coverage then the original allegation.
Isn't checking the facts of a story supposed to be something that happens BEFORE the story goes to press?
"So, editorial decisions have been based on the seriousness of the allegations and the strength of the evidence."
So in this case where the allegation is serious enough to damage a career the only evidence that is required is a letter by someone with an axe to grind?
Complain about this comment
I agree that the story needed reporting, although ITV News at 1.30 placed it second to the dreadful road accident in Cheshire whilst the BBC News at 1 led with it. What I am confused by is why Robert Peston was working on the story - surely this is entirely a political news story, the only aspect to it that was a business story was the aspect NOT reported widely by the BBC, the links between ex EU Commissioner Mandelson and an aluminium magnate. Whilst Nick Robinson's report did talk about this, Robert Peston concentrated instead on the allegation against Tory shadow chancellor George Osbourne.
Maybe you could explain why this minor story needed two very senior reporters with massive coverage. There was no donation, therefore no illegality occured, therefore there is no major story.
Complain about this comment
Sorry this does not wash. What do you mean the seriousness of the person making the allegations? How is this assessed? Do you take account of why that person might be making those allegations?
I also thought it was confirmed in the news last night that soliciting a donation was in itself not an offence, provided it was not proceeded with.
I know some will dismiss this I have hoestly never voted Tory but I do like to see a balance in the new coverage. The overwhelming impression is that the BBC have gone after this like a pack of dogs. It has not had anything like to same prominence on say ITV. Meanwhilst the PM appears to get a very easy ride with the Economics reporter last night trotting out the Brown line that the UK cannot be immune from world events. Surely some analysis of whether Govt policy has potentially exacerabted the problems we face?
Robert Peston's blog was particularly disgraceful - stating that Rothschild was not a man to make such allegations lightly. Surely he should not be making such obviously personal judgments that tend to support one side of the case - the obvious implication was that Osbourne was lying.
Lastly Peston had a clear conflict of interest between his need to maintain good business contacts with a leading businessman (Rothschild), through 'rubbing his back', against the need to be objective. This conflict clearly proved too much for him.
Peston's obvious ambition will cause the BBC problems if he is not reined in. If it is discovered that Rothschild did make the allegation lightly then he would surely have to resign.
Complain about this comment
2. I agree.
My concern is the amount of time spent on the Osborne story as a percentage of news coverage - totally disproportionate given that no criminal act was committed.
I am perturbed also by the news that Robert Peston keeps announcing. Having read his biography of Gordon Brown together with Tom Bower's biographies of GB, I have formed my own view.
Complain about this comment
I think that your coverage of the Osborne story is entirely fair and well balanced given the allegations. No specific allegations have been made with reference to Peter Mendleson other than ndining with the Russian and that, presumably, is not a crime.
Well done, BBC - you will never please everyone but, overall, you do a pretty good job.
Complain about this comment
Sounds a bit fishy to me. I realise the seriousness of the allegations has to come into it, but surely the credibility of the allegations must count for something as well? As far as I can tell, it became obvious very quickly that the allegations against Osborne were nothing more than pure mischief-making and that there was absolutely no credible evidence that he'd done anything wrong.
As for whether Mandelson had broken any laws, do you seriously think that's what's most important to your viewers? Here was a man controlling aluminium tariffs and accepting the hospitality of an aluminium billionaire. If that's not illegal, don't you think that 99.9% of your viewers would actually be demanding to know why the hell it isn't illegal?
Some people may be quick to attribute motives to this appalling lack of editorial judgement at the BBC, accusing it of pro-Labour anti-Tory bias. I doubt that's true, as I much prefer to believe in cock-up theories over conspiracy theories. I suspect it's far more likely you simply misread the story and made the wrong decisions.
I'd have a lot more respect if you just came out and said "sorry" rather than coming up with some half-hearted attempt at an explanation which, frankly, insults our intelligence.
Complain about this comment
Your justification does not stand up to close scrutiny.
You argue the prominence of the Osborne story was justified because Osborne may have acted illegally, "possible law-breaking". This was never an issue. No cash changed hands. Guilty of "crashingly poor judgement" maybe, but illegal no. It boils down to tittle-tattle, an accusation of "soliciting" and pay-back time. There won't be an investigation into this because there's nothing substantial to investigate.
Secondly you use the defence of a "ministerial code". Osborne is not a government minister, Mandleson is. As EU trade commissioner he was asked to investigate Deripaska and that may have caused a conflict of interest. He is now a government minister and member of the cabinet. That alone means he should come under media scrutiny to a greater extent than Osborne.
Complain about this comment
What a cop out.
So you imply that Osborne is guilty and hence put the weight of your reporting that way. No trial? No evidence?
Just come clean and admit you are scared of Mandelson. He has form for poor judgement (at best).
Bellfoundry
Complain about this comment
What exactly is the charge against Osbourne? GB suggests their should be an inquiry by the appropriate authorities; about what exactly. As with Mandy, there is no proof that anything illegal has actually been done....
A total shower, and fades into insignificance when compared to the blatant misleading performed by T Bliar about the FI donations - that disappeared pretty sharpish!
Complain about this comment
Well said.
Particularly pertinent for me is the point that Mandelson Did not and Could not make the decision re Aluminium tarifs "It was not in his gift"
This is the "insinuation" made by Tory bloggers and indeed Cameron himself.
Not directly saying but insinuating.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. I guess its a case of if you are on weak ground, ignore the criticism and come out shouting.
This all terribly disappointing, but nowadays not particularly surprising. Your comments do nothing to dispel the rather distasteful feeling that the BBC is indeed biased in favour of Nu- labour. I suppose the kindest thing one can say is that you and your like, are stuck in some Metropolitan media bubble and cannot stand back and see matters for what they are. Lord Reith must be turning in his grave.
Complain about this comment
Rubbish.
There has been such wide spread coverage of this non-issue by the BBC - who are supposed to be impartial.
The BBC has it's own agenda on any number of topics from climate change through to politics.
It is time to break up the monolith that is the BBC and reform the tax payer funded media.
I favour giving independent companies the opportunity to produce 'BBC Branded' content, funded by the licence payer on annual contracts.
As a pilot - lets compete the opportunity to deliver 'BBC Branded' news between ITN, Channel 4 and the current BBC team.
Your weak defence is a sign that that the BBC have been caught fuelling stories planted by BBC spin doctors. Oh dear.
Complain about this comment
"The reason the coverage [of Mandelson] so far has not been at the same level as that of George Osborne is that up until now there has been no similar specific allegation that Lord Mandelson has broken any laws. Nor, in Lord Mandelson's case, was there a specific, credible complainant in the same way as there was with Mr Osborne."
There was no allegation that Osborne had broken the law. Soliciting a donation is not against the law, - even if he did so, which he denies. Rothschild is an old friend of Osborne who was miffed because his friend spilled the beans on Mandelson. It was a squabble between public schoolboys and you joined in and amplified it. Come on - you were out of order, particularly Peston.
Complain about this comment
Dear Sir, you are missing the point - there was no law breaking. Therefore the story should not have become as big as it has.
And some further points - politcial parties must be allowed to check if they can accept a donation, which it seems they did.
You also talk about 'many BBC news outlets'. Why do we have to fund such a bloated organisation?
Complain about this comment
"[H]e was questioned robustly about the allegations." I'm sure that I'm not the first person here to suggest that the robustness of the questioning of Mandelson is nothing compared to that of other news outlets. The robustness of Robinson's questioning of Osborne would be welcome the next time a New Labour politician is facing him.
The fact that the BBC are having to defend their bias would suggest that there is some basis to the complaints.
Complain about this comment
Steve I am afraid this just doesn't cut it. So because an allegation was made in a leter to The Times, this somehow warranted wall to wall coverage on BBC 24? I am a Liberal voter but have been surprised and really quite angry at the way this was presented and all this led in to the mother of slapdowns yesterday which I thoroughly enjoyed: Hesseltine VS Paxman who you could just see didn't really want to be asking the questions he had to.
To clarify, you made a story out of mostly hear say, and then failed repeatedly to link it to Mandelson, the man as we all know, you are scared off (for some reason the normal voter will never understand). This is not why I pay my license fee. Not for you to play up to one party whilst showing bias to the other. You after all report news to everyone, paid by everyone. I am afraid you are wrong on this one, and would have liked to have seen more about Brown's rather embarrassing comment about the authorities being called in. What authorities would that be? The hear say authorities?
No one comes out of this saga looking good. Brown looks like he has embraced the spin and backstabbing of Many. Mandy looks well... like Mandy... Osborne naive and the BBC has confirmed to me that it is no longer the news organisation to turn to (which started in my opinion with the Kelly fiasco). I have to say I am thoroughly dissapointed that this is the best excuse you have.
Complain about this comment
Well, of course, one cannot entirely blame the BBC - Mandelson isn't stupid enough to have deployed his 'shock and awe' campaign against Osborne without being reasonably sure that it would be Osborne who would come off worst and that the Prince would be reasonably well hidden in the bunker when the flak began to fly..
That said, I can't help thinking that in the 'post-Hutton' BBC, they just ain't willing to put their heads above the parapet in the way that they once would. Maybe you can prove me wrong.
That said, they are probably 'frit' that Dave Cameron's Conservatives will want to chip away at the licence fee, so one wonders just how much 'heavy artillery' they will be willing to display against George Osborne.
Complain about this comment
Steve Mawhinney - having read your justification for the difference in coverage between the Mandelson and Osborne stories, I have to say, your reasoning is perfectly sound and makes sense.
But don't expect it to be sufficient for the influx of right-wing trolls who flood these boards. For them, no amount of common sense, logic or reason will change how they wish to portray the BBC.
These people aren't interesting in reading editorial justifications. They're only interested in mud-slinging and seeking victim status.
Complain about this comment
The law would be broken only if a donation was received and neither side has ever said a donation was made or accepted. In the context of that, the law breaking accusation seems rather tenuous at best.
Secondly, an EU commissioner was reviewed by another EU body and cleared, hardly a mark of true independence. Would you accept a Conservative body clearing Osborne of any wrongdoing? I doubt it.
Also, Mandleson's two previous departures from the cabinet would perhaps indicate that he is a man whose judgement has a track record of being brought into question; and given that, surely the latest accusations should be thoroughly reviewed.
Complain about this comment
So, now that the BBC knows there is a great and genuine public interest over the Mandleson allegations, will the BBC be devoting as much time to investigating them as they have with those made against Osbourne...?
I look forward to seeing every news and current affairs broadcast, every website and blog devoting days of headline coverage to investigating whether or not Mandleson has broken any rules, or is guilty of corruption in any way...
Complain about this comment
"... while the UK ministerial code has rules about a perceived conflict of interest, the code of conduct for EU commissioners does not ..."
That is surely the big story here. How dare they not have such rules? Is it cock-up or conspiracy that the beeb have not investigated this?
Complain about this comment
Pull the other one
Complain about this comment
I am pleased that the BBC consider that they need to justify their actions. However I believe the justification falls well short. It is clear that these allegations against Osborn were a "tit for tat", that in itself raises questions as to the reliability of them.
The rapidity with which the PM's request that the matter be taken up with the authorities has been dispelled by those authorities highlights that this is a non story.
The BBC were either blind to the lack of anything to investigate in the allegations, or were happy to be redirected away from Mandelson.
The BBC now need to look at why a story that involved Mandelson (the master of spin) suddenly turned into a story about Osborne.
There has been speculation that Mandelson pulled levers to get Rothschild to write the letter. If so why was this one time friend prepared to go to these extraordinary lengths in an attempt to damage another friend... what does he owe to Mandelson. does Mandelson really yeild such power?
As they say - Follow the money.
The BBC have been sidetracked by £50,000 that never changed hands - whilst business deals worth billions had taken place with the positive aid of Mandelson involving Russian Oligarchs who happen to invest in Rothschilds funds.
That is where a Business editor should have been looking - reporting on Business. Instead he was keen to report on politics.
Your justification does not explain why. As I stated at the outset, it falls well short.
Complain about this comment
Sorry as I wanted to add another thing: As it had been established by that point that no money had changed hands and there was no proof that Osborne had solicited the donations, the story became one about his 'judgement' and how it 'looked bad' that he was hob-nobbing with billionaires.
At which point, there was no difference between the Osborne and Mandelson stories - in neither case was their proof of wrong-doing, but in both cases there were questions that could be raised about their judgement (Mandelson's clear potential conflict of interests) and in both cases questions could be raised about how it would look to the public that they were hob-nobbing with billionaires. Please explain the difference in judgement on this one Steve? And treat your viewers with a bit more respect than you did with this statement.
Complain about this comment
Comparison of two cases:
1. You admit in another article: the Electoral Commission said it would not launch an inquiry, as "soliciting a donation is not an offence". So soliciting a donation is not an offence, even though Osborne denies even that.
However, in the case of Mandelson you admit that he would have broken the UK ministerial code of conduct, although the EU rules are laxer, as indeed we have seen regarding expense claims.
2. The sum involved in the Osborne affair was 50 thousand pounds. The sums involved in the Mandelson affair were millions of pounds.
3. The Osborne case boiled down to the recollection of two people being different from the version of two others. There was no donation. There is no doubt that Mandelson enjoyed Deripaska?s hospitality and there is no doubt that the Russian benefited from the change in the rules regarding aluminium tariffs. There may be no connection but the issue is much more serious.
4.Osborne met Deripaska briefly five times. He has also provided details of the meetings. Mandelson stayed on the oligarch?s yacht and has been silent about they might have discussed and also silent about any other meetings on other occasions.
Frankly, I know which one I think is more serious.
Complain about this comment
Typical Beeb. Mandleson pretty much ignored because he was not percived to have broken any law (according to EU judgement rather than UK Parliament/legal system) irrespective of the his judgement (or possible lack of it) in saying what he did. Funnily, Osborne has not broken any law - even if his judgement may be considered to have been, at best, poor. Why oh why do we continue to finance what is a flawed Corporation with its own very questionable judgement and seemingly biased views. Beeb - you are a hangover which we should now cure.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Mawhinney,
Your blog raises a couple of interesting points?.
1) You state ? ??while the UK ministerial code has rules about a perceived conflict of interest, the code of conduct for EU commissioners does not in the same way?. Very true, but should not the media hold our trade commissioner ? our representative ? to the same ethical standards that we would expect from a minister of the crown, irrespective of the rules? After all, as I am sure you would agree ? as EU Trade Commissioner, Mandleson held a position of greater importance and influence, than your average UK Minister. In his blog, your own political editor ? Nick Robinson ? has conceded that there was a clear conflict of interest; Mandelson has also been less than candid in declaring his relationship with Mr. Deripaska and his offices dealings with this tycoon go beyond mere Aluminum tariffs ? as I am sure you are aware (see link to the Spectator below)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2539376/osborne-stumbles-but-is-there-a-bigger-story-about-mandelson.thtml
Returning to the Robinson blog again ? your political editor conceded that this potential conflict of interest was so serious, that had Mandelson been a Minister at the time, he almost certainly would have had to resign. So I am afraid your defense of no specific allegation of wrong-doing or law-breaking just does not hold water. In addition, I wondered if you could also ask Nick, why given his opinion ? he has chosen not raise this point in his numerous TV and radio broadcasts?
2) Your post also fails to answer a number of other points raised in the blogosphere. Why for instance, was Robert Preston ? your economics editor ? so prominent in his reporting? Why didn?t he or any of the BBC reporters interviewing him, raise the issue of his potential conflict of interest? Re: Tory complaints of his reporting vis-à-vis the financial crisis? You must admit, that Gordon Brown?s biographer seems to benefit from an inordinate amount of insider information; all to New Labour?s benefit.
3) Then there is your coverage of the Osborne affair itself. Over the past two days the allegation against him has subtly changed. Initially he was charged with soliciting a donation, but now Rothschild?s witnesses only confirm that Osborne was interested in a donation. The two are not the same ? one would be illegal, the other not. Yet, BBC reports have consistently and wrongly claimed that Rothschild?s witnesses have substantiated the original claim against the Shadow chancellor ? they have not.
Now yesterday the PM called for an enquiry into this affair. Again Nick Robinson (this time on the Daily Politics) conceded that this was little more than a political stunt, designed to prolong the story for another day - as no donation has been accepted and there was no prima fascia evidence of Osborne?s guilt. In this vain, Sky News reported yesterday that the electoral commission confirmed that they have neither heard of nor see any evidence of wrong-doing. So whilst I can understand why you reported Brown?s call for an investigation, why did you not give the full context? e.g. Nick Robinson?s assessment of why the call had been made; Downing Street?s floundering response to questions of who should investigate Mr. Osborne and why; and the response from the Electoral Commission. Sky managed all of the above ? the BBC did not.
4) Previous ? I?m referring of course to the BBC?s form in these affairs. As the Daily Mail accurately records, your journalists have a history of going soft on Mandelson in particular and New Labour in general. That perception has now gone international. I read a story concerning the left wing bias at the BBC on MSNBC (hardly a bastion of Conservatism) only the other day. I have also seen similar articles in the Telegraph, The Times and even the Guardian. Former BBC journalists have publicly commented upon it and even public opinion polls have shown that people from the centre-right, perceive the BBC as biased against them. While the same cannot be said for the centre-left. All of this should tell you something ? you have a problem in your news-rooms, but I?m sure you will just dismiss me as another nut. Unfortunately, it is this attitude that will see the end of the license fee and that is a shame, because personally I would like to keep a nationally funded, national broadcaster. The BBC does many great things, but at the moment, your political news coverage is not one of them.
Complain about this comment
It was fair enough for Nick Robinson to get involved in a big way with the Osborne story, but what got me really annoyed is that Robert Peston decided this political trivia was more important to him than the dreadful economic news being reported by the hour.
Plus, it would be nice to see Gordon Brown being Paxoed occasionally by BBC reporters - why not grill him as effectively as opposition spokesmen appear to be?
Complain about this comment
No comment about the THREE letters that Rothschild wrote and amended then?
The less said about Preston's ridiculous attempts to help out his Labour friends the better especially since it was Osborne who asked for an inquiry into Preston's actions re bank problems etc. No conflict of interest for Preston?
How about Mandy winging an invite to get on Paul Allen's yacht in 2005 when he was overseeing a million dollar fine on Microsoft at the time? No conflict there either for the BBC to investigate surely? Cough.
"He was not a welcome guest and was avoided by many of the other party-goers who were only too well aware that the European Commission had fined Microsoft a record ?497 million on competition grounds. Microsoft was engaged in a bitter legal battle to have the fine overturned.
With billions at stake it was surely inappropriate for the trade commissioner to meet socially with the second largest shareholder in Microsoft when it was in a fierce battle with the Commission. Over to you Peston." (Guido Fawkes)
Complain about this comment
And why did you not critically attack the blackmail which appears to be directed against the Tory shadow chancellor? ie If you say more you'll regret it.... To make public threats against a possible future member of our government is, to use press lingo, astonishing. THAT was the story. Why accept such an uncsrupulous person's word?
You have tarnished Osborne and not linked that story with the Mandelson one. Mandelson was, at the time, in a position where his actions influenced actual EC policy wheras Osborne is in opposition.
And why does the BBC justify itself bt referring to the (Murdoch) press coverage. Wasn't Murdoch's gin palace there too?
This whole story stinks to high heaven and the BBC has fallen for the spin hook, line and sinker.
When you finish self-justifying perhaps you will read the responses and ask yourself if perhaps you haven't fallen for more vile spin. Sure, Osborne was foolish but your coverage has been fetlock touchingly nauseating.
Thank goodness we now have the web so we don't have to rely on the BBC for news.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid that you have got this one wrong.
The Mandelson aspect of the story is far more important. The BBC should be rigourously investigating and reporting why Mr Mandelson felt it was appropriate to have a relationship with Mr Deripaska in light of the lucrative opt out that the former EU Commissioner negotiated.
I am so annoyed with the BBC over this issue I have finally signed up for an account to express my utter dissatisfaction with your decision.
Complain about this comment
The point was and is that for such 'gatherings' to continue gathering and be mutually beneficial then confidentiality is paramount.
Osborne broke the golden rule like a junior Eton wotter, doing enormous damage to future gatherings.
Yes, Rothschild's business depends upon his reputation. And he is saying to the world via The Times, anybody, ANYBODY who cannot be trusted to keep his mouth shut about what goes on during my 'gatherings' is out on his neck.
Osbourne can no longer be trusted in the 'fraternity.'
Well, in my view.
Complain about this comment
I note that this article was written by the Editor of Political News, with a link to it from the Political pages.
I wonder if the Editor of the Business unit, Jeremy Hillman, will be giving an explanation as to why Peston was so biased?
Complain about this comment
I have read carefully the BBC's rebuttal of the accusation that they have been biased in their coverage of the Mandleson/Osborne corruption allegations.
They defend their coverage by asserting that whereas no allegation of criminal behaviour has been made against Mandelson it has against Osborne. I'll pass over the criminal allegations as I'm not a lawyer (whilst noting that 200 million euro is involved in the Mandelson case but only 50,000 pounds in the Osborne case). However, most of the BBC coverage has questioned Osborne's judgement rather than any question of criminality. So why is Mandelson's judgement not discussed? And why does the BBC applaud Brown's judgement in stoking the flames of this controversy on the very day that he admits that the UK is entering a recession?
I repeat what I posted earlier. It is very difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that the BBC has been biased on its coverage of this particular issue. Whether it is generally biased is another matter. An admission of bias in a single instance would support the BBC rather than undermine it, but then I doubt we have less chance of that than Gordon Brown apologising for steering the UK into recession.
My original comment (on another blog) was:
Quote: It is of course correct for the BBC to run this story, but they have become obsessed with it. I have just watched 'The Daily Politics' and Andrew Neil has run the story again, with nothing new to stay. Questions hostile to the Conservative Party were presented as statements of fact. Reference was made to politicians, yachts, and billionaires in the plural as thought this was systemic rather than isolated. References to Peter Mandelson were downplayed or ignored with the statement that 'we covered that yesterday'. My recollection is that most of yesterday was spent talking about George Osborne. I don't lightly say that the BBC is biased, but I think the weight of evidence in this particular case is that they are. It's actually shameful for a public sector broadcaster to find itself in this position. Endquote
Complain about this comment
Will a moderator tell me why my comments has been referred? I have said nothing that breaches house rules.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm - perhaps the BBC would now care to comment on the Bernie Ecclestone saga, which years after the event is looking very bad for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - here is M. Parris from The Times on this topic:
"And there across the room was the political commentator Andrew Rawnsley, suddenly in the news. He looked so tense. His latest book had just been serialised: the book in which he claimed that Gordon Brown, then the Chancellor, after appearing to deny in a BBC interview that he knew anything about Bernie Ecclestone's donation, had returned to the Treasury in a 'red mist'.
'Brown raged at his staff,' says the book. '"I lied. I lied. My credibility will be in shreds. I lied. If this gets out I will be destroyed."' "
Complain about this comment
dotconnect
That is a pretty poor post. Have you got any of your own views on the saga you want to share, or you just want to side with one party without explaining how you think the BBC was justified? poor.
Complain about this comment
"The seriousness of the allegations and the evidence for them" are the basis of your editorial decisions.
So the Osborne story is more serious because it involves a possible breach of the law
(although no law was breached, because no donation was accepted, because this was a discussion about whether or not it was appropriate to take a donation and it was decided that it was not appropriate)
(although at a secondary level it only involves £50,000 even if it were accepted)
But the Mandelson story is less serious because it does not involve a breach of EU regulations (because there are none)
yet it would have far more wide-reaching implications for a magnate's bank balance
I just wonder where the sense of perspective is here? The sense of natural justice?
And the strength of the evidence?
Osborne. A letter from a friend? The possibility of a witness to the conversation?
Mandelson. Osborne's testimony. That of Mandelson's own personal assistant in Moscow (Ben Wegg-Prosser) on his blog?
I really don't care much about the story. I do care that the BBC runs scared of those running the Labour party.
Did Hutton teach us/the BBC nothing if not to be more confident of its stories?
Complain about this comment
You can try justifying the disproportionate coverage of Osborne all you like, but your explanation does not convince me one little bit. The Labour Party spin machine seems to have the BBC well under the thumb.
Complain about this comment
Here the BBC is trying to steer a very fine line by presenting the facts and not rushing to judgement. Facts will eventually clarify the situation. Of course Mandelson and Osborne should have been more prudent and not accepted any favours however small. Public life requires squeaky clean dealings. The press is quick to pounce and it is very difficult for politicians who hug the limelight to escape relentless scrutiny. This saga will go on for quite some time until journalists find another scalp!
Complain about this comment
Good explanation from an left leaning organisation that supports without question the policies of the EU.
The Mandelson Aluminium affair is a direct link with impropriety whilst Osborne is the victim of he said - you said.
The Osborne story never justified the news lead position.
Complain about this comment
Not going to well in the comments is it Steve?
It would be nice, if you tried to answer some of the points raised.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC thought there was nothing wrong with their coverage on the Osborne story then why go to such lengths to deny it? Me thinks they protesteth too much. There is no denying that the BBC reporters Nick Robinson and Robert Peston in particular are treated very favourably by Labour and by the PM in particular. Where has Robert Peston being getting all his scoops from? The most obvious answer is from inside the Government. There is no such thing as a free lunch in life and albeit George Osborne should not have left himself wide open as he has, the BBC ought to have learnt by now that it should not allow itself to be so closely aligned to Labour as it has done. No one wants to see
reporters sticking the knife in to anyone for the sake of it; but the BBC need to be impartial and reporting events in a balanced and fair manner. Sadly they have let us down since the rebirth of Brown - which has been orchestrated by Mandleson and Campbell. To have played into the hands of Mandleson as the BBC has done over the Osborne story and the credit crunch is quite extraodinary. What hold does Mandleson have over the media? He was like this when he was last in Government. What are they all afraid of? Is it, "do as I want," or you will get nothing? Is this the deal? Certainly Robert Peston would not want to upset him or he won`t get another thing - which in a strange way may have a silver lining and stop people panicking so much and may calm the markets down. We watch with interest!
Complain about this comment
It has been established that no illegal act has been committed by osborne, though like Mandi his meetings must be questioned.
however it is the level of coverage that disappoints me. get some balance in life! Also why not report on why rothschild has gone from being a friend willing to host Osborne on summer hols to suggesting a visit to court, why such a swing? has rothschild been got at by number 10? was osborne set up? Is this simply a baby throwing a toy out the pram because his friends are not friends with each other?
Complain about this comment
how come some comments written at 2.04 are still awaiting moderation at 3.27 when some written at 2.11 - 2.15 have been published?Are you taking them in strict time order & checking with lawyers or picking and choosing who you are to moderate?
Complain about this comment
Mr Mawhinney
On last night's Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman resorted to asking Mr Heseltine the same question 4 times. Mr Heseltine answered the question quite concisely the first time.
Your job is to report, not pin things on people. Ask a question, get an answer. If you don't get an answer, by all means ask again. But in the example above, Mr Paxman looks ridiculous and quite worryingly prejudiced.
Prejudice based on class is just as bad as racism and any other form of prejudice. So, from a non Tory, non Labour, non interested perspective, please move on.
The nation is really really bored now - a non-story. Could you also refund Robinson and Peston's salaries for the past 48 hours to the license payer - they are wasting our time with our money.
Cheers chap.
Complain about this comment
The coverage of this story has really got on my nerves.
Has George Osborne broken the law?- No. Is there any evidence he broke the law?- No.
All we get is Nick Robinson & co. talking about "what he didn't say" and giving a knowing wink.
THERE IS NO STORY HERE!
Complain about this comment
does this story deserve the attention it is getting?
no but as expected any chance of getting one over on the opposition and the government will use it. and after the first day its become boring.
with real news stories being forced to the back whilst this story continues.
wether osborne did or didnt do something wrong is to be sorted out by those incharge not the popular neu labour loving media.
you never know he may be found guilty of miss deeds and punished just like others have been with a higher paid job a peerage,
talk about jokes.
Complain about this comment
#20 Eatonrifle
"Particularly pertinent for me is the point that Mandelson Did not and Could not make the decision re Aluminium tarifs "It was not in his gift"
This implies that something else was in "his gift".
Complain about this comment
You explanation is unconvincing.
Will you be broadcasting a clarification?
Complain about this comment
At risk of being accused of not offering a skilled argument, I have read this 'justification' whilst watching the stern of a horse in a field over yonder, and what has just poured forth from the latter will at least serve the rhubarb, if not comparing in volume and aroma.
I look forward to a minion being shipped in to Newswatch at dawn to read it out again to Mrs. Noddy.
Complain about this comment
All very long and worthy as a defence of the BBC view. However, what about the following?
1) Just why have Nat Rothschild and George Osborne fallen out in such an extreme way?
2) Why would Nat Rothschild choose to go so public on this?
3) Did Mandleson play some part in luring Osborne into this situation?
After all, it is Mandleson who overnighted on the yacht, and simply is not good enough to say he wasn't in the UK governement at the time, when he could be the key pivotal issue in this rather boring story
4) Is there any relationship between Mandleson's suddenly improved relations with Gordon Brown, and these events?
5) Why does it all sound so very spiteful and vindictive - like a lover's tiff?
6) If Osborne met up with say Richard Branson , another billionaire, on some holiday would this raise eyebrows? I know thee issue is apparently a request for funding, but if that is really so, why is there is so much emphasis ion a Russian billionaire's yacht?
7) Why should any of us care about these events., when in fact, nothing concrete passed hands, and it is entirely unclear whether Osborne raised the issue, or was he present when someone else suggested the issue? Osborne after all only quotes his "witness" as saying it was briefly raised.
If he is so sure of this, let's have all the details of the speech.
8) What's the Russian go to say about it all?
Complain about this comment
The counter-argument that there was no ban on reporting on Mandelson and that BBC journalists immediately began looking into it is weak.
As stated by many others, Osbourne broke no laws.
The level of scrutiny levelled at Osbourne by the BBC is unjustified and Mawhinneys response is slippery and uncompelling.
Why pick on one and not the other?
Complain about this comment
All very long and worthy as a defence of the BBC view. However, where are the questions
1) Just why have Nat Rothschild and George Osborne fallen out in such an extreme way?
2) Why would Nat Rothschild choose to go so public on this?
3) Did Mandleson play some part in luring Osborne into this situation?
After all, it is Mandleson who overnighted on the yacht, and simply is not good enough to say he wasn't in the UK governement at the time, when he could be the key pivotal issue in this rather boring story
4) Is there any relationship between Mandleson's suddenly improved relations with Gordon Brown, and these events?
5) Why does it all sound so very spiteful and vindictive - like a lover's tiff?
6) If Osborne met up with say Richard Branson , another billionaire, on some holiday would this raise eyebrows? I know thee issue is apparently a request for funding, but if that is really so, why is there is so much emphasis ion a Russian billionaire's yacht?
7) Why should any of us care about these events., when in fact, nothing concrete passed hands, and it is entirely unclear whether Osborne raised the issue, or was he present when someone else suggested the issue? Osborne after all only quotes his "witness" as saying it was briefly raised.
If he is so sure of this, let's have all the details of the speech.
8) What's the Russian go to say about it all?
Complain about this comment
Obviously I must be missing something, but why would Nick Robinson report on European Commissioners, or the BBC investigate the Commission from Westminster?
Isn't that what Mark Mardell is for?
Complain about this comment
Storm over Corfu?
Storm over the BBC more like!
I am an angry licence payer who is sick and tired of what is supposed to be the impartial BBC.
You have a contract with the viewing public to be impartial and fair minded politically.
When you break that contract why should the viewing public pay your over inflated salaries?
Complain about this comment
Oh and see, AGAIN a story is up on this. BBC when wil it stop. Chris Huhne? The man who couldn't even make it to leader of the Lib Dems now warrants a mention? The world truly has gone mad, and my support for your organisation is now gone. Even people here in my office who haven't got the slightest bit of interest in politics have commented on the coverage. We have the BBC on here on our TV Screens (the news channels) and it was switched off yesterday to another channel (sky as it happens) as it was just too much. You have lost goodwill with this one Steve. I hope to see a change in tone tonight on Newsnight (and God whoever it is, not Emily Maitlis, her interview with Cameron was an embarrassment).
Complain about this comment
Why did Nick Robinson reveal that the Tory party put him under pressure to run with the Mandleson story? If both sides regularly do this to him as he says, when was the last time he made mention of Labour putting pressure on him to run a story about the Tory party?
Complain about this comment
I have had 3 out of 4 posts on this subject rejected. Why? There only be one reason and that is because I questioned in normal language the lack of even handedness by the BBC. I also referred to the fact that many people who own shares directly, or indirectly through their pension plans, saw the value of their bank stocks savaged after Robert Peston's report on the main banks meeting with the Treasury. If the government leaked this information they have a very serious case to answer. Would I be right in thinking that the BBC do not want to publish any reference to the Peston story as it is touching a very raw nerve?
Complain about this comment
GB is having problems controlling the Blairites around conference time. PM has been stirring, agitating and assisting the "challenger". How can GB stop this?
As in The Godfather, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Bring PM into Govt, offer him a peerage, his vanity will demand he takes and give him the business portfolio. PM accepts this because he is now back and virtually untouchable. Right where he can backstab GB at his leisure.
But, GB knew about Deripaska and has all the details, so he tells PM to bury it, hence the GO smear. This all blows over as a storm in a teacup by next week and GB has pulled off a masterstroke.
He can effectively now crush PM at any time by setting up an Inquiry into the Corfu Affair, he has PM and his cronies in his pocket, including a Rothschild who was silly enough to get involved. He's hurt the Tories badly and he looks whiter than white. The pressure is applied to Rothschild get his banking buddies to sort out this mess and in 18 months GB goes to the country having saved us all. If he throws PM to the wolves GB says well against my better judgement I was pressured to bring back PM (by the "challenger"), who I personally loathe but I did it for the country, I put my personal feelings aside for all of you in an effort to solve this crisis
The Prince has just found himself trapped by the King, the handcuffs are ermine lined, but I doubt he will want to lose his peerage so he'll be GBs attack dog from now on.
This could be GBs Falklands or his Poll Tax only time will tell
Complain about this comment
Argue a point 'robustly' with Lord Mandelson?
He could argue there was still breath in a corpse.
This is flabby journalism and you know it.
Complain about this comment
Im sorry I do not accept your explanation, I think Robinson and Peston set out to destroy a decent man and I dont know anyone of whatever political persuasion who thinks otherwise.
Everyone has noticed since Cambell beat you over the Gilligan affair you have shown favour to the Labour Party and have not reported fairly.
Mandelson is the real story and you have not reported this potential impropriety!
Complain about this comment
What an excellent article steve, you ought to read it!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/philip_johnston/blog/2008/10/21/why_didnt_the_bbc_report_the_mandelson_story
Complain about this comment
I notice that Cassius has picked you up for this article
http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com
in which, far from being even handed and defending your reporters you actually add your own unfounded allegations to the story.
Are you going to correct your post above?
Complain about this comment
Steve,
Why didn't your coverage include consideration of Rothschild's possible motives? Yes, he was no doubt cross with Osborne for gossiping but he had two months to complain about that but did nothing (in public at least).
Mandelson is now in charge of business regulation and we are promised much tighter regulation on financial companies - especially those nasty hedge funds like the one Rothschild runs. Perhaps this explains why Rothschild feels his friendship with Mandy is more important than that with Osborne.
Complain about this comment
Oh come ON!
What a weasley attempt to deny bias. You really have made it worse.
Of course the BBC having been shredded by Alistair Campbell over the death of Dr David Kelly - don't forget the BBC was correct - might make anyone wary but this apparent craven obeisance to the spin and grubby chicanery of New Labour is demeaning.
The only 'allegation' of wrong doing against Osborne comes from Brown - the same Brown who brought back the discredited Mandelson.
No doubt the BBC is scared stiff of upsetting such a vindictive cabal: Campbell, Mandelson, Brown and Blair who are in thrall to Big Money but it should try a bit harder to rediscover its backbone or give up pretending to be a public service.
Bullies will remain bullies as long as they are allowed to get away with it.
Complain about this comment
It is important that our politicians are bought to account if they are breaking parliamentary rules, but sadly this rarely happens as in the F1/Blair affair, but this is such a non story blown up by the BBC because of their Labour bias....surely the enobling of Mandleson and this mucky bit of journalism can't be linked....does the BBC and the media really think we are that stupid?
Complain about this comment
Extremely relevant to this issue is an article written by ex-Newsnight producer (Sir) Anthony Jay.
Entitled "Confessions of a BBC Liberal", he sets out precisely how he thinks the BBC has got to where it is now. I am more than sure that Sir himself would not object one iota to my including a small extract.
He talks about how, in the 1960s at the BBC:
"...We saw ourselves as part of the intellectual elite, full of ideas about how the country should be run. Being naive in the way institutions actually work, we were convinced that Britain?s problems were the result of the stupidity of the people in charge of the country.
This ignorance of the realities of government and management enabled us to occupy the moral high ground. We saw ourselves as clever people in a stupid world, upright people in a corrupt world, compassionate people in a brutal world, libertarian people in an authoritarian world.
We were not Marxists but accepted a lot of Marxist social analysis..."
Andrew Marr admits it, Robin Aitken, who worked for the BBC for 25 years tells us how he'd have "fared better as a paedophile than a Conservative at the BBC"
Can the BBC just try a little harder to strike a balance? No-one wants a Tory supporting BBC, least of all me. But the bias is certainly palpable at the moment.
Complain about this comment
The stench of bias from the Augean BBC stable is becoming overwhelming. No attempted spraying of air freshener such as this can conceal it.
Complain about this comment
Sorry chum, it won't wash. You've been rumbled and you know it.
How does your explanation square with last night's Newsnight package by David Grossman, followed by the Paxman - Heseltine interview. A clearer case of obvious bias is hard to imagine. Just a selection of Grossman quotes:
"hob-nobbing with the super rich", "out of touch", "bending the rules to raise funds", "living lives of rare privilege", all to a soundtrack of the theme from Brideshead Revisited and a liberal splash of old Oxford University and Bullingdon Club photos.
The intention of the package was quite clear: we can't prove the allegation, and even if we could it wouldn't be illegal, so we'll have a go at his "judgement" instead, which by an amazing coincidence plays straight into the hands of the NuLab spin meisters.
BBC bias in favour of the party of government is nothing new, and probably understandable to an extent, given who holds the purse strings. But declaring class war on the Tory party is well beyond the BBC remit and frankly we deserve better.
Complain about this comment
Steve
Sophie may have questioned "robustly about the allegations" but he didn't answer the questions at all.
She asked "how well did you know him" no answer.
She then asked if it showed a lack of judgement or a conflict of interest and was told basically to mind her own business and and an implied don't go there or else .
The problem is that the BBC is Institutionally biased to the point that those in it doesn't recognise that it is. The question that the BBC has to answer is: What rule did Osborne break, being a prate isn't a rule, but then he only had tea on the boat, by all accounts Mr Mandleson slept on board.
The current corporate wide ban on the use of the word crisis is a case in point, no doubt you will continue with the belief being pedaled by Mr Brown that this crisis is an American/World wide crisis without any acknowledgment that a fair percentage of it is locally grown, after all the AIG machinations seem to have been helped along in the City and the overseas borrowing that has fuelled the rising credit has both in the public and private sector is not reflected in Germany where the bank problems have been caused by them buying toxic loans from the USA rather than their own credit fuelled growth.
The facts are that we in the UK are in a "Sir Richard Mottram" situation brought about by this government. If you don't understand what I mean check out wikipedia.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, also meant to say, since there's nothing to this story, there'll be no chance of it getting aired on Question Time tonight then?
Aye, right.
Complain about this comment
Or is the BBC's different treatment of Labour and the Conservatives over this issue answered by the reported comments of Peter Knowles, editor of the BBC?s parliamentary programmes, where he appeared to be saying 'the BBC should lay off Gordon Brown because Labour was in trouble?!!!
Complain about this comment
When are the BBC going to prove it is not bias and provide the detailed investigation into Mandelson's behaviour?
After the Kelly affair the BBC has now become the Goverment's Ministry of Truth ( the BBC inspired Orwell's MiniTruth in "1984") while NuLabour are in power they will follow the Brown/Mandelson/Cambell version of events and when the Tories take over then the Government Broadcasting Corps will follow their line or risk being broken up.
The coruption appear to be from top to bottom of GBC news.
Complain about this comment
Pancha_Chandra wrote:
Here the BBC is trying to steer a very fine line by presenting the facts and not rushing to judgement.
If that is true then the BBC would not have published the rumours about Osbourne until after they had confirmed them (and realised that no laws were broken).
The sad fact is that the BBC saw a red mist and went in for the kill where if they had done their research they would have realised that the story was no where near as juicy as the one they ran with.
Complain about this comment
When can we look forward to the Beeb investigating the F1/Ecclestone affair with the equal vigour it used on this non-story?
And you wonder why people are getting hacked off with your bias, are asking that the Beeb be broken up and are refusing to pay their licence fees?
Complain about this comment
It has been clear from the outset that George Osborne had committed no offence yet the BBC has run this so-called story for the last two days as if virtually nothing else in the world mattered. You have completely lost all sense of proportion. It is of more than a little significance that the son of a Labour peer, Robert Peston, has cast aside his brief as business editor to push this nonsense for all he is worth. The BBC has let its Labour loving instincts come to the fore.
Complain about this comment
Disgraceful - it just will not wash.
We will attack Osborne endlessly over a non story - no money changed hands. All you have is two versions of a conversation with no way of knowing what is right or wrong. You have completely ignored the reasons why Rothchild is acting as he is
On the other hand you completely ignore the behaviour of Mandelson. Mandelson goes to see Russian, the EU position changes and the Russian gets even richer than he already is. There are vague echoes of Ecclestone and the £1million donation here.
Please report things fairly. The BBC has given Brown endless wall to wall coverage for the last three weeks with no analysis of the mountain of debt he has built up and the ways he has damaged our economy. You have been content to carry his line about all our problems coming from America. Now a spate of Tory Bashing over a non story.
The behaviour of Robert Peston ( the supposed business editor ) and his nu labour blog is particularly bad
Shame on all of you. We pay for you - remember why you are there - to report accurately rather than be the puppets of the black withered hands of Peter Mandelson
Complain about this comment
Only two words of comment on this: Kelly and Milligan.
He who pays the piper still calls the tune, I guess.
Complain about this comment
What you at the BBC need to remember is that you are a taxpayer funded organisation and said taxpayers face imprisonment if they do not pay your licence fee. Taxpayers come in all political colours and none and your coverage should reflect this. No matter how many times you try to say your not biased the coverage of the Osborne story has shown that you are. The Mandelson and Osborne stories should have been reported in equal measure and the viewers left to come to their own conclusion.
In your post you seem to be saying that you didn't cover the Mandelson angle because the EU says he hasn't done wrong but you covered the Osborne story, so prominently, because he may have. Well excuse me but have the EU investigated Mandelson? And could you please tell us what Osborne has actually done that has been PROVEN and is illegal?
Complain about this comment
Not convinced at all....
But surprised you haven't considered the possibility of a New Blue Dawn at the next election. What will happen to your cosy lefty pals then?
I would not be surprised if you were thrown to the privatising wolves. My own solution would be to sell off the profitable bits and keep news and current affairs, classical music, dance and drama, radios 3 & 4 as a subscription channel which would probably be cheaper than the current licence fee/tax.
A condition of this would be that no-one should be employed in news and current affairs who has a prior political affiliation.
Complain about this comment
Robert Peston is a well known supporter of the Labour party and of Brown in particular. I bet you couldn't name a well known supporter of the Tory party that is in an equivalent high profile position working at the BBC. Says it all really!
Complain about this comment
I've always been vocal in my dismissal of allegations of BBC anti-Conservative bias, but the way you have dealt with this has proved me wrong. You are clearly going down the 'on balance, I think we got it about right' road. Well, time to think again, because you were well out of line.
Complain about this comment
Since accusations of bias are apparently beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, we have to take it on trust that the BBC is capable of recognizing and robustly tackling the blatant bias in recent news coverage.
However, the defensive nature of this article makes me doubt that is the case. While Peston and Robinson should be being dragged over the coals, you seem more interested in making excuses.
Complain about this comment
Extra extra, BBC editor claims news output is unbiased...
Well it seems to me that the hectoring hand of Alistair Campbell is back pulling the strings of the Beeb. You're either complicit or running scared, which one is it?
You guys know the writing's on the wall for your poll tax funding model once this incompetent shower are voted out in 2010, so I suppose I can't blame you too much for doing everything in your power to keep them in power.
The trouble is that the internet exposes your inherent bias so obviously that you are no longer getting away with it. Even people who have little interest in politics are now noticing it - the game's up Steve.
Complain about this comment
Seems pretty clear - and well covered in the comments.
Even if the accusations against Osbourne had been true, they would not justify any official enquiry. So that covers his part of the action in corfu.
What about mandlesons part of the action -- haven't looked at that yet have you?
I find it very interesting that you admit that the BBC takes everything out of the EU at face value.
I think the BBC should note that British standards and EU standards are different, and things that are acceptible to the EU are not necisarily acceptible to the British.
Further it is disapointing that a news organisaiton should take anything from anywhere at face value -- news is likely be in what you aren't told, or are told incorrectly.
Have you been doing this job long?
Complain about this comment
The bbc coverage on this issue has bent over backwards for mandelson.
remember the hutton report ? don't cover a story unless there are 2 sources ?
"The BBC also learned that Mr Rothschild was willing to go to court to back up his claim and had another witness who would support his story."
did you speak to this second witness ?
no you didn't. if you had done so you would have said that you did speak to him.
where was the second source to corroborate rothshild's verison of events ?
i think the bbc is biased to the labour party. my best friend agrees with me and i am willing to go to court. according to your rules i must be correct in what i say ?
Complain about this comment
Mr Mawhinney
when in a hole stop digging eh?
You and your cohorts have been rumbled and nothing you and the BBC say will ever be believed anymore.
The BBC days are now numbered and I would suggest you start looking for another job in the private sector. I doubt they would have you of course as this is the real world.
Its over......get used to it.
Complain about this comment
As the political editor you may be interested in a story that I have just highlighted on Pestons blog.
It relates to errors of judgement admitted by Greenspan, that were identical to those judgements made by Gordon Brown in Treasury press releases.
It is comment 227 on the "Runs on countries" blog post.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/now_there_are_runs_on_countrie.html
As it relates to errors that led to the hundreds of billion pound bank bail out it seemed appropriate to mention it on the business blog.
However as it also involves Gordon Brown perhaps it should also be picked up by the political editors, So that we can have full coverage of this error of judgement that Greenspan has admitted to that is identical to the error made by Gordon Brown.
Will the political team now be demanding an answer from Brown as to whether he also admits to the error of judgement?
If he does it will be front page news, so must be a story worth pursuing.
The evidence is there in the press release, backed up with Greenspans own admission.
Complain about this comment
Mr Mawhinney, are you trying to convince the public or just yourself?
Come clean and admit that you've got this one badly wrong.
Complain about this comment
shocking bias. The allegations against Osborne are of acts that contrevene no laws. You should be fired for this.
Complain about this comment
Surprise, surprise.
Question Time manage to keep the non-story going and now Mr Neil devotes his entire pointless programme to the issue.
Plenty of editorial balance there then.
At least Oor Alex got his moment in the spotlight, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
Can we have some common sense here please!
We are all being invited to join a speculative discussion on media-wonks iterations, both written and broadcast.
Mandelson equals good equals adverts about paying your tax on time, complete with overpaid ex bbc luvvies Moira whatever her name is.
Even the mail gets a full page spread, all paid for by the taxpayer, ironically on how to pay your tax.
Be honest, Mandelson and Campbell have now parked their tanks on the BBC lawn, and are hosing down the paper media with so many stupid government adverts that they have to be servile, all fuelled by Ivy dinners on our expenses!!!
Your money is being spent by these scoundrels!!!!
I am now waiting for an MI6 knock, if I am dead tomorrow, having stabbed myself in a wood then remember my name is Geoff Low, and my kitchen knives are Sheffield steel!!! ( Not Ikea MI6 plants).
Geoff
Complain about this comment
All in all a pretty grim week in the history of the BBC.
All the hard work of previous generations flushed away in the sewer of NuLabour spin
Complain about this comment
Giving Robert Peston a very public sacking (James Whale style) might help to restore public trust in the BBC.
Complain about this comment
"... many BBC News outlets made the decision that this was an important story and chose to lead with it, as did every other major broadcaster and nearly every national newspaper. "
sir, with respect, have you ever heard of rupert murdoch? its generally accepted that he is quite powerful in media circles...
let me (a powerless minion) put it in perspective for the BBC.
* BBC news 24 ran this story as its headline story for 8 minutes, every hour on the hour, for 24 hours, with a 5 minute headline at each half past the hour, in summary form.
during this time, mr mandelson's name was mentioned just once (during each report)
* over the second 24 hours, the story was again run as a headline story, despite answering questions and releasing a written statement, the focus of the story was again on osbourne.
mandelson was asked a direct question when returning to his house by reporters, which he totally ignored.
not one single occasion did i hear the bbc state that peter mandelson had any questions to answer!
now for the BBC's attempt at an explanation:
* did the bbc not consider it a bit fishy that rupert murdoch also attended the meetings? (his luxury yacht was also in the area)
* did the bbc not question why the complainant (nat rothschild) did not complain to any authority, but chose to publish his accusation via a newspaper owned by none other than..... rupert murdoch?
* did the bbc not question why the letter making the accusation, was changed 3 times before it was published? did this not set off any warning bells?
why was none of this reported along with the BBC's osbourne headline story?
could it be that reporting the letter would have revealed that mandelson was not just visiting as osbourne was, he was actually staying on the yacht, whilst he was in the process of negotiating aluminium tariffs?
even today, there are still discussions all around the bbc channels about osbournes "judgement"
i would have thought, regardless of anything untoward going on with mandelson and his role in the tariffs, just staying on this yacht shows a distinct lack of judgement and would be worrying enough for me to seriously reconsider his position representing the people in its government!
Complain about this comment
This is a very unsatisfactory explanation.
The offence 'entering into an arrangement' does not mean the donation has to have occurred but it does require a preparatory act.
A discussion is not enough.
A simple call would have got you this far. It would have made clear that alot of he said/she said would never be enough for a criminal act, and that after all is the basis for your justification.
Why didn't you make that call?
Or did you and but then decided to ignore it?
Which is it?
Over zealous incompetance or bias.
Take you pick.
Complain about this comment
Entering into an arrangement requires a preparatory act.
A discussion is not enough.
The doantion does not have to have been made, but something has to be done in furtherance of it.
Since there was never any evidence of this there could never have been a criminal offence.
Yet this is the potentially crinimal element is the justification for the BBC's treatment of this article.
Incompetance or bias?
Either way, its a poor reflection on you all.
Complain about this comment
With Mandelson, Alistair Campbell and Charlie Whelan back with Labour, the whole media should be wary of being tainted with their corruption.
Complain about this comment
Mr Mawhinney,
A few points for your consideration
a) The real story here would appear to be that Mandleson accepted hospitality over the summer, from the oligarch who benefitted to the tune of 200 million dollars pa from EU Taxpayer funds, as a result of the Mandleson Aluminium Tariff reduction.
It also appears that Mandleson was economical in identifying his previous contacts with his oligarch.
Why didn't the BBC investigate those points ?
b) The judgement of Osborne is called into question by the BBC, but a bigger cloud hangs over the judgement of Brown in calling in Parliament, for an investigation into a non-crime.
Would Brown be considered to have abused his parliamentary position in making this call, or as a minimum to have displayed less than sound judgement in this matter of a non-crime ?
c) Similarly Brown's judgement might need to be questioned for recalling Mandleson who (as above) accepted hospitality from the oligarch who benefitted from the Tariff reduction.
d) Peston was first with the story and he had Osborne tried and sentenced for what a basic bit of journalism would have shown was a non-crime.
Botched and biased journalism by a loose cannon perhaps?
e) Now as a test let us see how Peston and Nick handle Cameron's visit to Murdoch.
Will they mention or overlook the fact that Blair also visited Murdoch before the 1997 election ?
I await their reporting whereby I expect that more BBC verbal twisting and slant will be displayed and some feeble attempt made to differentiate between the Blair visit and the Cameron visit.
Assuming of course that the Blair visit has not been written out of BBC history.
None of this is looking too good for BBC journalists and BBC editors.
Respect and truth arise from being objective and not from acting like the dog on the HMV advert in believing that every word uttered from the party machine is to be obeyed or excused.
Complain about this comment
Two points to mention here. Yes, Tony Blair did visit Rupert Murdoch prior to the 1997 election, bu he didn't accept free return flights for himself and his family - Cameron did. The decision on aluminium was taken by the EEC Commission in 2001, 3 years before Peter Mandelson went to Brussels as Britain's Trade Commissioner. Check the facts, they are out there.
Complain about this comment
No one beleives a word you say....
Complain about this comment
No, that doesn't work for me for me one bit.
The BBC has been found out, not by a few but by many fair-minded people.
For a start, once questions were asked Mr. Osborne gave a detailed account of himself and suggested Mr. Mandelson did the same.
Mr. Mandelson's countered with "It was a private matter and my private life."
Oh, so no question of Mr. Mandelson's judgement then? Someone with a track record of poor judgement, the BBC didn't feel to probe this?
No.
Next, Mr. Mandelson relationship with Mr. Deripaska, you make mention of it here but did any major news programme question this?
No.
Also, Mr. Mandelson was a guest on Mr. Deripaska yacht for two weeks.
Again, not mentioned.
The BBC has been found out and you refer to Corfu and the reluctance of Mr. Osborne to visit again.
Maybe the BBC might like to do its research on Mr. Mandelson and perhaps question his motives?
Mr. Mandelson is in government, a government in deep trouble, way behind in the polls and his judgement has been found questionable to make him resign twice. He is a key player in getting our economy out of recession.
And not ONE QUESTION put to him.
That is a failure of journalistic duty in the activities of fair and unbiased reporting.
The BBC has come across as being firmly on one side of the argument.
As for Paxman v Heseltine, thanks for the comedy gold.
I'm sure Mr. Paxman's wounds to his journalistic credibility will heal in time.
Complain about this comment
So the EU does not have a code of conduct for ministers. Well, that's all right then. That means there is no news when a European commissioner, being paid out of our wages, spends a week on a luxury yacht of someone trying to screw a £50m deal that said commissioner then supports.
No, let's pursue a £50k donation that was not sought or given.
Interesting that the BBC does not deem the lack of a code of conduct within the EU worth reporting on. Brilliant.
Complain about this comment
Mr Mawhinney,
For the past 48hrs your reporters and indeed this blog, have suggested that Mr. Osborne might have broken the law. An allegation which has no doubt, done a great deal of harm to this man's reputation. But, I now find out that the Electoral Commission has cleared him of any wrongdoing. But I did learn this fact from the BBC - because your editors decided not to run the story on the TV news.
This decision is shameful, totally shameful. Having attacked this guy for two days, you could at least accept you were wrong and report that fact.
Shame on you and shame on the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Attempting to explain the decision says it all. After the fright the BBC got from A. Campbell and Tony Blair (probably allied to threats of funding cuts) over the Kelly whitewash, you decided that discretion was the better part of valour. Don't under any circumstances ask any questions that might antagonise Nu Labour, just in case.
Complain about this comment
What utter nonsense by Steve Mawhinney.
The BBC editorial line is transparent. Keep clear of Peter Mandelson. No criticism, no digging.
There is a story here, a big story.
It is being reported that Peter Mandelson has had meetings with Oleg Deripaska since 2004. This is at odds with the statement issued by Peter Mandelson's EU office that he first met Oleg Deripaska in 2006.
Your are not doing your job Steve Mawhinney, and neither are your other colleagues at the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Whatever Osborne's faults, he's not stupid and it's hard to believe that he wasn't aware that a) foreign donations were illegal and b) a donation could however be lawfully channelled via a UK based company like, er, LDV, which is apparently owned by this Russian gentleman.
Since even I, a humble time-waster in the provinces, can work this out, what are we to make of its absence in the postulations of all the BBC's finest on the subject?
I'll tell you what I made of it. Mr Robinson and his colleagues didn't want to mention it because the possibility that Osborne had been touting for a donation which would have been perfectly legal would have shot their fox. The story depended on the donation being illegal. Therefore let's not mention the possibility, apparent to the meanest understanding, that it might have been legal after all.
A cynic might say (and let's face it, we live in a world in which cynicism is amply borne out by events) that the BBC had tired of months of having to deal with NuLab's incompentence and was delighted with the opportunity to kick the Tories where it hurts.
Complain about this comment
Er, let me get this straight. Mr Mawhinney justifies the differing ways in which the Osborne and Mandelson stories have been treated by saying that, in the former case, "Here was a specific allegation of wrongdoing - indeed possible law-breaking" whilst in the latter "Thus far the European Commission says he has done nothing wrong" So, this means you can trash the first and soft pedal on the second.
Well, as far as I understand it, the "specific allegation" exists largely in the mind of the BBC and the No 10 spin machine - the Electoral Commission has made quite clear that no offence has been commited - whilst the European Commission (a faceless crew of unelected ciphers and Mandy's ex-cronies) would say that, wouldn't they?
From now on, how about slanting the story on the lines of:
- The UK body charged with opining on these things says Mr Osborne has done nothing wrong and so we are going to drop the story.
- A faceless entity in Brussels has made a pro forma clearance of a former Commissioner so we had better look at this one more closely?
Complain about this comment
Headline today on BBC...
"Recession looms as economy slows"
Not true, the figures do not show the economy has slowed, but that it has gone into reverse. It is negative growth, not slow growth, the economy shrunk.
Would the BBC report the pedestrian run over by somebody reversing the wrong way up a one way street as having been hit by a car that slowed?
Of course not.
report the true facts BBC, not the Labour spin.
Complain about this comment
Totally unconvincing. Rubbish really.
Complain about this comment
No-one should be surprised at the BBC's bias on this story or indeed the level of 'institutional bias'. Consider the following list of BBC employees and their political association:
Chairman Gavin Davies (later Labour adviser)
Chairman Sir Michael Lyons (previously Labour council chief)
Director General John Birt (later Labour adviser)
Director General Greg Dyke (previously Labour donor and candidate)
C.O.O Caroline Thomson (previously Roy Jenkin's aide)
Head of Political Research Bill Bush (later Labour spin doctor)
Deputy Head of Political Research Catherine Rimmer (later Labour spin doctor)
Director of Strategy Ed Richards (later Labour spin doctor)
Head of Corporate Planning James Purnell (now Labour Minister)
Head of Northern Ireland News Tom Kelly (later Labour spin doctor)
Scottish News Editor Tim Luckhurst (previously Labour spin doctor)
Political News Editor Joy Johnson (later Labour spin doctor)
Political Editor Andrew Marr (student Labour organiser)
Home News Editor Celia Barlow (now Labour MP)
Head of European Affairs Chris Bryant (now Labour MP)
Newsnight Producer Phil Woolas (now Labour Minister)
Foreign Correspondent Martin Sixsmith (later Labour spin doctor)
Current Affairs Reporter Ben Bradshaw (now Labour Minister)
Current Affairs Reporter Lance Price (later Labour spin doctor)
"Question Time" Editor Gill Penlington (previously Labour researcher)
Complain about this comment
MiniTruth (formerly BBC News) recommend that all further discussions on MiniTruth bias towards the Party and our Glorious Leader, GB, and his faithfully Inner Party Member, Peter O'Brian Mandelson, be continued on the Minilove website.
To access Minilove site first forward name and address to MiniLove:ThoughtCrime Correction Department.
Complain about this comment
Michael Crick, former chair of Oxford University Democratic Labour Club.
People know any more? And let's include any BBC staff who have held positions with any other political party, to provide a tally.
And if you are having a go at Robert Peston, do remember that he has worked for both The Spectator and the New Statesman, the Sunday Telegraph and the Independent on Sunday.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear! The BBC have been rightly castigated over the unbalanced reporting of the George Osborne allegation! I've spent some time reading the comments previously posted and it seems that many agree with me.
I am not a Tory, nor am I a fan of Labour, or any other political party, but I am a fan of impartial, unbiased, and balanced reporting. Nick Robinson and Robert Peston are guilty of the most biased political commentary I have heard for many years. They should be ashamed!
What makes this more apparent is that yesterday we heard briefly about the mis-counting of the serious crime figures by the Home Office, perhaps the most serious breach of public trust since the invasion of Iraq, however this has disappeared from all of your TV news programs this morning! It seems to me that another 'bad news day' for the government has been ignored by the BBC.
Since the terrible PR the BBC received after the 'sexed up' WMD report prior to the invasion of Iraq, the BBC has bent over backwards to accomodate the 'good news' stories from the government while largely ignoring the other political parties.
Shame on you!
Complain about this comment
RE #111 goldvaldan
Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2007 of 7 May 2007
This document explains why EU aluminium tariffs were suspended for certain producers, you can clearly see the date.
Complain about this comment
BBC ie Biased Broadcasting Corporation. Reporting by Robinson and Peston quite disgraceful. Further coverage by others in the BBC even more disgraceful. Now you, Mr. Mawhinney, are attempting to defend the indefensible.
Some months ago Ed Balls and wife, Yvette Cooper (Labour) investigated over their mortgage and second home. Admittedly cleared, but while being investigated did not even rate a mention on the BBC news. Most recently only a minor mention about Blair and further revelations about the Ecclestone affair.
What goes round comes round. Suggest the BBC asks the government for some extra funding to send you and your toadying colleagues on an impartiality course. It's a big word and as the BBC clearly doesn't understand its meaning in a journalistic context, it means reporting without bias or favour regardless of your personal political affiliations and sympathies.
As a licence fee payer I am not interested in having your leftie, liberal, views foisted on me. The rank odour of hypocrisy permeates through the BBC from your attempts to feed us multiculturalism to climate change and the class war. Example: when Labour discuss immigration it is good common sense. When the Tories do it, it is racism. You wish to broadcast your personal views, do it in your own time but do not shamelessly use the licence payer's money and then try to justify it. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Complain about this comment
In in the interests of balance, it would be very interesting to find a list of BBC employees, or ex-employees who had clear political affiliations with either the Conservative or Liberal Democrats; or indeed any other party.
I suspect it might be somewhat shorter and not as far reaching within the echelons of the BBC heirarchy than the list I've posted above.
I hope this provokes a wider debate than being stuck in the relative backwaters of the editorial blog. People are genuinely sick of the BBC's bias now and I deeply resent paying my licence fee.
My resent towards the BBC was increased last night whilst watching Newsnight - some correspondent and crew on a barely disguised jolly to Hawaii.
Complain about this comment
Extract from a report on the BBC website:
"Since returning to government, Lord Mandelson has been caught up in a bitter political row over alleged attempts by the Tories to solicit a donation from Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, a claim they deny. Lord Mandelson, whose own links with Mr Deripaska while he was EU trade commissioner are under intense scrutiny..."
...by everyone except by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
There can be little doubt from the handling of the Osborne incident that the BBC is massively biased against the Conservative Party. Any suggestion that they have behaved in an inappropriate way is given major headlines whilst issues involving Mandelson that have far more serious implications are given far lighter treatment.
Watch out though the Conservatives may yet win the next election and if they do I hope they sort the BBC bias out big time.
I am sick to death of seeing incompetent ministers interviewed with the utmost softness whilst anyone opposing them is given the roughest possible treatment.
Some of your interviewers should realise that when I am listening to the opinion of the opposition I do not want to hear the interviewers constant interruptions.
Complain about this comment
Well said Orangjuggler. Watching a master such as Michael Hesseltine slap down more BBC biased interviewing was an absolute pleasure.
The BBC really does need to get it's act together on these issues.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In other words, as one may have suspected,
the PRESUMED breach of the British law makes the news while Mandelsson's behaviour, being normal in a corrupt environment, is acceptable and also being Lord M. quite accustomed to these "incidents" it is no longer news.
It seems pretty logical to me.
Complain about this comment
Have Your Say on this topic vanished pretty damned quickly , did it not?
Did'nt like the publics opinion eh?
Complain about this comment
#spartans11
May I refer you to 6731/06 ris MES/mm IDG F 111 Council of the European Union. Council regulation AMENDING Regulation (EC) No.950/2001 imposing a definitive anti dumping duty on the imports of certain aluminium foil. Council Regulations (EC) No. 501/2007 7 May 2007.
Are you seriously suggesting that Peter Mandelson enacted this amendment in isolation. Or perhaps you think all the other Trade Commissioners, representing the other member countries, are in thrall to him, too.
Complain about this comment
This case receives far more coverage than it deserves. How about covering the dire economic situation and the part the unelected PM has played in building our debt mountain? How about a report on the poor value received for all the taxpayers money thrown at the public sector opver the last 11 years? How about looking into all the off-balance sheet debts such as PFI which the govt has loaded onto our children's future taxable income?
I don't pay my licence fee so the BBC can be another govt spin department. The bias is obvious.
Complain about this comment
The plain truth is Mandelson has yet to be shown to have done anything wrong, this time. Osbourne attempted to show that he had, a reckless and badly judged decision given the known facts of his association with the same man.
It is important that the BBC and other media outlets highlight this, because it demonstrates a lack insight on Osbourne's part. This is a man who is a key member of the Tory party, and possibly a future Government, showing he has a very limited ability to balance his judgements, forsaking their consequences in his pursuit of a short term strike against his political opponent. He may or may not have acted improperly, he has certainly acted foolishly. This is an important and newsworthy fact as it seriously calls into question Osbourne's credibility.
Complain about this comment
mr mawhinney,they is a report this morning that mandleson date he met the russian billionaire was earlier than mandleson said,why have you not gone big on this story.The bbc are anti tory in my view,your radio staions are even more anti tory,for example the station I listen to radio 5 live is a anti tory ,liberal left mouth piece.I can just imagine if they was a vote of the bbc staff on the 3 main parties,99% of the vote would go to labour and the liberals.
Complain about this comment
In other words, we know the EU is corrupt, so what's the point of journalism (as opposed to repeating)?
You know, Mr. Editor, that the overwhelming stench of the Corfu affair has severely wounded the reputation of the BBC. Irrespective of your blog response, I can read what is being written by members of the public - both on the BBC forums and on forums right across the spectrum.
Public reaction seems to amount to:
Osborne - a few eyebrows
Aluminium Man - not much interest
Rothschild - ranges from "spoilt toff" to "new world order"
BBC - overwhelming damnation for being a taxpayer funded Labour mouthpiece
Robert Peston - too hilarious that he's still employed by the BBC, based on how much he seems to have damaged his own reputation
Mandelson - all the fingers appear to be pointing there
This whole attempt to get Osborne does seem to have backfired rather spectacularly.
Now, if you want to correct the bias, how about some investigative journalism concerning the European Union, corruption, and broadcast the impartial findings on BBC1 on weekday prime-time.
Or won't Mandleson, NuLabour, the EU and their puppet masters let you make a programme where you expose the entire set-up for what it is?
Make that programme else the whole lot of you should resign and give us back our Poll Tax License fee.
Complain about this comment
I am afraid that for the BBC the reporting on this non-story has shown that impartiality is certainly not practiced by the corporation, it appears to be the exact opposite. The reporters concerned have been at great pains to point out that Madelson had not broken any laws or rules, but then neither had Osbourne so why was one hounded and not the other? Too many labour co-horts in senior positions at the BBC?
I also feel sure that in their blinkered way the BBC will continue to stress their impartiality and not admit that they may have got it wrong. But now too any people are beginning to notice just how differently they treat members of the two main political parties - one with kid gloves the other gloves off.
Just what hold does the Prince of Darkness have over the top brass that regardless of what questions are asked and how much space is given in other news media the BBC ignores them and blithely continues to laud the man? They have been left with egg on their faces previously when dealing with this man and the party he represents. Obviously they have they not yet learnt.
Complain about this comment
This simply comes over as Mr Mawhinney trying to defend something he knows is indenfensible. I would suggest he types up in very large letters Rabbie Burns words about seeing ourselves as others see us and then displays them in a prominent position on his desk.
I would also suggest that the senior management at the BBC have a long hard look at a management concept called group think, which has been evident in the way the BBC has followed NuLabour's agenda without serious questioning. It can lead to very dangerous situations. If you want to know why you might like to look at the history of the Chatham Islanders. They ended up as someone's dinner.
Complain about this comment
I'm impressed goldvaldan
From the decision being 2001 you are now admitting there have been 2 changes since Mandelson was appointed.
We all know how decisions are made, votes are taken over recommendations by EU Trade Commissioners. Obviously the person in question is very well versed in being able to influence these decisions.
Nobody can believe this was in his sole gift, but if I wanted to influence a decision I wouldn't invite the postboy to my yacht. To suggest there is no conflict of interest is preposterous. As is pretending regulations were amended in 2001 instead of 2006 & 2007.
I actually believe the decisions were correct and for the right reasons. This is part of Mandelsons strategy, so he can deny any wrongdoing. The real scandal is probably his inaction over Ingosstakh, which he was supposed to be investigating at the behest of an Italian Euro MP, right about the same time he was enjoying the guilty partys hospitality
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It's now getting a bit hotter in the Mandy kitchen, corrected statements, admissions and promises not to be so silly again! Come on BBC, get your timing and priorities right - fair criticism for all, not explanations after the event making your excuses.
Complain about this comment
GOOD DAY TO BURY BAD NEWS ?
The game's up, BBC NEWS; Mandelson has "recollected" to having had other meetings with the Russian.
These were also much earlier than he previously led anyone, including the EU enquiry, to believe.
His sudden onset of honesty and memory recall is reported by you at 03:19 on Saturday morning...... WHAT??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7690459.stm
The HYS on the subject, referring mainly to Mr Osborne, has also been fortuitously closed to any further comment
This is all just in time to be lost to the vast majority of the UK audience who will spend the weekend binge-drinking and/or worshipping the great god "Premier League"
The English audience will also be, correctly, diverted by the prospect of nationalistic pride in supporting their Rugby League team taking on the world.
Another perfect piece of "burying bad news" strategy ! !
Complain about this comment
I would invite you go review last nights news of ten article regarding the economy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00f1zcc/b00f1z9t/BBC_News_at_Ten_24102008/
Can you honestly say that the timeline piece of the article is unbiased?
As a centre ground and undecided voter even I find your recently coverage unwatchable.
Complain about this comment
Following the latest revelation from Mandelson that he DID meet this russian earlier than acknowledged, is the BBC now going to report this fully?
It appears that for the THIRD time he has mislead people. About time you put pressure on this man. He is not fit to have a place in the House of Lords.
Complain about this comment
Funny how now the focus has turned to the inaccuracies of the Mandelson account, the BBC has decided it's not such an important issue after all, and a minor story about school suspensions is suddenly of vital national interest. Yesterday's devauation of the pound also attracting scant attention...
Complain about this comment
According to the digital TV listings, Robert Peston was due to appear on 'Have I Got News For You' last night. What was the reason for him being pulled? I would have thought he'd have liked the opportunity to clarify his story.
Complain about this comment
Can I assume that the BBC will report on the latest Mandleson 'memory loss' with the same zealous intenstiy that you covered the Osborne story, or will you once again prove to the world the BBC bias towards Labour
Complain about this comment
It's been less than 3 weeks that Mandelson is back in Westminster, and already we're seeing a return of the malicious spin and the negative comments which marks him and his gang of "new labour" out. I've been less than impressed with the BBC over this story - whilst admitting that Rothschild was a close friend of Mandleson, and that he clearly was angry at Osborne, the BBC continued to publicise and dwell on what is effectively a grudge match and private feud. The motives and the sources were hardly unbiased and as we are finally discovering, the information from Mandelson's side, not fully disclosed. Yet this has not prevented political gossip and rumour-mongering being presented as thought-out "analysis". One comment suggested that it was Rothschild's birthday present to Mandelson - well, no, the BBC were the ones gilding it up and putting it on a plate. Not good enough, BBC, just not good enough...
Complain about this comment
Mandies story is unravelling - do you have any one investigating - or will you be leaving that to others?
Mandleson only admits what can already be proved -- there is no point in asking him anything unless you already know the answer.
His admitted relationship with the russian went through:-
- 'met at cocktail party' then became
- 'had a few meals' then became
- 'stayed on yacht' then became
- 'met a number of times recently' then became
- 'met a couple of times after EU aluminium rule changes' then became
- 'met before 'EU aluminium rule changes'
Each stage only being admitted after there was already proof available...
Mandlesons statements are worthless, becuase they only contain what is already known and provable.
Osbourne, on the otherhand, issued a detailed statement of his contacts immediately.
At a time when the government are allowing all kinds of snooping on the general public, the BBC should at least be snooping on Mandleson to the same degree.
His word and those of 'people close to' him are worthless (as proved again by the above sequence of disclosures) - you need to investigate and publish the truth, or admit that you are indeed the 'Biased Broadcasting Company'
Complain about this comment
I see you have used the neutral word "clarifies" in the story on this website about Mandelson admitting he'd met Deripakska in 2004.
Bets that if it had been Osborne the word used would have been "admits" or even "confesses", and it would have been the main headline?
More favouratism shown to Mandy. Choice of words is important: I clarify, you admit; I explain, you spin; I announce, you claim...
I hope that any future Tory government is forgiving about the BBC's clear bias in favour on the current government in recent months, but would not be surprised if they are not.
Especially as no-one at the BBC seems prepared to say that you were unfair to Osborne in your hysterical coverage of this story.
Complain about this comment
I have no particular political axe to grind and my support is most definitely not directed towards the Conservative party. That said, the overreaction and sensationalisation of this particular story leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Whilst it's quite clear that the print media have political affiliations and we have come to expect headlines that sell newspapers, one would hope that the BBC would be the voice of reason in all of this. Instead the BBC's political editors and journalists seem hell bent on perpetuating this frankly ridiculous bit of fluff that says more about pandering to paranoia about wealth and class than it does about any true issues affecting the country today. The Mandelson angle in today's BBC offerings appears to be overcompensating.
The BBC should be the face of responsible, unbiased journalism. A gold standard. Instead this story is worthy of the type of political bias favoured by many US news networks.
I also happen to think that Robert Peston continues to do excellent work and it was particularly sad to see him wading into this sorry affair.
Complain about this comment
"The row during the party on board Mr Deripaska's yacht relates to allegations that the shadow chancellor George Osborne, who was also attending, attempted to solicit a £50,000 Tory donation from him. Mr Osborne has firmly denied the claims."
Now on the BBC front page, we hear that there was a row *during* the party on board the yacht... so now the BBC infers Osborne not only solicited funding, but stamped his foot and caused a fuss on the boat when he didn't get it? At best sloppy journalism, at worst malicious distortion of the facts.
Btw. This is tucked away at the end of the item on Mandelson's statement, where Mandelson admits he's known Deripaska for 2 years longer than he told the EU inquiry.
Complain about this comment
The BBC was leading on this story BEFORE the allegation was made. Your blog is incorrect.
Complain about this comment
At the time of writing, the latest development in the Mandelson saga is displayed prominently on the BBC news front page.
Sky News doesn't have it listed on theirs AT ALL - despite, by most people's reckoning, being clearly 'to the right' of the BBC.
But of course it's in the nature of stereotyping that most people will only pick up on the instances that confirm their existing stereotype rather than the many that challenge it.
Fwiw orangejuggler, I think it was wrong of Peston to cover the story, but on all other issues of bias, I'm more convinced by Steve Mawhinney's explanation than I am by most of the reactionary howlings below his piece, which are fast turning the user comment areas of BBC blogs into something of a joke. The Osborne story, by its nature, was potentially far more explosive - and this was reflected in the coverage afforded it not just by the BBC but by other news outlets as well.
Complain about this comment
The whole crux of Mawhinneys story is that Osbourne committed an offence under electoral laws in soliciting a donation.
No he did not.
It is no offence to solicit a donation.
If that donation is channeled through a British registered company that too is no offence.
Mawhinney is wrong and lacks the moral courage to admit it. This has always been a non-story whipped up to serve Mandleson and Labours interests.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe anything any of you lot say anymore. Well done, you have dragged the reputation of the BBC into the mire and will probably cause its demise as a publically funded body. Personally I can't wait for you all to get your come-uppance.
Complain about this comment
"The row about the party on board Mr Deripaska's yacht relates to allegations that the shadow chancellor George Osborne, who was also attending, attempted to solicit a £50,000 Tory donation from him. Mr Osborne has firmly denied the claims. "
Do we have a correction here BBC?
I note the *during* of the first sentence has now been replaced with an *about*. All the professional Editorial departments I've worked in usually publish a notice of any corrections... but that would mean the BBC admitting to making editorial mistakes which of course, never happen in Beebland.
Complain about this comment
BBC's reputation has suffered badly by it's biased handling of this story. Peston, the 'business' reporter, was indulging in some muck raking in order to keep the leaking tap from NuLabour going to support his career. Robinson is now in CYA mode, attempting in the most feeble way to justify the unjustifiable coverage and reaction to this non-story.
Want proof? The main news page this morning (Saturday) had the headline 'Mandelson Clarifies Statement' as if it was inconsequential. But the statement in fact proves that EU officials were wrong in their facts, and the Dark Knight met the billionaire oligarch years before. Why is the BBC trying to play this story down?
Others have attacked the Daily Mail of hypocrisy in accusing the BBC of bias. But the main difference is that the Daily Mail is not supported by an obligatory tax of £150 a year. We choose to buy newspapers and we have a choice. The BBC is required to be un-biased. But this is clearly not the case.
How can the BBC, Robinson and Peston be trusted now?
Complain about this comment
It seems like this justification was hastily thought up after all the criticism started and was not the basis of the BBC's reporting.
The real reason behind the over coverage of these allegations was because of a concerted effort to damage George Osbourne and the Conservatives. There hasn't been a recent Tory sleaze scandal and so when even a sniff of something that didn't even happen cropped up, they're all over it.
It's not simply the amount of coverage or the priority given to it that is the problem. With the style of language used, it gave the impression that Osbourne was guilty of wrong doing.
With such lack of evidence, the story went on far longer than it should have done and it was artificially perpetuated by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Mawhinney describes the allegations as serious.
They are not.
No offence has been alleged.
Asking for money is not illegal.
Discussing money is not illegal.
Discussing legal ways to donate money is not illegal.
Not receiving any money is not illegal.
Nobody disputes that anything unlawful did not occur. What is the serious part of the allegations then Mr Mawhinney?
Even if the allegations are true, there is still no case for George Osbourne to answer.
£50,000 is such a small amount of money for all involved. It's beside the point, but it does make the whole affair even more trivial than it already is.
Mr Mawhinney, please justify why an allegation involving no accusation of offence is so serious that you need to keep pushing it.
Complain about this comment
I trust the BBC will be covering this latest development with the fire and energy with which they covered the Osborne non-story?
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article52917.ece
Complain about this comment
164
I trust the BBC......?
No mate you don't.
And according to a recent poll, less and less people do.
Complain about this comment
An interesting question in the Times for your newsrooms to follow up on since Mr Brown is blaming everyone but taking no responsibility himself for encouraging debt.
"...why has the economy here fallen so much harder and faster than in America, which was where the trouble supposedly began?"
Surely the BBC should be questioning those who purport to be our defenders when it comes to how they face responsibility?
Complain about this comment
It must be some kind of record. Mandelson has only been in his new job for a few short weeks, and already he is enveloped in scandal. It seems to be the only thing he is good at.
I am surprised that even this unscrupulous Government feels fit to restore him to glory, (and make him a Lord in the process). What does someone have to do wrong before Labour finally washes their hands of them? It does appear that no matter what shady dealings someone has been a part of, they are welcomed back in to the fold.
Clearly there are no sense of morals.
Complain about this comment
A lot more to come from these YachtGate inter-connections I think.
The FT reports that the Oligarch has been considering a London based IPO for 10 billion pounds.
As I understand it, Mandelson as Business Secretary will be the ultimate authority in whether the Oligarch IPO will be allowed or not.
Which makes one wonder as to why the BBC ran with the Peston and Robinson party-spin fed , diversionary , Osborne non-stories for 3 days without mentioning Aluminium Tariffs, missing meeting dates or IPO's.
In fact not a word as to why Mandelson was on the Yacht in the first place.
Not exactly objective investigative journalism perhaps.
Still, the truth will out sooner or later.
FT IPO story here
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a4bffd58-a22d-11dd-a32f-000077b07658.html
Complain about this comment
Looks like the recent developments in the story deserve a few column inches from the BBC.
We have reports that Mandelson applied pressure to Nat Rothschild to write his letter to the Times.
"A close friend of the Rothschild banking family told The Sunday Telegraph yesterday that Lord Mandelson, 50, had pressurised Mr Rothschild, a friend of his and a business ally of Mr Deripaska, to issue the letter attacking Mr Osborne. "
Reported in The Telegraph
as well as Suggestions that the European Commission are breaking their own Freedom of Information rules in refusing to provide details of official meetings between the Trade Commissioner, Mandelson and the Russian oligarch Deripaska.
We have also had an admittance that Peter Mandelsons original statement might have mislead the public.
As I write all we have is a headline on the BBC politics page linking to a story about the EU, headline shows "No Interference from Mandelson" Within the same front page paragraph are three other links...
"Brown urges Osborne probe"
"Robinson guide to Row" - a rebuttal from the BBC about bias; and
"Analysis, it's about judgement" - a link to a story about the "Osborne affair" and it being about his judgement.
So whilst others are running stories about Mandelsons uncandidness about how and when he met the Russian, the EU refusing to provide information against it's own FOI rules and Mandelsons involvement in the Osborne affair, the BBC have a story clearing Mandelson and with 3 other prominent links that highlight Osborne in a negative way.
Oh yes Mr Mawhinney, the BBC even-handedness is very evident.
Complain about this comment
The BBC understand 'public service' no better than our modern political class do.
I wouldn't mind the BBC being the rubbish that it is if I weren't *forced* to pay for it.
You want your own agenda -- then you pay for it.
Mandleson corruption stories are all over the sundays -- while the BBC is only just starting to mention that Mandleson misled (labour never *lie* do they?) everyone over when he first met Oleg.
And Brown takes every ones word for every thing -- so his 'support' is worthless, as is is just repating what we have heard elsewhere.
So Brown has NOT supported mandleson - just passed on others support...
Complain about this comment
There appear to be people who are anxious to create confusion.
Was the Tory donations manager present in circumstances that precluded a legal donation? If so what was he doing there and was a request made for such a donation?
Was there any suggestion that Lord Mandelson was involved in anything illegal? If so what was the suggestion and who made it?
Complain about this comment
I see the page with mandlesons letter has a box next to it entitled
OSBORNE DONATIONS ROW
Haven't the BBC realised yet that that story is over -- we are back to the old 'mandleson economic with the truth' story.
Trying to link the two, and push 'they are as bad as each other' doesn't cut it.
Osbourne is in in the clear, despite the attempt by his enemies to lay a false path of circumstantial evidence of wrong doing.
Meanwhile Mandleson is up to his kneck in dodgy dealings.
I don't think a single person in the country thought bringing mandleson back was a good idea -- it just shows what incredibly poor judgement Gordon Brown has.
How did mandleson get past the 'lords appointment comittee' and what is the process for removing a lordship?
Complain about this comment
157. At 2:23pm on 25 Oct 2008, dotconnect wrote:
" The Osborne story, by its nature, was potentially far more explosive - and this was reflected in the coverage afforded it not just by the BBC but by other news outlets as well"
dotconnect I would write why this is not explosive but what really is the point? If you can't see why this story was so biased then read the above posts which are not as you put it turning the boards into a joke but real views of the very people who pay tax for this company.
Osbourne has not broken an laws or rules even the BBC have finally admitted same but the myth is still recycled endlessly on the website and Peston and Robison should hang their heads in utter shame.
When we went camping to keep the fire going we use to "flapaplate" vigourously a the fire to blow air over the embers and create more heat and thus flames A more accurate description I cannot find for what precisely the BBC are now doing they are "flapaplating" the story. The other main and importnat stories are all hidden of course behind the smaoke.
We are in a downturn. Of course if the Tories were in this would have been a massive recession no I'm wrong from day 1 would have been a Depression according to the BBC.
Meanwhile not a single question pursued not one! to Mandelson about what he was doing there and why a 'clarification' was needed to his story (he misled????)and he is again all over the Sunday papers but on the BBC ....err ...nothing. Osbourne even today is still getting quite good coverage and its now moved to "The Osbourne affair" so positioning it now as an historical fact to be reported everytime the government screws up again and when the election comes it will be front page yet again (On the BBC that is)
When are the BBC going to look at the F1 affair? Well they do do balanced reporting dont they?
Complain about this comment
And did you see when the Beeb interviewed Gordon Brown this morning? A journalist *apologising* before he asked a question about Mandelson? Why? Scared they'd arrange a walk in the woods for him as a consequence? Seriously. The journalist asking the questions was utterly terrified of asking anything about Mandelson.
Come on Mawhinney -- put that full interview on the BBC front page or even into this blog and get the journalist to tell us exactly what that journ.... sorry... reporter/repeater was so scared of.
Was he so inexperienced he was just in awe of Gordon Brown? Or was he breahing a firmly laid down dictat by daring to ask about Mandelson?
We want answers.
Complain about this comment
It is disheartening to read the various contributions: most by apparently intelligent people: most failing to admit what it is all about.
Many politicians have never been fussy about the way they obtained money for politics or to meet their personal needs because earning in the usual way was precluded by political commitments.
Look back to ?earnings? from tobacco companies. Has there been a radical change, so that all donations are now received strictly in accordance with the rules?
Complain about this comment
#171
"There appear to be people who are anxious to create confusion.
Was the Tory donations manager present in circumstances that precluded a legal donation? If so what was he doing there and was a request made for such a donation?"
I stopped at a red light the other day in my car, had I travelled through it I would have been breaking the law. I guess you could say that I was present in circumstances that precluded a legal forward conveyance.
But hey, stopping at a red light has never been a crime, and nor has discussing a donation which does not proceed once it becomes clear that there is no legal means to make it.
Actually the donation situation is more favourable than the red light. You can go as far as receiving the donation, provided it is returned within 30 days when you have considered whether it is legal to accept it. If you return it within the 30 days you have not broken the law.
Try telling the authorities when you get your red light offence penalty that you backed up again!
So as for causing confusion, it appears that it is you that is confused, and the BBC that have crossed the line.
Complain about this comment
"Flapaplating" trying to keep something going when all about it is falling apart .
Excellent ! A new and wondrous word for the Oxford English!
Complain about this comment
Having just watched Marrs show with Campbell supposedly there to push his book (thought the BBC were not allowed to advertise?) Once again we saw evidence of their impartiality. It was very quickly turned into a labour party broadcast by Campbell. I would have thought the return of this spin master, yet another of the discredited Blair era, would be enough to turn off most people. He showed exactly what we can expect in the run up to the future election. More spin and dirty tricks.
How dare this man pretend that he too was a victim in the David Kelly affair when he was one of the chief instigators of what happened. Didn't the BBC learn anything when dealing with this man before? Why is he being given the red carpet treatment? What hold does he have over the BBC that he was allowed unchecked to say what he liked? Also why is the BBC continuing to press on Osbourne and imply there is something in this story when trying very hard to impress on the viewer that the Mandelson story is a non-starter and he was only doing his job.
It is time this powerful quango was made to answer to many of the questions that have been made regarding the bias many licencepayers now feel is being shown. This is another important question that needs answering but who is in a position to demand that it is answered?
Complain about this comment
I think the issues over Mandelson deserve much more coverage and scrutiny than those of George Osborne who, I have to say has been appalling treated by the media - since he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG!
Moreover, I believe Nat Rothschild has done himself more harm than good in this debacle. I have a strange feeling that this so called "hedge fund" dealer has had his fingers burnt in the financial crisis!! This really looks like sour grapes from him, doesn't it? Now, I understand he wants his loan back from the Tories - he probably needs it!! Nothing would give me more pleasure than seeing Rothschild sunk - these spivs and speculators are exactly the people who have caused the financial crash!
Complain about this comment
I think it is time the BBC Trust released a statement about this affair. I think that this statement should include an announcement of an independent investigation into what the BBC was up to.
We need some straight facts. There will be a general election at some point in the near future and the BBC needs to be cleaned up if it is to be allowed to report on it.
Complain about this comment
I too watched Marr interview Campbell - very cozy and pally - nice man Campbell -
Glad he's back, teamed back with Mandelson, politics will now be more honest and open.
But I digress:
"Strength of evidence" you say
Mandelson was a guest on the yacht staying for a week at the time he was EU trade Commissioner adjudicating on trade matters, making decisions that had a major financial impact on his hosts business interests.
Osbourne visited for a few hours and is now accused of asking for a donation - which he didn't get.
The evidence for and against Osbourne is at best essentially hearsay and gossip.
The Osbourne story has swamped the news for 7 days, - Mandelson, virtually nothing.
On the basis of the available evidence its probably true to say the BBC is "Institutional Socialist"
Complain about this comment
Re 176 egrid1
Was the Tory funds manager present to consider a donation from a foreigner, either directly or through an associated company as has been suggested? Was he there at all: if so was it a one off visit?
It is possible that a one off situation could be comparable with the everyday necessity of stopping at red lights: at the moment many people seem to think that unlikely: furthermore they think that a shrewd politician would realised that and would have handled an innocent situation differently.
It would be nice if there were some certainty about the facts.
Complain about this comment
Re: the presense of the 'tory funds manager'.
It is as well for George that he took the precaution of not going on the yacht alone - calling on a friend who is holidaying near by to go with him.
George was being stitched up like a kipper -- a fantastic false trail of circumstantial evidence being laid.
When the DAF contribution was actually made (last month, long after the meetings) - that was to be the final piece of the jigsaw. Fortunately it was declined.
Had it been accepted, we could expect this 'expose' all to have kicked off not now, but just just before the next election. And with a donation sitting in the tory account (almost certainly unknown to George) - who would have beleived his protestations of innocence?
This was a massive fit up to destroy the tories just before the next election.
Now who would benefit from that??
Complain about this comment
Curious, isn't it?
Lord Reith declared that the BBC's role was "....to inform"
Now it seems to be that the BBC's role is ' ...to inform....whatever their leftwing chums tell them to.'
Complain about this comment
This was one of those stories that seemed to be talked about to death in the media, but the people were not paying much attention to.
Slow news week.
Complain about this comment
who is alistair campbell?
why does he get so much coverage with the BBC?
how can he walk into downing street without issue, when i cant even have my picture taken outside the place?
he is a nothing, a nobody, a self proclaimed writer? journalist?
let him get his ego fix somewhere else, away from the "public" service broadcaster that keeps charging me an ever increasing license fee.
Complain about this comment
Many people are questioning whether the BBC bloggers actually read comments -- it certainly seems rare for them to respond.
If the BBC see blogs as a 'dustbin' to short circuit complaints directly into the either, rather than addressing them, they are going to be in for a bit of a surprise.
The BBC have accidently suceeded in bringing to gether many people with a single issue - the bias of the bbc.
It isn't going to go away, and if it isn't addressed and responded to then it will just be worse in the long term.
Complain about this comment
I believe the BBC has a very difficult political juggling act, with their own impending financial crisis likely around 2012-2014, when whoever wins the next election will likely be in charge.
The BBC clearly hopes it will be Labour, albeit with a small majority or under some minority arrangement, who will have to deal with it.
Technology developments over the coming few years will do for the licence fee what transistor radios did for the radio licence, making it uncollectable and unenforcable.
Advertising say on BBC 1 and Radio 1 and 2 will not be an option as advertising revenues available to television and radio are falling and will continue to do so.
So if the BBC is to survive there will need to be a new funding formula found, and clearly they hope it will be Mr Brown looking at the options and not someone who will simply sell them to the highest bidder.
Complain about this comment
Well I see that the Tory anti-BBC brigade are out in force again, although enough of them think the story is important enough for them to get all worked up about it and send in their un-biased comments.
I think a lot of the reason why the focus is on Osborne and not Mandelson is that everyone knows Mandelsons' style, this sort of incident is what most would expect from him.
However the "Nu Tories" are presenting themselves as cleaner than clean ordinary working folk and they've been caught out.
He may not strictly speaking have broken the law but it certainly isn't doing his or the Tories image any good.
Mandelson is already "The Prince of Darkness" so most people probably don't blink an eyelid at his presence at this meeting.
Personnally I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a few toffs having a bit of Hermès "Birkin" handbags at dawn :-)
Complain about this comment
Here we go again, I remember all this BBC are biased against the Tories at just about every election (and inbetween) since the 1970s.
I would venture that what they really mean is the BBC is not actively biased towards the Tories so they must be biased towards Labour.
Do they complain that any other news channel is biased, what about the ones owned by Murdoch.
They would argue that there is no license fee for the other news channels but surely that is no excuse. The fact that you pay a privste subscription to hear biased news should surely annoy you more but then the bias is to the wealthy so that's allright.
I would say that out of all the news channels the BBC is the least biased, if Osborne is stupid enough to fall into any conspired situation then that's his problem. If there was no conspiracy (my own view) then he was even more stupid and that's what is really rankling the Tories here, who are trying to deflect this embarrassment with their usual BBC is communist, Mandelson is the devil incarnate froth.
Complain about this comment
Once again on the 'Today' program (Monday) we have the BBC lightweight reporters displaying the usual bias.
About Osborne - we have the standard BBC line ie
disgraceful Osborne behavior, soliciting donations, damaged reputation, contrary to rules, further calls by Brown yesterday for criminal investigation into Osbornes conduct (where was that incidentally, is there a reference ?)
About Mandelson
- chuckle, chuckle, what a lad, he will have to watch where he spends next years holiday.
Not a word about Mandelson and his Tariff reductions funded from EU taxpayers for his buddy; not a word about Mandelsons buddy being on MI5, MI6, reports, other country police files in mafia connected activities, money laundering, illegal eavesdropping; not a word about being banned from America, nor outstanding UK court cases etc.
Not a word about Mandy's memory lapses or meeting details prior to Tariff reductions, nor about about taking hospitality from his 'buddy' who Mandy ruled could have an EU taxpayer funded permanent handout.
I hadn't heard of the Oligarch before the Rothschild and Mandelson interventions and the BBC partial reporting.
So Mandelson and Rothschild haven't exactly done the Oligarch's anonimity a favour with their pre-emptive and threatening attacks on Osborne , all of which are obtainable from newspapers if one runs a basic Google news search under 'Mandelson'.
And neither has the BBC and Robinson done the Oligarch any favours with their continued attacks and their jaundiced Mandy supporting and Osborne bashing non-crime reports.
No, the BBC simply 'report'-
Chuckle, chuckle, Mandy will have to watch where he holidays next year.
What a lad he is.
The Sunday Times gives an interesting take on the Mandy Yacht affair which is worth a read.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5014747.ece
Sack Robinson and his Editor who are looking like the 'Cover-up Kings' and get somebody with a bit of spine doing a bit of balanced reporting and editing.
Complain about this comment
@#191
"So Mandelson and Rothschild haven't exactly done the Oligarch's anonimity a favour with their pre-emptive and threatening attacks on Osborne"
MMmmm, correct me if I'm wrong but it was actually Osborne that started spreading the jelly on this affair which Rothschild reacted to.
You also list a long list of undesirable qualities regarding the Russian and link this to Mandelson being an undesirable character.
Well, Osborne also met him and I can't imagine that he was an unwilling participant.
BTW Osborne has just stated that he made a mistake in this affair.
This is one of the most interesting non-stories I've read for while, very revealing on both sides.
I'm no Mandelson supporter but Osbourne has been caught with his trousers down here and deserves all the bad publicity he's currently getting.
It may have been more positive for him if he'd arrived at the yacht on a bike, or alternatively a pedal boat, just like any other ordinary person sic
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure that the argument holds water. Mandleson knew the Russian in question while holding a position of power over EC laws which greatly benefited the Aluminium business of said Russian. He also happens to be a current government minister.
Osbourne could possibly be accused of poor judgement in visiting the Russians boat but beyond that doesn't seem to have done anything wrong.
I haven't noticed any follow ups on the Mandleson story despite it beginning to feature in the press. It could be viewed as poor editorial judgement and the BBC being perceived as biased.
Complain about this comment
Come on where is the BBC headline
"MANDLESON EU APPOINTMENT DIARY - TOO EXPLOSIVE TO PUBLISH"
We foot the bills, we deserve to know where, when and why our money has been spent.
Osborne has been the very model of acountability during this fuss -- meanwhile mandleson keeps every thing secret, only speaking if really pressed to confirm what is already known and provable.
If I put my rubbish in the wrong bin the local council would have private detectives, phone taps and all sorts at its disposal to snoop on me. Yet a known liar who returns to the cabinet unexpectedly withholds important information regarding potential international corruption with impunity.
BBC - why aren't you doing anything? not even responding to public enquiries... ?
Complain about this comment
#192
'Well, Osborne also met him and I can't imagine that he was an unwilling participant. '
Osborne did meet him and your important word is 'also'
'also' as in Mandelson as well.
Which initially raised a few eyebrows as to why the Mandelson 'also' connection was discounted by the BBC journalists who never even questioned as to why Mandelson was on board the Yacht and accepting hospitality from a beneficiary of Mandelson's rulings.
'This is one of the most interesting non-stories I've read for while,'
I agree, it should have been a non-story of
'Oligarch doesn't offer donation.
Osborne doesn't accept donation'
Instead we have Robinson, Peston and the BBC stoking the fires of innuendo and then continually broadcasting disgrace, dishonour, and illegality slurs....
....without a passing mention of the Mandelson-Oligarch friendship connection; or Mandelson's aluminium rulings to benefit the Oligarch's company; or the Mandelson's team memory lapses over diary dates on Mandelson's meetings with the Oligarch.
non-items according to the BBC.
Additionally we have Brown stoking it up for the authorities to investigate, after it being reported by the Parliamentary Committee that no illegality had transpired.
So who else is trying to 'create' something from nothing here besides the BBC and the Brown and Mandelson cohorts
However, if Rothschild does have something 'explosive' on Osborne then let him come out with it rather than posturing about and dangling threats.
And similarly if there is something to be outed, then let the whole YachtGate process be investigated, which would of course incorporate the Mandelson rulings connections.
Personally I would prefer to see truthful and balanced reporting no matter who gets taken down if they have acted unwisely or illegally.
But biased and unbalanced reporting smacks of cover-up, hidden agendas, bullying and cowardice.
Which is where the BBC reporting re-enters the equation.
And to paraphrase Robinson
'I ran with the Osborne non-donation story because that was political, but I resisted the Mandelson angle because that was party political'
ie the polical journalist doesn't do political stuff ?
Lame, weak and feeble perhaps ? The symptoms of poor and lazy journalism perhaps ?
Make your own mind up but I am reaching the conclusion that perhaps one of the editors should issue an apology blog concerning the selective coverage in this matter.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has been reluctant to get into any kind of dispute with Labour whilst they are in power ever since the Dr. Kelly farce they were involved in when Labour turned them over for the way in which they handled that.
I don't think the BBC are showing bias, they have a history of attacking any political party though to be involved with dubious decision making or misleading the public. What they are guilty of (consciously or otherwise) is a trepidation of tangling with Labour's spin doctors and pet media outlets, and its been this way for a while.
Complain about this comment
I'm confident that when 'Mandy' does give rise to another story worth following up the BBC bloodhounds will be right in there with balanced reporting and analysis.
But wait awhile. After a few days of sensibly keeping his mouth shut, up pops George Osborne today to confess that he made a mistake. Sounds like the behaviour of someone who is trying to get the media to draw a line under the story before anything more damaging comes out. In some quarters George has been described as a cad and a bounder. What is unfortunate for Mr O is that he has not just acted like one but through no fault of his own he has always looked like one!
So keep sniffing BBC and ignore these whining Tories. Methinks they doth protest too much!
Complain about this comment
#197 - you troll.
This story isn't finished with mandleson yet -- he is refusing to say anything.
I assume the BBC will be asking him for answer, and asking him to explain the lack of answers at every opportunity.
Last I heard, channel 4 was saying that the EU had /not/ investigated mandleson - if this is true, then Brown will have some explaining to do - as he cited this as giving him confidence in mandleson.
As it happens (as with MP's expenses) the only reason I see for concealment is to hide unpleasant truths from the public.
Such concealment is a speciality of the speaker of the house -- who is aparantly refusing to investigate blair accepting £1M from bernie ecclesone in return for special treatment for F1.
And before you suggest it - NO, STATE (TAXPAYER) FUNDING OF POLTICIAL PARTIES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE - at least not until the state funds my lifestyle in exchange for whatever *I* decide is appropriate.
Complain about this comment
ps.
I see you report that mandleson said
"the British media will have to write their own stories"
I assume you will be asking him how the british public will be informed of the history of his engagements (etc) if it is not to be through the media?
Or as a 'lord' does he not consider himself accountable to anyone?
You (the BBC) will not be getting away with a defense of "he wouldn't tell us".
Complain about this comment
#195
I suggest you look up the meaning of irony and apply the meaning to my previous post.
#198
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word troll and examine your own posts.
I would take both these posts seriously if either displayed a balanced and unbiased view of events.
Unfortunately, you're both are guilty of the very thing you accuse the BBC of doing, notice I did not use the word also in this context.
Condensing down your posts to what you are actually saying -
Mandelson is an evil man who is behind this story.
Osborne is whiter than white and can do no wrong.
The BBC are the most biased news reporting organisation in the world.
Now that's what I call an unbiased balanced point of view, perhaps you should lead by example :-)
Complain about this comment
The sooner you revert to reporting stories and stop trying to make them then the sooner you can start repairing the damage to the BBC done by the likes of Peston & Robinson.
Complain about this comment
Well now we know where the funding would have been spent if the Russian hadn't refused.
Financing the Tory Trolls who seem to have nothing better to do than complain about BBC bias in the hope that someone will actually believe what they're saying.
Believe what you want but nobody that attended this meeting comes out looking very good.
Not Mandelson and certainly not Osbourne.
If someone is portraying themselves as whiter than white then when they are caught out of course there is going to be a lot of press interest.
Complain about this comment
Steve
Mandy still refuses to answer the real questions - as seen in the very low profile video on this page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7697211.stm
Very low profile headline you have there, given the fact mandlesons entire credibility is questioned in the vid, and he declines to protect it.
I assume we can look forward to bumper 'mandleson in corfu' coverage just as soon as he is back from his russian 5K per night suite in russia.
Peston and Nick spent a week on the osborne non-story -- on which basis mandleson deserves two or three.
Can you tell us when it is scheduled in for?
Complain about this comment
What I find ridiculous, is that if Mr Osbourne had been soliciting a large donation from someone entitled to vote in the UK or who could funnel the money through a UK company not set up specially for the purpose, there would have been no grounds for criticism. Such donations are entirely legal.
Personally I think that it is naive to believe that someone who gives a large donation to a political party is not looking for something in return. All large donations should be banned.
The present law only makes sense if you believe that all foreigners are crooks, and all Britishers are honest.
Complain about this comment
What a rubbish explanation you are saying that these allegations which the Commons authorities quickly said were not worhy of investigation are far more serious in your opinion than the allegations against Mandelson which have not been dismissed.
Indeed more details are coming to light that Madelson lied over when he spoke to the Russian Oligarch. An investigation by the EU a rather corrupt organisation where the Chief Accountant refused year after year from signing off their accounts until sacked by Lord Kinnock is not worth anything.
And anyway despite the fact that Osborne had been cleared you continued with the story but plainly refused to in Mandelson's case.
PS: The person who interviewed Mandelson on the Andrew Marr programme looked scared for her career after putting questions to him I bet you have all had Madelson on the phone to you making threats. This is why in the week that followed you went with the Osborne angle and forgot the Madelson part. Not of course I would ever expect anyone of you to admit this that would be too brave!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It was good to see the Conservatives have a go at the BBC?s left wing bias (D Cameron, the The Sun today). I get the impression that MPs are generally not keen to get on the wrong side of the BBC which makes his comments all the more welcome.
What I fail to understand is why we tolerate a situation where the main news provider comments on news events.
No other institution outside of politics would allow itself (or be allowed) to make political comments, or in the case of George Osborne, to wage political campaigns. I don?t see why, just because they have the microphones, cameras and transmitters, they feel they are allowed to interfere in our democracy in this way.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS