Antony Jay, co-creator of Yes, Minister, on the leanings of the BBC:
It would be astonishing if the BBC did not have its own orthodoxy. It has been around for 85 years, recruiting bright graduates, mostly with arts degrees, and deeply involved in current affairs issues and news reporting. And of course for all that time it has been supported by public money. One result of this has been an implicit belief in government funding and government regulation. Another is a remarkable lack of interest in industry and a deep hostility to business and commerce. […] This deep hostility to people and organisations who made and sold things was not of course exclusive to the BBC. It permeated a lot of upper middle class English society (and has not vanished yet). But it was wider and deeper in the BBC than anywhere else, and it is still very much a part of the BBC ethos. Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world, and as so often happens, this ignorance, far from giving rise to doubt, increases their certainty.
See also Jay’s Confessions of a Reformed BBC Producer.
Kevin D Williamson is a fan of Thomas Sowell:
One of the great things about Thomas Sowell is that he, like most nerds, appears to be simply immune to certain social conventions. This is a critical thing about him – because the social conventions of modern intellectual life demand that certain things go studiously unnoticed, that certain subjects not be breached, or breached only in narrow ways approved by the proper authorities. Sowell does not seem to me to be so much a man who intentionally violates intellectual social conventions as a man who does not notice them, because he cannot be bothered to notice them, because he is in hot pursuit of data about one of the many subjects that fascinate his remarkable brain.
Sowell’s failure to avert his eyes from unspeakable details is also in evidence here.
And Theodore Dalrymple looks back on the summer’s opportunist looting:
One rioter told a journalist that his compatriots were fed up with being broke all the time and that he knew people who had absolutely nothing. It is worth pondering what lies behind these words. It is obvious that the rioter considered being broke not merely unpleasant, as we all would, but unjust and anomalous, for it was these qualities that justified the rioting in his mind and led him to suggest that the riots were restitution. Leave aside the Micawberish point that one can be broke on any income whatever if one’s desires fail to align with one’s financial possibilities; it is again obvious that the rioter believed that he had a right not to be broke and that this right was being violated.
When he said that he knew people with “nothing,” he did not mean that he knew homeless, starving people left on the street without clothes to wear or shoes on their feet; none of the rioters was like this, and many looked only too fit for law-abiding citizens’ comfort. Nor did he mean people without hot and cold running water, electricity, a television, a cell phone, health care, and access to schooling. People had a right to such things, and yet they could have them all and still have “nothing,” in his meaning of the word. Somehow, people had a right to something beyond this irreducible “nothing” because this “nothing” was a justification for rioting. So people have a right to more than they have a right to; in other words, they have a right to everything.
However, the Guardian’s Nina Power would have us believe that the looters, muggers and arsonists, the majority of whom had numerous previous convictions, were, in ways never quite made clear, fighting against entitlement. Albeit by robbing children of their clothes, assaulting fire-fighters and burning women out of their homes. Yes, it was all about “social justice,” see? And whatever you do, don’t refer to the perpetrators as feral – even those who ganged up on pensioners and beat them to the ground – or you’ll upset Laurie Penny, for whom, “nicking trainers… is a political statement.”
As usual, feel free to add your own in the comments.
the rioter believed that he had a right not to be broke and that this right was being violated.
But the BBC/Guardian keep telling us the riots were the police’s fault because they keep stopping criminals and that makes them angry.
Boris Johnson in the Telegraph:
“The reason our brother and sister Europeans are so chronically enraged with the British is that we have been proved completely right about the euro. For more than 20 years, British ministers have been coming out to Brussels and saying that they just love all this single-market stuff, but that they doubt the wisdom of trying to create a monetary union. And for more than 20 years, some of us have been saying that the reason a monetary union won’t work is that you can’t do it without a political union – and that a political union is not democratically possible.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8950101/Were-right-about-the-euro-thats-why-Europe-is-angry.html
He also coins the phrase “Supra National And Fiscal Union (Snafu)”.
“Supra National And Fiscal Union (Snafu).”
Heh. Sounds about right.
“Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world…”
Really? How surprising, because with the news this morning of the ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not A Wild Polar Bear’ Frozen Planet incident, it seems they’ve absorbed all they could ever know of selling techniques from the dodgier end of the market…
However, the Guardian’s Nina Power would have us believe that the looters, muggers and arsonists, the majority of whom had numerous previous convictions, were, in ways never quite made clear, fighting against entitlement.
The Guardian – where up is down, wrong is right and idiots get paid to write bollocks.
“The Guardian – where up is down, wrong is right and idiots get paid to write bollocks.”
In fairness, I don’t think Nina Power is strictly speaking an idiot, though she does write and say incredibly stupid things. I think it’s more an issue of bad faith, in that she chooses not to register certain aspects of reality in order to seem like the kind of person she feels she ought to be, especially in front of equally dishonest people who pretend the same thing.
David,
More #occupyFAIL:
“Occupy protesters succeeded Monday night in shutting down operations at the Port of Oakland for the second time in less than two months. The companies that operate the 26 berths at the nation’s fifth-busiest container port told longshore workers not to report for the 7 p.m. evening shift – effectively halting work for the next eight hours and preventing 100 to 200 employees from earning the pay they would have received on a typical shift… About 3,000 marchers gathered in the dark, dancing to music while some clambered atop trucks that were lined up with nowhere to go. “We are ecstatic with the results,” said Milo Avery, 22, of Oakland. “This day is the culmination of a lot of hard work. It’s a historic and momentous step in this movement.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/12/BAJK1MBE5E.DTL#ixzz1gOaGBQya
Show solidarity with the working class! Make them lose money so we can dance about!
Antony Jay’s 2007 piece in the Telegraph is outstanding. Wish I’d spotted it earlier.
Alas it only tends to be right-wing-affiliated publications that point out the BBC’s ardently biased reporting (they think they have to balance the Daily Mail – and need to be told over and opver again that that is NOT what impartiality means)
Moving to a different subject entirely, witness Nick Clarke’s illuminating article on what was wrong with Vaclav Havel. Some would say that a couple of days after someone’s death might be a bad time to start on them, but fortunately Clarke is fearless (not to say, brainless) enough to ignore such wisdom, and lays in with some statistics from God knows where..We learn that:
“Havel’s anti-communist critique contained little if any acknowledgement of the positive achievements of the regimes of eastern Europe in the fields of employment, welfare provision, education and women’s rights”
Still the comments are amusing. CiF sees calculated to wind up Telegraph readers, but you can’t escape the impression (or at least I can’t) that what we’re getting fro the Graun is 100 shades of “actually Marx wasn’t all bad and here’s more proof”
Henry,
I almost laughed at the line,
But hey, it’s the Guardian, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
Yeah I meant to paste that in as well – glad you put that in 🙂
I thought “it MUST be a spoof”, but I think that every week about Guardian articles
Unbelievable
Neil Clark’s wife – Zsuszanna – has penned articles for the Graun saying how wonderful Communist Hungary was, and how much she loved her time with the Pioneers. Needless to say, were the ‘Telegraph’ to commission an article from an elderly German or Austrian lady reminiscing about the BdM, all hell would break loose:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/26/comment.politics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,824560,00.html
Interestingly enough, with the letters that followed only one correspondent – a certain Brunhild de la Motte – defended Ms Clark’s Stalinist revisionism. I don’t know if she’s related to a ‘Bruni de la Motte’ who has a nice line in ‘Ostalgia’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,824560,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/1989-berlin-wall
Clark is also on record gloating about the plight of Iraqi interpreters who were targeted for assassination for working with British forces in Basra, stating that they were ‘quislings’ who deserved to die. Even for the Graun and CIF, that was pretty strong meat, as shown by the comments:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/10/keepthesequislingsout
Mind you, Neil combines intellectual thuggery with buffoonery, being renowned on the blogosphere for his conversation with a spambot (the latter came off best, BTW), and also for trying to preserve his Wikipedia page from deletion by using a sock-puppet called ‘citylightsgirl’. Only the ‘Guardian’ could give someone like this a platform.