Tory fury as BBC sends hecklers to bait Howard
The Daily Telegraph
By: Patrick Hennessy
04/23/05

The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/04/24/nhow15.jpg

The Tories have made an official protest after the hecklers, who were given the microphones by producers, were caught at a party event in the North West last week. Guy Black, the party's head of communications, wrote in a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, that the hecklers began shouting slogans that were "distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party".

These included "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair".

Mr Black's strongly-worded letter accused the BBC of staging the event "to generate a false news story and dramatise coverage. . . intended to embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party". The letter said that BBC staff were guilty of "serious misconduct". At least one of the hecklers was seen again at a Tory event in the North East, Mr Black added.

Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a "completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling" and said that other parties' meetings were being "observed". However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.

The Conservatives have called for an apology and an assurance that no such incident will occur again. It has also demanded that the BBC promises never to broadcast the footage. The corporation said it would investigate "very fully". It and other broadcasters have a statutory duty to remain impartial during election campaigns. The corporation's guidelines for producers state: "Our audiences rightly expect the highest editorial and ethical standards from the BBC."

Tory officials became suspicious at the meeting in Horwich, near Bolton, last Wednesday, when they saw BBC camera crew focusing on the hecklers rather than Mr Howard. They twice challenged the two men and a woman involved, and discovered they had been equipped with radio microphones.

Mr Black said that they described themselves as "shoppers". In fact, they were under direction from a BBC team making a programme called The History of Heckling for the BBC3 channel. The programme, whose producer is Paul Woolwich, is in the process of being edited.

Mr Black's letter said of the hecklers: "It is entirely clear to me that the success of their presence required an element of performance on their behalf, and that this was a premeditated event intended to disrupt the course of Mr. Howard's speech.

"I do not believe that the BBC should be in the business of creating news. It also appears that the same crew was at the Michael Howard visit to Stockton-on-Tees and it can be no coincidence that someone with them was one of these 'hecklers'.

"I understand that Sally Freestone, the assignments editor UK Special Events, was 'aghast' that the BBC had engaged in such behaviour.

"This is a clear and serious breach of recognised BBC producer guidelines, and accordingly a breach of Section 5.3(b)1 of the BBC Charter Agreement. I also believe that the recordings which were taken of these organised hecklers, of ordinary members of the crowd and/or of Conservative officials who reacted and were recorded, would amount to 'surreptitious recording' under those guidelines."

Such recording requires advance approval from the relevant department head, Mr Black noted, and consultation with the BBC's controller, editorial policy. "Is it suggested that these requirements have been satisfied?" his letter asked, before concluding: "My disappointment with the BBC for this attempted coup d'theatre is profound." He addressed his letter to Ms Boaden, who took over as director of news from Richard Sambrook. Mr Sambrook, a key figure in the row between the Government and the BBC over the death of David Kelly, the Iraq weapons expert, is now director of the Corporation's World Service and Global News division.

Last night a BBC spokesman said: "This is a completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling. The programme observes hecklers at other parties' campaign meetings and not just the Conservatives. The hecklers were not under the direction of the BBC and their activities did not disrupt the meeting in any way. The incident at the Michael Howard meeting only plays a small part in the overall programme. However, we will be investigating the complaint very fully and will be replying in due course."

The spokesman was unable to provide details of any other campaign meetings attended by the BBC3 crew. He said that the hecklers had not been paid a fee, but could not say whether they had received expenses. The dispute is the latest in many rows between the BBC and the Tories. Last autumn the Conservatives lodged an official complaint about Mr Howard's Newsnight interview earlier this year in which Jeremy Paxman questioned Mr Howard about the sacking of Derek Lewis, the head of the Prison Service, when he was home secretary in 1995. A Conservative spokesman claimed that the continued focus on the case of Mr Lewis, almost a decade after the event, showed the "endemic bias" of the BBC.

Many Conservatives are still angry about coverage of the May 2003 local elections when - despite the Tories gaining 565 council seats - the BBC focused on the resignation of Crispin Blunt, the shadow trade minister.

Link: http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=NSD5YIGZ0CCYRQFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/04/24/nhow24.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/24/ixnewstop.html

From the Drudge report:

BBC PLANTS HECKLERS TO DISRUPT UK CONSERVATIVE RALLY... DEVELOPING... The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging General Election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.... MORE...

Link: http://www.drudgereport.com/

The BBC Once again proves they have no idea what they're doing.

One moment they are openly baiting the Government and being supressed, the next moment they are goading the only viable option.

Well, at least we know they aren't in anybodys pocket.

Well, unlike our own political process in the US, at least the opposition can get into political ralies.  Lil' Georgie and his handlers would never expose him to this kind of "disturbance", or one might call it "honest debate".  Here, you need a ticket, and only loyal Repubs get them for Lil' Georgie's events.

I would entertain claims of BBC bias, but not from one who won't admit that FOX News is a purely a propaganda arm for the Republican party.  Until you 'fess up to the fact that all your news sources are utterly biased in favor of the dictatorship of the petroleum, you don't have the credibility to point the finger at the Beeb.

I would entertain claims of BBC bias, but not from one who won't admit that FOX News is a purely a propaganda arm for the Republican party.  Until you 'fess up to the fact that all your news sources are utterly biased in favor of the dictatorship of the petroleum, you don't have the credibility to point the finger at the Beeb.


Can you give me an example off the top of your head where Fox News showed any bias in their reporting of the news?

Before you respond, remember the difference between news and opinion.

i probably could think of examples if i watched fox news, but i don't do that and don't want to.

Can you give me an example off the top of your head where Fox News showed any bias in their reporting of the news?

Before you respond, remember the difference between news and opinion.

Exactly, there is no hard news on FOX, only PR-press releases and the opinions of punditry.  They don't spend the time or the money on news research and news-gathering to qualify as a news organization.
I'm not going to compile a tedious assemblage of the lies and bias of the FOX OPINION channel because a hundred others have done so in a hundred different ways.  If you want an example, of what I mean, watch Cavuto, Hume, O'Reilly, or Hannity any day of the week.  If you want to read what others have written about FOX OPINION, do your own Google search.  I'm not your Man Friday.
Thing is, you DO NOT WANT to know.  You want to live in the slick corporate dreamworld presnted by FOX OPINION.  FOX does for politics what MTV does for sexuality.

Can you give me an example off the top of your head where Fox News showed any bias in their reporting of the news?

In other words, Fox can be as biased as it likes so long as it pretends it's not news, but a programme that isn't news for BBC3 (viewing audience possibly into double figures - most of the country hasn't got digital yet), proves bias on the part of the whole corporation?  Your capacity for double-standards never ceases to amaze.

Also, I note in what you've written (sorry, make that copied and pasted) that the heckling may well have been to *all* the major parties (given the nature of the programme being made), but because the Tories are paranoid about unfair coverage, they're the only ones complaining...

In other words, Fox can be as biased as it likes so long as it pretends it's not news, but a programme that isn't news for BBC3 (viewing audience possibly into double figures - most of the country hasn't got digital yet), proves bias on the part of the whole corporation?  Your capacity for double-standards never ceases to amaze.



Exactly, Bill O'Reilly always retorts to accusations of bias thusly, "we're a news analysis program, our reporting is objective."  OK, so every half hour one of their beaming blonde bimbos gets on reads a 90 second news update, then it's right back to goood old beat up the liberals, beat up the French, and kiss Bush's butt!
Remember, most of what filters through the corporate media as "news" is little more than Public Relations industry gobbledy-gook.  If the BBC or the CBC has a "liberal" bias their transgressions in that department don't hold a candle to the FOX OPINION channel!
::)

I've was listening to the producer of the show justifying its production on the radio on my way home from work: they also had hecklers in on Charles Kennedy and a Labour bod (that wasn't Blair, but that was where I tuned in, so I didn't catch who).  But not only were the Tories the only ones to complain, they also leaked their complaint to the press before the BBC had responded to it: obviously wanting to make a pre-election "the BBC's always so unfair" to us news story - they also accused the BBC of trying to "make news", which is interesting in a way because none of the journalists reported this as a news story: it only became so when the Tory party themselves leaked their own complaint.

Can you give me an example off the top of your head where Fox News showed any bias in their reporting of the news?

Before you respond, remember the difference between news and opinion.


I do know the differance between news and editorials, and although I can't point to specific examples, it is abundantly clear that Fox news is very slanted, both in the stories it chooses to cover and the vocabulary it uses to cover them.  Fox is also rather mute on identifying some of its "news" programs as editorials, since they seem to blend in with it supposededly "fair and balanced" news coverage.  I must say that it pains me that people of normal intelligance can't see through these propoganda techniques.

In other words, Fox can be as biased as it likes so long as it pretends it's not news, but a programme that isn't news for BBC3 (viewing audience possibly into double figures - most of the country hasn't got digital yet), proves bias on the part of the whole corporation?  Your capacity for double-standards never ceases to amaze.

Also, I note in what you've written (sorry, make that copied and pasted) that the heckling may well have been to *all* the major parties (given the nature of the programme being made), but because the Tories are paranoid about unfair coverage, they're the only ones complaining...


Fox News is 90% news.  The only time they do opinion is 90 seconds at the end or beginning of shows.  John Gibson and his "my word," Neal Cavuto and his "common sense," and Bill O'Reilly and his talking points memo.  Besides that, the few debate shows they do, and the 10 minutes on Brit Hume's show they have three guests on, mostly liberal hacks from NPR, does Fox News do any real opinion

Taking MaxwellSmart's advice, I googled and went to the first "Fox News is unfair, here is why" site I could find.  Granted I haven't gone to any others yet, but 99% of what they talked about was what Sean Hannity said.  Now, I don't know how much they watch Hannity & Colmes, but Sean Hannity is suppose to be conservative.  It's a dang debate show just like CNN's Crossfire.

I think you missed the point: you say that so long as its news reporting is unbiased, then it's OK for Fox News to be as partisan as it likes in the rest of its output and be considered "fair"; but one complaint from the Conservative party from a minority programme on the history of heckling in politics (that also went for the other major parties, but they didn't complain) makes the BBC biased.  Surely even you can see that those two viewpoints are completely contradictory?

I've was listening to the producer of the show justifying its production on the radio on my way home from work: they also had hecklers in on Charles Kennedy and a Labour bod (that wasn't Blair, but that was where I tuned in, so I didn't catch who).  But not only were the Tories the only ones to complain, they also leaked their complaint to the press before the BBC had responded to it: obviously wanting to make a pre-election "the BBC's always so unfair" to us news story - they also accused the BBC of trying to "make news", which is interesting in a way because none of the journalists reported this as a news story: it only became so when the Tory party themselves leaked their own complaint.




I take it back, the BBC does seem fair (though CNN and CBC are still liberal.)

I was watching some debate show on C-Span2 the day before yesterday, where they had a crowd of people, a BBC newsman, and each of the three British party leaders; the liberal democrats, the conservatives, and labor.

I came in just as Michael Howard (I wish he'd stop wearing pink for God's sake) came on and watched as the people in the crowd hammered him with questions, and how the BBC newsman made him answer and follow-up and explain himself.  While watching, I thought he was being biased before my eyes.  Then after God knows how long, Howard left and Blair came in, who, to my surprise, was abused verbally by the BBC newsman.

Now granted, I didn't see the liberal democrat leader come on, and how the BBC guy treated him, but as far as I could tell he was 100% fair and tough.

That was Question Time, with one of the Dimblebys as host (I can never remember which one's which).  Charles Kennedy was on first, and probably did get an easier ride, because as a politician who's never been in power, he's never been forced into the same sort of corner as the other two, so he had no difficulty in answering the questions.  IMO, he came over much more empassioned than either of the other two (especially when talking about Iraq - though thinking about it, he was quizzed fairly hard on what the differences were between the LibDem stances on Kosovo and Iraq, given that they supported action on the one hand, and not on the other).

Were you still watching at the end when Dimbleby asked Blair the "Why didn't you agree to debate with the other two?" question?  The cheer that the question got was hilarious (I thought).

Funny that you call it "verbal abuse", though: this is pretty much what you have to do to these guys if you actually want the question asked to be answered - otherwise, they'll quite happily rabbit on and on answering the question they'd have preferred to be asked.  If you see what I mean.

Fox News is 90% news.  The only time they do opinion is 90 seconds at the end or beginning of shows.  John Gibson and his "my word," Neal Cavuto and his "common sense," and Bill O'Reilly and his talking points memo.  Besides that, the few debate shows they do, and the 10 minutes on Brit Hume's show they have three guests on, mostly liberal hacks from NPR, does Fox News do any real opinion

Taking MaxwellSmart's advice, I googled and went to the first "Fox News is unfair, here is why" site I could find.  Granted I haven't gone to any others yet, but 99% of what they talked about was what Sean Hannity said.  Now, I don't know how much they watch Hannity & Colmes, but Sean Hannity is suppose to be conservative.  It's a dang debate show just like CNN's Crossfire.

Again, one has to look at what stories they choose to emphasize, and whose point of view the subtext of the "news" advocates.  Everything FOX does is overtly or covertly advocates the right-wing Republican agenda.  They toe the line of petroleum supremecy and the religious right.  Sometimes they'll throw in an objection to the Bush Administration's stance on immigration, or some issue where the Bushies can't afford to be utterly Fascist, and then say they DO criticize Republicans.  In fact, they only inveigh for what the Bushies WOULD do if they didn't have to pander to any non-rich constituencies.

Corporate bias is not exclusive to FOX, unfortunately.  Most of what passes for "news" on both cable and broadcast networks, as well as the major print media, is filtered through the pro-corporate public relations industry.

Also, what passes as "liberal" on TV is often quite nastily conservative.  I have heard people describe right-winger Morton Kondrake as "liberal" simply because he appears on the panel next to that Fascist ghoul Fred Barnes!

Were you still watching at the end when Dimbleby asked Blair the "Why didn't you agree to debate with the other two?" question?  The cheer that the question got was hilarious (I thought).

Funny that you call it "verbal abuse", though: this is pretty much what you have to do to these guys if you actually want the question asked to be answered - otherwise, they'll quite happily rabbit on and on answering the question they'd have preferred to be asked.  If you see what I mean.




The part I liked was when some man in the crowd asked Blair "so, how long until you raise taxes again?" or something like that, the crowd seemed to love it.

The reason I wrote "verbal abuse" is possibly how rude some of the people are.  If I had the chance to ask John Kerry a question, I'd make it as tough as possible, and I'd try to make him give a straight answer.  But I certainly wouldn't do like that one guy did with Blair, scream at him and call him a liar.

The part I liked was when some man in the crowd asked Blair "so, how long until you raise taxes again?" or something like that, the crowd seemed to love it.

The reason I wrote "verbal abuse" is possibly how rude some of the people are.  If I had the chance to ask John Kerry a question, I'd make it as tough as possible, and I'd try to make him give a straight answer.  But I certainly wouldn't do like that one guy did with Blair, scream at him and call him a liar.

It won't upset me all that much of the Conservatives get in.  Blair deserves to get sacked for being such an azzwhole. 

It won't upset me all that much of the Conservatives get in.  Blair deserves to get sacked for being such an azzwhole. 


Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Michael Howard get in.  But, from the looks of things, it's going to be like every recent British election: labor first, conservatives second, and liberal democrats third.

If you had the chance to talk with Bush, would you be as disrespectful?  Would you scream at him, give him dirty looks, and call him a liar right to his face?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Michael Howard get in.  But, from the looks of things, it's going to be like every recent British election: labor first, conservatives second, and liberal democrats third.

If you had the chance to talk with Bush, would you be as disrespectful?  Would you scream at him, give him dirty looks, and call him a liar right to his face?


Just two points.

Firstly the best thing we could hope for from the election is Blair to win but for majority to be cut by a large percentage. Howard is not a leader, he's a second place man, that is what he does best, harass Blair. With any luck, if enough of Blair's majority is cut we can actually go back to having a real Parliament instead of the current 'Tony Says, It Happens' system. Howard would also be good in the role of harasser as he is an excellent public speaker. He can make the PM look like a fool and has done on many occasions.

No i wouldn't drop down to Bush's level, I wouldn't even feel the need to ask him a question, after all, he'd only lie.

'Tony Says, It Happens' system. occasions.


Just how big of a majority does the labor party have?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Michael Howard get in.  But, from the looks of things, it's going to be like every recent British election: labor first, conservatives second, and liberal democrats third.

If you had the chance to talk with Bush, would you be as disrespectful?  Would you scream at him, give him dirty looks, and call him a liar right to his face?

That's a big IF!  If I said what I felt in my heart about Bush and his clan, I'd be violating federal law.  I'll bet if I did get to talk to him, though, I would actually be so frickin' intimidated I would come off rather meekly!
:-[

Just how big of a majority does the labor party have?


The Labour party won 413 out of 650 seats - an overall majority of 165, which is even bigger than Thatcher's best (147, IIRC)

Basically, it means that 83 of his own MPs need to vote against him for him to be defeated: the only time that has happened, in the Iraq war vote (IIRC, and I could be wrong on this, 117 labour MPs either voted against or abstained), the majority of Tories voted for the war anyway.

Also, it means that the Tories/LibDems need to take 84+ seats away from Blair before he's left with a minority government: you can't say exactly how many would be needed before another party could form a government, as it depends how many the others get.

The Labour party won 413 out of 650 seats - an overall majority of 165, which is even bigger than Thatcher's best (147, IIRC)

Basically, it means that 83 of his own MPs need to vote against him for him to be defeated: the only time that has happened, in the Iraq war vote (IIRC, and I could be wrong on this, 117 labour MPs either voted against or abstained), the majority of Tories voted for the war anyway.

Also, it means that the Tories/LibDems need to take 84+ seats away from Blair before he's left with a minority government: you can't say exactly how many would be needed before another party could form a government, as it depends how many the others get.


From what all the Papers are saying.. Tony could well have his majority sliced down to around 40.

Which would be acceptbable. Most of the Governments ideas really aren't too bad, and with a smaller majority, the idiotic ones (i.e Iraq, Foxhunting) could be stopped before they got going.