Ex-BBC boss Dyke plotted against Blair

The American Thinker ^ | April 15th 2004 | Michael Morris

[coldcall]

So, now we know the truth about Greg Dyke, ex-Director General of the BBC, who resigned in disgrace following the Hutton inquiry’s findings which severely criticized the BBC’s editorial management.

Today, as reported by Tom Mangold in the London Evening Standard, it has emerged that in July of last year, while Greg Dyke was still head of the BBC, he had an outburst in which he told friends that he was contemplating spending three million pounds of his own money, to start a new political party in order to unseat Tony Blair as British PM.

One of Greg Dyke’s closest friends, Melvin Bragg said:

"It’s true; he did say that he could form a new political party to challenge Tony Blair on the simple basis that it would bring about a change of leadership"

The most astonishing aspect of this, of course, is that the DG of the BBC is meant to be totally independent. We are always being told that the BBC is supremely balanced and impartial in its coverage of the news, but these revelations concerning Greg Dyke’s comments about supporting a political campaign against Tony Blair, prove once and for all that the BBC is indeed a politicized broadcaster, and is anything but independent. It also confirms the feeling many have had for a long time that the BBC is in fact, institutionally biased.

The idea that an acting head of the BBC had openly discussed a political movement against the British Prime Minister is incredible and will cause even more permanent damage to the BBC, than has already been achieved by the findings of the Hutton inquiry.

It could also explain why Tony Blair, and his Director of Communications, Alistair Campbell, had such difficulties obtaining the detraction from the BBC, in regards to the erroneous report by Andrew Gilligan on Radio Four’s Today Program, which led to the suicide of Dr Kelly, the British WMD expert.

[piasa]

Who pays the license fee?

[coldcall]

You are quite right in that the government doesnt have day to day control over. That doesnt mean it isnt a state broadcater.

It's a state broadcaster through its funding mechanism. So in effect its a state broadcaster without a state. Which means that the editorial control is in the hands of a few management executives, journalists and editors.

That means there is less acountability at the BBC, compared to to a noraml state broadcaster (assuming its a democractic state), in which you can vote out the government.

What you seem to be implying and i've had this same conversation with many people, is that a bunch of leftwing/liberal individuals are independent minded.

This is plain nonsense. The problem with the BBC is that currentyly their agenda is being driven by a small group of people, who have an incredible amount of power - all paid by a tax on each and every tv in the country. Regardless of whether you agree wiht this left wing, anti war, anti American agenda.

Its like a stalinist media organ that propagates a a minoity view as if it is the will of the majority. It's plainly not and this is why the BBC is causing so much concern amonst people like myself.

REgards,

Coldcall

[Winniesboy]

I certainly didn't mean to suggest this broader conclusion. My point was solely concerned with precision of language in the use (not, originally on this thread, by you) of the phrase 'state-run'. When you say that an entity B (in this case a broadcaster) is 'run' by an entity A (in this case a government or state) you imply that A has continuous, direct control over everything B does. That's what the transitive verb 'to run' means in this context. Such is self-evidently the case with the broadcast media of a totalitarian state, which unambiguously operate as the state's propaganda arm and which are staffed by state officials. Such is self-evidently not the case, however, with the BBC, which has the freedom, frequently exercised, to broadcast views highly critical of government, and to act in other ways which government may find uncomfortable, difficult, or offensive.

State-influenced, by all means, in the same way that many other British public bodies, with their irritatingly messy constitutions, are state-influenced. But state-run, no.

Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember the near-paranoid conviction of Harold Wilson, the socialist Prime Minister of the mid-1960s, that the BBC was a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get him. A little ironic in the light of recent events.

[coldcall]

Wilson could have been right about that. I wasnt really around back then so dont really know.

All I do know is that the BBC is dangerously anti-American and anti-War as of late. If it was some privately owned commercial enterprise there wouldnt be a problem. A la The Guardian or Indepenednt newspapers.

Probably like about half the country, I dont agree with the BBC's geo political view of the world, and certainly don't want to pay for it's propagation.

I wouldnt be happy if it was like FOX either, and was also funded by a license fee. Political views are very personal, and its like having your own right to choose, taken away from you. I completely resent that.

Regards,

Coldcall

[piasa]

in July of last year, while Greg Dyke was still head of the BBC, he had an outburst in which he told friends that he was contemplating spending three million pounds of his own money, to start a new political party in order to unseat Tony Blair as British PM.

[pepsionice]

The BBC is not the only European state-run network to go anti-American. You can find the same pattern with German and France. If you watch German commerically-run news...its mostly facts with no conclusions...just basic news. The German state-run media....makes constant conclusions out of every article it runs, and most run against the US. The amusing thing is that they haven't been able to save current German government from negative media casting.

[Cindy]

Now that's not fair and balanced