BBC ‘RECEIVES 18,000 COMPLAINTS OVER N-WORD’: Darren Boyle (Daily Mail 8/7) noted that the BBC had received 18,000 complaints over a report about a hit and run accident on July 29 in which presenter Fiona Lamdin had used the n-word in a quote attributed to the perpetrators of the accident, who were believed to have been racially-motivated. Mr Boyle said the report had run on local south-west services and the national BBC News Channel, though it had since been removed. He added that by comparison, a report by Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis in which she had attacked Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings had received 23,674 complaints. Mr Boyle said that Ofcom guidance on the use of the word was that it was ‘highly unacceptable’ at all times, but could be used when ‘strong contextualisation is required’.
BBC ‘PUSHES WHITE PRIVILEGE’ IN EDUCATION VIDEO: Jack Montgomery (Breitbart London 5/8) reported that a video advocating that ‘white privilege’ meant that ‘your skin colour had not been the cause of your hardship or suffering’ was being pushed by BBC Bitesize, which provides lessons for British schools. He said the film had been made by former basketball player John Amaechi.
Craig Byers (Is the BBC Biased? 6/8) observed that the item was receiving considerable criticism and posted a selection of tweets:
Patrick O’Flynn: BBC indoctrinating school kids with guilt complexes and cultural Marxist BS is one thing that really pushes my buttons. Simply unacceptable from an organisation that levies a compulsory subscription fee. On reflection, the most insidious aspect of this (which I tweeted an initial reaction to last night) is the BBC’s use of the term “explain” to describe an eminently contestable analysis. That kids are led to believe these are established truths and cannot be contested is awful.
Dr Chris Newton: Radical left wing propaganda for kids funded by the BBC license fee payer. And the Tories, with an 80-seat majority, just stand by and let this one-sided indoctrination happen. Unacceptable. Unforgivable.
Calvin Robinson: The BBC is obliged by its charter to “bring people together… and help contribute to the social cohesion and wellbeing of the UK”. Instead, they are producing divisive material and fanning the flames of racial unrest. All while wanting a “greater role in children’s education”.
Ian Leslie: OK, but isn’t the more important question whether the BBC should be treating a tenuous and contested concept as if it’s neutral scientific knowledge? There are people who aren’t well versed in social theory? Shocking. But surely whether it’s a good explanation or not, it’s a political term adopted by a particular cohort & the BBC should contextualise it as such.
Frances Smith: Total nonsense. People are all born with an array of advantages and disadvantages, what this does is elevate skin colour above all others, and talk as if it were all that mattered. No wonder it annoys so many people. BBC shouldn’t mainstream such easily contested theories.
Karen Harradine: The poverty stricken, mainly white communities of the Rhondda Valleys don’t epitomise ‘white privilege’, a nasty concept riddled with conceptual holes. Why is the BBC race baiting again? And why are we forced to pay for it?
Madeline Grant: I’m old enough to remember when BBC bitesize was good for French vocab tests and GCSE history flash cards.
Darren Grimes: My two brothers, younger than I am are the grandsons of a miner, both without their father, both unemployed after attending rubbish state comprehensives and I’m supposed to believe they’re somehow privileged? The fact this is pushed by the BBC’s revision resources is dangerous. With BBC videos for children on white privilege, podcasts on ‘Karens’ and now the hounding of pensioners as the one group that they know are more likely to rely on their television set to combat loneliness, the BBC seems to be begging the government to act.
Jane Kelly: Why is the BBC asking this fatuous, racist question?
Tim Montgomerie: There are few bigger drivers of social justice than a stable family; especially built around marriage. Where’s the BBC video promoting that or the politicians arguing that? Belief in family isn’t fashionable but kids with two loving, committed parents have won life’s lottery.
Dr Rakib Ehsan: “Your skin colour has not been the cause of your hardship and suffering”. Try explaining this to underaged white girls who fell victim to cases of large-scale child sexual abuse. Cases fundamentally mismanaged by public authorities which were looking to “protect” race relations.
Laurence Fox: Anyone who choses colour of skin over content of character as a way of defining people, is a racist and racism should be stood up to wherever it rears its ugly head, however pretty a bow it’s wrapped up in.
Martin Daubney: That’s why the BBC has no place in education. Their “white privilege” propaganda actively suppresses those who are in the most need of help. It chokes policy & strangles hope. It actively divides our country. Rant over.
ZUBY: If BBC Bitesize have the cojones, I’d love to make a counter video for them explaining why ‘white privilege’ is a divisive, myopic, offensive and potentially dangerous idea that we shouldn’t be perpetuating. Let’s get both sides.
‘BASIC SCIENCE BEYOND BBC’: Jeff O’Leary (The Conservative Woman 7/8), argued that it was difficult to see how the BBC could get its reports of the Beirut explosion disaster so wrong. First noting that reports had said the amount of explosive varied between 2,500 and 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate, eventually settling on 2,700 tons, Mr O’Leary suggested that this smacked of ‘take a middle figure as a safe bet’ approach. He then said that science correspondent David Shukman – who he noted did not have a science degree – had claimed the orange colour of the explosion was due to the ammonium nitrate itself, when it had in fact been caused by nitrogen dioxide, a by-product of the explosive reaction.
BBC MURDOCH PROGRAMMES ‘DOMINATED BY BILE’: Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie (£ Spectator 7/8) argued that The Rise of the Murdoch Dynasty, the BBC’s three-part series about Rupert Murdoch transmitted in July, was dominated by ‘bile’ and contributions by three of the ‘usual suspects’ – Tom Watson, Hugh Grant and Max Moseley – who each dispensed it. He added that, by contrast, a long contribution from Trevor Kavanagh, the former political editor of the Sun, had ended up on the cutting room floor, presumably because he had been ‘warm and supportive’ (of Murdoch). Mr MacKenzie said:
‘But to paint Rupert as a Logan Roy is ridiculous. Anybody who has worked closely with him will tell you his enthusiasms, his warmth and his never-ending drive make him fun to be around and exhausting. If you are a shareholder, you want a Rupert Murdoch to run your business. Always on. Always thinking. Always plotting. Literally 18 hours a day, seven days a week. And as a 12 per cent shareholder but with a voting right of three times that, always aligned to making you and him wealthier.’