Anthony Barnett (London, OK):
I have just watched the declaration of what is a remarkable achievement by David Davis, a 34 per cent turnout with over 17,000 of the approximately 22,000 votes cast. I'm glad to have done my bit canvassing a few of the voters there. He has achieved a lot more than the pundits including the BBC expected when he denounced the House of Commons for being bent and suborned and took the issue of liberty - that MPs had so signally failed to defend - to his electors.
I have blogged about the sneering, rictus-smiled coverage of Davis by the BBC. There will be more analysis of this to come, calm, and surgical. But its coverage of the count was an utter disgrace and will for the moment serve this angry viewer as a symbol of its appalling conceit and incompetance. It lost the sound when the Sherrif read out the results. Anyone could have run forward with a microphone to make sure they could broadcast Davis's acceptance speech. They didn't. Nor was their hapless reporter ordered forward with his own mike.
Listen to Davis at his moment of triumph? Hear what he had to say about the issue? No need for THAT. The BBC knows all, and it knows that we do not need to worry about liberty while it can call in its license fee. Not only did we have the reporter then talking over Davis - he did not even have the curtesy to report to us what he was saying even though he could hear him.
This farrago was followed by one of the most prejudiced leading question I can recall. Without any serious opposition, and indeed with voters pissed off by the sheer amount of idiot candidates, Davis got a fantastically high turnout in the circumstances. In 2005 the current Labour government only got 22 per cent of the total electorate. By my calculation Davis has got 27 per cent tonight. In other words he represents a significantly higher proportion of his electorate than Gordon Brown does of Britain's. So what does the BBC do? From the studio in London it asks, "Were all of his voters really voting in support of civil liberties?" Oh no, says their local lackey, in a clearly primed exchange. "I spoke to Conservative voters who said they did not agree with Davis but because they respected him and the way he was making a stand they were voting for him". The quotes are not exact, they accurately convey the exchange.
It was clear, even though the turnout was deemed "respectable" (BBC for a triumph the Corporation disapproves of) we are not allowed to interpret it as people agreeing with Davis! You see, his success does not mean anything at all. If they had not voted for him it would have shown that the BBC was right and people did not care about civil liberties. If they do vote for him it shows that they don't care either - they just support his maverick integrity. Either way, no effort whatever is to be made to let listeners hear what the newly re-elected MP for Haltemprice and Howden has to say.
PS: The web arm of Britain's corporatethought managed to pull off the patronising view of Davis to perfection, headling the outcome as "Davis cruises to b-election win". It could almost have been "glides". No resistance, no effort, no story.
PSS: Sunny has posted all the results of clowns as well as candidates over on Liberal Conspiracy
Comments
Couldn't agree more. It was a remarkable spectacle, after everything that's been said about the media's approach to this by-election, to see a real live political event being drowned out by the BBC talking to itself.
The media's abhorrence of the entire campaign from start to finish, has been one of the most sobering aspects of the whole episode.
Truly the British Brainwashing Corps is the governments propaganda division.
Not good for your blood pressure.
Matt
"In other words he represents a significantly higher proportion of his electorate than Gordon Brown does of Britain's."
But that's a stupid comparison. Brown got 35% of the electorate in his constituency, which is the right one.
What's the betting that you'd be complaining the BBC has left-wing-ish-ly spun this against the Tories if they'd taken the line that people voted for DD because of civil liberties rather than the rest of his platform combined with Labour's unpopularity...?
Whilst I agree that the BBC's coverage by their political journalists towards David Davis was, and remains a shade snide today's
'Feedback' on the BBC at 13.30 to-day, ( 'Listen Again' :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/feedback.shtml ) had listeners complaining about the air time he had been given compared to the other candidates. Davis aired his views on, amongst others, 'You and Yours', 'To-day', and 'Any Questions'. I am glad to say it was not all one way.
Ivor Cornish
How bizarre that I seem to be the only reader of ourkingdom who regards David Davis with cynicism. As for the developing hatred of the BBC.... most odd.
"I spoke to Conservative voters who said they did not agree with Davis but because they respected him and the way he was making a stand they were voting for him"
That seems a silly bit of analysis. The idea that masses of people are voting for a man who's taking a stand on an issue they don't agree with him about seems pretty far-fetched.
How far are they prepared to take that principle? David Icke, for example, has consistently taken a very principled stand against the global conspiracy of flesh-eating reptiles, and while I'm sure we can all applaud his standing up for his beliefs, I don't think that many people are about to vote for him on that basis.
Ivor,
The BBC's coverage of the actual declaration was pretty much a blanket dismissal of all the candidates.
Anthony: everyone, please put your names at the bottom of the post. We'll solve this one soon but it is hard to respond to anon 1, 2 etc. Some points then:
He got a heroic turnout in the circs. It is very rare that I have ever heard the government dismissed because so few people voted Labour. Yet this is pointed at DD. I agree it is a bit brash to say hold on, Labour only got 22 per cent of the electorate but it makes the point. It is not a matter of comparing Brown as a constituency MP, this is not why he is Prime Minister.
On the BBC, I agree that he has been given his voice and a platform, partly because there was a demand from the public, see Tom G's post above. I'm asking for the BBC to take the argument that he has raised seriously. This does not mean it can't be disagreed with. They don't themselves cover the issue of civil liberty. I have made the point at length in my essays (see top left corner) so won't bang on about it. But there is a failure of public service broadcasting. Put it this way, the Shadow Home Secretary thorws in his job and angers his party because he says that our liberties are in danger of slow strangulation. This is a mighty serious allegation. Let's investigate it! That's the spirit I'm looking for in the BBC. They complain that politicians are not serious or about substance and are all spin. But it is also the MEDIA that is just about spin.
Here is where being cynical about Davis comes in. I think it is necessary to be sceptical. What are "ancient British liberties"? How does slavery and the descendants of slaves fit in? A point made well by Diane Abbott. We can' now image a state that does not have databases, so what do we do? Bob Marshall-Andrews said at the meeting in the constituency, he joined the labour Party because he thought it was the home of civil liberties, including trade union ones. What's gone wrong, he asked? This alliance of different people and issues is what I am enthusiastic about.
We need to lift up our heads while the political class, media, politicians alike seek to depress them, narrow the vision, fill us with shrugs and cynicism.
Cheers! I am off to Greece for a week
I have a made a complaint here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml
A bit Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells maybe but what the hell:
I wish to complain about the BBC's coverage of the declaration at the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. I cannot but feel that the technical fault which prevented the returning officer and the candidates being heard by viewers reflected the excessively low priority which the BBC attached to the story, preferring to broadcast canned programmes instead of live coverage of the democratic process in action until the last possible moment.
This cannot excuse the programme-makers decision to ignore events around them, in favour of their own interpretation of the election's (non)-significance. We did not learn the most basic details of the result, but the views of the reporter and the studio presenter were made abundantly clear. It was an affront to the candidates, the Haltemprice and Howden electorate and the wider public. It was particularly disgraceful for a public service broadcaster to demonstrate such contempt for the democratic process.
I have been surveyed by the BBC on numerous occasions and have always made clear my high regard for the organisation, and my belief in the importance of its distinctive role. I am afraid however that the corporation's coverage of the by-election campaign in general, and the declaration in particular, may colour my views in future.
Post new comment