´óÏó´«Ã½

A typical Labour/´óÏó´«Ã½ smear tactic to try and distract the attention that Hain is receiving in spite of the best efforts from Labour/´óÏó´«Ã½ to spin the story.

I am not a Conservative nor am I a Labour supporter, however, I wish to register my displeasure with yet another clear example of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ doing it's best to support it's political masters.

Newsnight staffers must be living in some strange bubble if they really think that people cannot see through this idiotic attempt to push Hain from the agenda.

The continued attacks against the Conservatives and Liberals are one reason why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ received only 7% of people saying it could be trusted, I have never voted Conservative but between the stench of sleaze coming out of the Labour party and the nauseating bias from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ you have convinced me that to vote Conservative is the only option open.

Well done ´óÏó´«Ã½!.

I agree totally with Joseph. I have in the past thought the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was always blamed by both main parties of being biased in favour of the other but for the last few years since the Dr Kelly affair the ´óÏó´«Ã½ appears to have lost all journalistic bottle. For Paxman last night to present the Hain saga alongside Cameron's declared Helicopter flights as though there was some kind of equivalence was just the pits. Has Paxman lost his bottle in not challenging his editor? Why the desire to protect this sleazy corrupt government. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ are just becomning accomplices to a slippery slope towards a banana republic.
´óÏó´«Ã½ news editor - time to stand back and be objective.

Joseph

Newsnight did the research to try to uncover discrepancies, so that they could report them.

fair enough, however has similar research been carried out on Gordon Brown?...

Browns inks with the Smith Institute and the circular flow of taxpayers money prior to his becoming PM will be a good place to start.

Agree generally with the above.
Like most people I rely on the news.to keep me informed. Having had an enforced stay at home I have extended my usual scope and have been left feeling betrayed at the extent of the poor journalism and bias in favour of the Gov to be found at the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

A few nights ago a Welsh Nat was accused of being 'dispicable' when he questioned Peter Hain's conduct.
Martha Kearney did give him the chance to reply but gave the time left to the Labour man to reinterate his comments already made ie. 'no idea what has happened but I know Peter and I know it will be OK'.
Oh that's alright then!
Previously I would have put it down to unfortunate handling.

The truth is, other Party would get away with it.

The public are your ultimate protection against your political masters and you are losing them. Outside your ´óÏó´«Ã½ ivory tower, your reputation is being eroded. One day you will have different political masters and you will have left yourself vulnerable.
As a long time supporter of the Beeb and regular of Newsnight it is with sadness we part company at least for the time being. I cannot continue to go to bed cross. We are not the fools you seem to take us for.

Regarding the programme tonight about NHS 24 and the tired doctors.When were doctors(GP's) employed to work 5 days a week Monday till Friday? They have held the NHS to ransom when an alternative Service had to be put in place for the general public, and it is proving equally expensive if not more so. The NHS appears to be there to suit many of those who work within it, not for the UK citizens.

If you look hard enough for bias, you'll find it everywhere in the media, (especially newspapers).
If you look hard enough for bad journalism, you'll find it everywhere in the media (ESPECIALLY in newspapers).
If you look hard enough for an institute which allows one of its flagship programmes to investigate and heavily criticise several of it's other programmes leading to a channel controller resigning (totally unnecessarily btw) and a restructuring of the core values of the business... then I'm afraid you'll only find one.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ IS biased, opinionated and political. It chases ratings and copies ideas. However, EVERY other channel does this as well but they do it more often, more cynically, more divisively and more cheaply and no-one is ever properly held to account.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has many flaws but in general, IN GENERAL... it has, is and will continue to represent the benchmark for the entire Worlds broadcasters. I often hear all these accusations ringing around and I can only assume these people are looking at specific individual items with no thought to find a counterpoint to their OWN bias, which appears to be against the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
Perhaps it is testament to the high standards we expect from this institution, standards which it set.

I'm obviously not alone in experiencing puzzlement at how the item on Cameron's expenses was considered editorially appropriate in the context of the ongoing Hain affair.

On its own it might have merited a raised eyebrow if thrown in at the end of the show. As a lead item on an ongoing row it seemed bizarrely petty and aggressively politicised. Or were you winding us up: that's how weird it seemed!

Would it be possible for the Editor to technically justify the item on the blog so that everyone has a better understanding of the functioning of Newsnight's internal processes?

I'm sure we'll all learn a lot!

This report was just another example The ´óÏó´«Ã½'s institutional Labour bias.
The desperation to take the heat off Hain was so blatant I am amazed that the editors thought they could get away with it.
Get used to the idea that Labour is finished and that Cameron is considering selling this Labour propaganda machine to the highest bidder . Start thinking about your jobs !!! Oh I'm sorry that's exactly what you are doing

Pull the other one Newsnight.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been cheerleader in chief for the Labour Party when one scandal after another has left the electorate thoroughly disenfranchised.

Hain did not declare AT ALL, a massive difference between declaring and confusion to which oversight body.

Just in case the ´óÏó´«Ã½ newshounds have a temporary deficit of mojo at the moment; here's a few pointers.

Peter Hain

Progressive Policies Forum Limited

Morgan Allen Moore Limited

Steve Morgan

(Both the above 'organisations' have the same address).

Peter Morgan.

Perhaps also whilst the issue is pertinent you might want to look at the Smith Institute as well.

To play fast with facts leaves you wide open to bias, to ignore stories really does smack of the kind of selective reporting found more in the daily red-tops.

Get your act together, as the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s flagship news programme you are rapidly becoming a joke.

Last night I expected Newsnight to apologise for its cackhanded attempt to smear David Cameron by inflating the cost and importance of 3 flights he took over two years ago but all we got was a staged self-justification . If Jeremy Paxman had conducted the interview with his colleague with the same rigour he applies to interviewing anyone else perhaps we might have found out why Newsnight chose to blacken Cameron's name in the middle of a report about Peter Hain.
And I agree with your other correspondents about the need to look into the activities and charitable status of the Smith Institute - particularly in view of today's announcement from the Charity Commision.

Very poor show from Newsnight and is fully deserving of the criticisms of bias it is receiving. Peter Barron, you seem to be making a habit of this... You wouldn't want to develop a reputation for one-way political bias would you?

It is really tiresome that conservative supporters complain of bias when the news doesn't reflect their own biased world view. Perhaps they could instead provide answers as to how an environmentally friendly political leader takes "a very large number of flights". Surely he should let the train take the strain or just stay at home.

For those who complain about the Tory and other complainers please note, it extends to other parties - my post above was about the treatment of a Welsh Nat.
You may also care to know that the Hain story was a well known all over the blog weeks before The Guardian did the first piece for a national. I, a rookie news surfer found it. Frankly, it was hard to miss. Took me about 4 mins to find the site of some strangley named guy who had uncovered this weeks ago. The Beeb?... do absolutely NOTHING even though it is on a plate. Once someone else puts it in the news, they are not left with much choice but to cover it. Do they grab it by the throat and try to get answers to the many remaining questions. No, they go after Cameron and come back with some tit bit wagging their tail like a puppy with a bone. Watergate it isn't.
As for the Beeb being the benchmark by which others judge themselves, let us ask the guy who uncovered the Hain Story and tried to get it noticed for weeks and who is still tenaciously persuing it.

Mike T has knows about it. I bet he didn't find it by watching the Beeb. I undertstand what he is talking about. Do you?
If not, ´óÏó´«Ã½ watcher's ask yourself, why?

PUBLIC BENEFIT: OUTCOME MEASURES

I take it that the Charity Commission's guidlines will demand that 'Public Benefit' is quantitatively demonstrated by evidence based OUTCOME measures, audited by research competent regulators?

This should apply to approved 'Third Sector' bodies calling themselves 'Think Tanks' with charitable status. After all, that's what's required of university based researchers when they bid for public funding (although even here standards have slipped). Still, if it isn't in the 2006, how can it be in the guidelines?

If Mr Cameron had wished to be open, he should have taken the opportunity to ignore the diffrent threshholds and be completely open about the source of all his funding. But it seems to be Tory second nature to only declare what you have too. Its a good thing that Newsnight have caught him out - it is after all the third time he's been caught breaking the rules. We need to know who funds these people (so we can stop buying their carpets if we disagree with their politics). Conservatives on this forum crying foul because there is a bigger mess over at the Labour Party make me sick. A plague on both your houses!

I also agree with Joseph, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are always doing distraction tactics like this. For example, the day when Gordon Brown signed the EU treaty; Gordon wanted it to be a low key affair, so Newsnight did him a favour by pre-arranging a big special debate on binge drinking called "Boozenight", rather than doing a special on him signing the EU treaty. It looked really strange that Newsnight decided to do a binge drinking special on that day, when the rest of the media was going on about Gordon Brown's cynically planned late appearance.

Just type '´óÏó´«Ã½ bias' into Google and there's lots of more examples to read.

PUBLIC BENEFIT: OUTCOME MEASURES

I take it that the Charity Commission's guidlines will demand that 'Public Benefit' is quantitatively demonstrated by evidence based OUTCOME measures, audited by research competent regulators?

This should apply to approved 'Third Sector' bodies calling themselves 'Think Tanks' with charitable status. After all, that's what's required of university based researchers when they bid for public funding (although even here standards have slipped). Still, if it isn't in the 2006, how can it be in the guidelines? The reality is that these are likely to remain diabolical shelters for all sorts of dodgy NGOs.

Wasn't one of the main purposes of the revised (2006) Act to promote the 'Third Sector', which will no doubt include serving as vehicles for party funding and the promotion of 'human rights'?

(2) A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within any of the following descriptions of purposes—
(a) the prevention or relief of poverty;
(b) the advancement of education;
(c) the advancement of religion;
(d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives;
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development;
(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
(g) the advancement of amateur sport;
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;
(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
(j) the relief of those in need by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage;
(k) the advancement of animal welfare;
(l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services;
(m) any other purposes within subsection (4).

Having looked at the Act in conjunction with New Labour policy to farm out as much of Public Services as possible to 'The Third Sector', I fear we're headed for the 'Trotskyite' sewers. This is what 'democratisation' means in New Labour's terms (and probably the Consrvatives' too). The people who will have power in the end are not the average 'man in the street', but unelected, unaccountable, questionably funded, NGOs, QUANGOs, 'Think Tanks' etc. Mark my words.

Well?

No reply from Mr. Barron now huh?

Neutuered by Hutton, stuck on the teats of Labour's press office and stupified by a dearth of talent in ´óÏó´«Ã½ Current Affairs.

And the bloggers with limited resources are absolutely running rings around you on the Hain story and many others.

Meanwhile, your Chairman slashes your budget in favour of Two Pints of Lager....

I think he knows something for definite that we've suspected all along for sometime....

Well?

No reply from Mr. Barron now huh?

Neutuered by Hutton, stuck on the teats of Labour's press office and stupified by a dearth of talent in ´óÏó´«Ã½ Current Affairs.

And the bloggers with limited resources are absolutely running rings around you on the Hain story and many others.

Meanwhile, your Chairman slashes your budget in favour of Two Pints of Lager....

I think he knows something for definite that we've suspected all along for sometime....

"The big fat politicians blog?" I thought Pressy had gone!