Yesterday there was the Private Eye cover which made no bones about its bias against one particular party.
Wiggia points out:
The front page was not the worst go at UKIP in that issue. All political parties are fair game but PE seems to be setting a new low standard where UKIP are concerned. In the same issue, despite a letter criticizing a previous anti UKIP cartoon as being base, this issue has one all about turds, referring to UKIP.
This has caused comment elsewhere already, nothing to do with “can’t UKIP take it” as some have implied but an unwarranted approach that says much about how politics is viewed from within the bubble.
Cartoons were extremely nasty in the 19th century, but always with a factual basis, this one isn’t and it is not even funny.
Even so, as one commenter yesterday explained to readers, Private Eye is a private rag and that’s fair enough. We don’t have to buy it. Would libertarians wish to see it banned? Well no, of course not.
However, our esteemed commenter yesterday didn’t stop there but strayed into HIGNFY, where Hislop continues his invective and that’s a different matter because it’s on the national broadcaster’s channel, funded by the taxpayers,
So it must represent all parties, all sides of the polygon. And to be fair to our esteemed commentator:
I appreciate that the BBC is supposed to show balance, just not within each and every programme.
Good, fine, let those be our ground rules.
Overall then, let’s see if I have this right, there must be balance. HIGNFY is left, so a rightwing comedy programme goes up at the Beeb at an equal time of evening, say on BBC2, yes?
Can’t actually recall this programme off the top of my head but our esteemed commentator agrees is should be so. Therefore the Beeb does give equal weight.
Everyone happy, yes? [Still can’t recall that rightwing biased comedy show to balance HIGNFY – can you help me out here?]
And of course, the government is also fine with the notion that, whilst overall there must be balance across the board, in the fullness of time, all things considered, there can be one point of view over there, one point of view over here. So far, so good.
We can, of course, test these rules out with Muslim schools.
Let’s see now – own governance – check, one religious view only – check, true to its charter, calling out for the Islamization of Britain – check.
Ofsted happy, all happy.
OK, let’s just check the other side, to see that this balance is maintained. Let’s take a school at random, oh – Trinity School, Reading perhaps, a registered Christian school. Would that suffice as our example?
Oh dear, what’s this?
Now hang on, Nicky, our esteemed commentator has only yesterday written that it’s fine to be biased in one place, as long as that bias is weighted, balanced, in another, making the whole thing a zero sum game.
I’m also fine with that. Most people, I’d imagine, would also be. So, it seems, was our government … until October 7th, 2014.
Now the rules are different.
If it is leftist, Muslim, feminist, anything over that side, HIGNFY logic applies and it’s quite OK to be biased, with one viewpoint.
But if it is of the right, Christian, that sort of thing, HIGNFY rules do not apply and the organization, programme, whatever, must put ‘a range of views’ to blunt the charter it’s based upon.
OK, got that, glad we’ve cleared it up and everyone knows the new rules for the UK, as of October 7th, 2014.
And don’t forget that on November 1st, in 43 areas, the UK ceases having sovereignty over the land formerly known as the UK.