What's f***ing wrong with kicking a few TV types, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay
“It’s a public broadcaster - independent of government - not a state broadcaster, where the people who make the editorial decisions are appointed by the government - like they do in those bastions of democracy: Russia or North Korea … The secretary of state has talked about putting six government nominees - a working majority - onto the editorial board of the BBC … As a sign of things to come, the secretary of state has lately been telling the BBC when to schedule its main news bulletin, what programmes it should make and what programmes it shouldn’t make. Do you want this?”
He concluded “It’s not their BBC, it’s your BBC”. That, for the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker, was too much, and a hatchet job was duly ordered, headlined “Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Luvvie Party: Viewers' anger as pro-BBC stars are allowed to bash the Tories while receiving BAFTA TV Awards … Wolf Hall director Peter Kosminsky among those to attack Government in acceptance speech”.
Sadly, in its haste, the Mail picked on the wrong bloke: Peter Kosminsky is the last in the TV industry who could be described as a “luvvie”. His own words tell you why: “I'd be nervous if I were clubbable. It would be deeply dodgy if I was in there hugging and kissing all the great and the good. It would mean that what I was doing was a game. It's not a game. I've devoted my life to it. I've spent month after month after month sitting in a small room trying to achieve this. I don't expect to be loved or admired or patted on the back or become a cuddly figure of dissent who's been in some way neutered by being absorbed into the body politic. I want to be on the outside shouting, sometimes rather shrilly, about things that upset me and annoy. That was my upbringing, that was my training, and that's what I'll do till I drop”. Wrong again, Dacre doggies. Peter Kosminsky is no “luvvie”.
But he did make a coherent and valid argument in defence of the Corporation. He is fully entitled so to do. It is a pity that the Mail is so hell-bent on going in with both feet that its hacks cannot be bothered to do a few minutes’ research before ranting. But then, that is the Mail way - never let reality get in the way of the approved storyline.
The Mail hates the BBC mainly because the public trust it, unlike their shabby journalism. It tells you all you need to know about the Vagina Monologue’s obedient hackery that they would rather drag the Corporation down to their level, than up their game instead.
The "journalists" are bad enough. But they are only willing patsies, shit scared of losing their jobs.
It's THE EDITORS who are the really evil thugs in this. It is they who decide what goes out in print and on air. (They all have one thing in common: when they summon the courage to appear in public they look and sound like the seedy liars they are).
That's why the tories have gone after an "editorial board" at the Beeb. As if Beeb News didn't already have enough interference from a gang of neocon "trustees," particularly in Middle East and Eastern Europe "reporting." They want to turn it into a replica of the disgusting C4 lies churned out by Hilsum, Rugman and Miller - with Sparks coming up on the rails.
Nobody except the most loony of pearly kings and queens and "home" counties corner shop arse heads believes a word any "journalist" comes out with.
Nick Ferrari of LBC has joined in the attack telling those involved "Just stick to reading words that someone else has written for you!". This from a glorified phone operator
Nick Ferrari also fails to do his research: Peter Kosminsky, among his many skills, often writes his own scripts. So the "someone else" is in fact himself.
Ah well, never mind, eh?
One for the Daily Mail dictionary.
Luvvie = anyone in a creative industry (or the public eye) who disagrees with us.
Post a Comment