Bent, Biased, Canting…

One of the inevitable characteristics of any society as corrupted and anti-meritocratic as ours is that outrageous over-promotion of favoured non-talent is not merely practised on a scale that would once have been straightforwardly impossible, but is also never reported as such: where the mediocrity’s — and, indeed, sub-mediocrity’s — ascent to the world of six-figure salaries and seven-figure pension pots requires nothing beyond a resolute, career-long preparedness to do whatever is required by institutional power and private wealth, the last thing any insider is going to do is reveal how it’s done.

There are mediocrities in this world; there are sub-mediocrities — and there is Fran Unsworth (b. 1957). Wikipedia calls her a ‘journalist and media executive’; and if, having read that, you are now racking your brains to recall a single piece of actual journalism you’ve seen — a report, an investigation, a scoop, an exposé — by means of which Unsworth posed any kind of challenge to any kind of established power at all, then you are at least half way to understanding how it is that she now works as the BBC’s ‘Director, News & Current Affairs’ in return for a salary in excess of £340,000 p.a.

And, before you ask, I am not being gratuitously unpleasant: I am being justifiably unpleasant. For, if you’ve ever wanted proof that the people who nowadays rise to the top in important and influential institutions are the very people who should never, ever be permitted to rise to the top in important and influential institutions, you don’t have to look further than our friend Fran. And just so you can have a more precise idea of what I’m talking about, here are two clips from a 2010 documentary that show her in action, attempting to justify the BBC’s power-serving anti-journalism…

Content Warning:
If you are a person of any appreciable moral or intellectual development, the following is going to disgust you…

[[To see the full video on John Pilger’s own website, click here]]

But why am I bothering you with this muck, you may ask. Why am I taking up your time — and making your gorge rise — with clips in which this worthless BBC apparatchik pours out slimy insubstantiality in defence of the indefensible?

The answer is that she’s been at it again: just the other day, Fran Unsworth of the anti-Corbyn BBC published a piece in the anti-Corbyn Guardian with the intention of defending her employer against public accusations of bias in the run up to this week’s General Election.

Inevitably, the attempt was about as convincing as proven ‘Watergate’ crook Richard Nixon’s insistence that he wasn’t a crook; equally unsurprisingly, it was also laden with all the arrogance, cant and peevish condescension with which the BBC habitually treats criticisms that originate from among the lower orders whose job is to pay for it and then shut up.

My view is that this article — from its ludicrous title to its absurd conclusion — will make history, albeit of a most unenviable sort; let’s give history a helping hand  by taking a detailed look at the thing, paragraph by paragraph…

*     *     *

At the BBC, Impatiality Is Precious.
We Will Protect It.

In these febrile and politically polarised times [1] it’s hardly surprising that the BBC, which seeks to represent the nation in its entirety [2], is a lightning rod for political discontent [3]. People have never been shy of letting us know what they think of our coverage [4] and, in an age of social media, that feedback comes faster than ever [5]. Sometimes it’s from people who’ve actually watched or listened, but nowadays often it’s from those simply consuming others’ impressions of it. [6]














microdonateIf you’ve enjoyed reading this or another posting, please consider making an anonymised micro-donation in return! Micro-donation — 50p, 50c, whatever — is the way to sponsor the creation of quality content outside the control of corporate-owned and power-serving media structures. To micro-donate to me, with guaranteed anonymity, simply click on the button… Thanks!

3 thoughts on “Bent, Biased, Canting…

  1. Mark, I can’t tell whether it’s a fault at my end, but there seems to be a lot of this article missing? I’m only seeing as far as your annotation (6) in the transcription – i.e, the transcription isn’t anywhere near complete and none of your commentary appears…


    • I have the same issue – also with the previous post on this subject. Is this a fault with the site, or something more sinister? Or has Mark just got fed up with his task and given up?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s