Laura Kuenssberg is eerily quiet about the major attack on the Tories

Boris Johnson and Laura Kuenssberg
Fréa Lockley

Michael Heseltine has launched a scathing attack on the Conservative Party. The former deputy leader told voters to back the Liberal Democrats instead of voting Tory. You’d think this would be huge news. But Laura Kuenssberg seems eerily quiet on the matter.

Tory voters shouldn’t vote Tory

The BBC did report that Heseltine told Conservative voters to vote for former Conservatives standing as independents or Lib Dem candidates.

On 26 November, Heseltine told BBC Radio 4‘s Today show that it’s a “complete nonsense” that Brexit “can be done by Christmas”. He continued:

I cannot vote or support people who are going to make the country poorer and less influential, full stop, end of story.

Yet the BBC‘s political editor has hardly said a word about this. She did send out one tweet on 25 November, when ITV first reported on Heseltine’s Tory takedown:

But since then, silence.

In contrast…

Her comments about an attack on Jeremy Corbyn by chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis followed immediately after her tweet about Heseltine. But her language is a total contrast.

According to Kuenssberg, this is “unprecedented” and came “blasting” into Labour’s campaign:

And since then, her Twitter feed contains continual references to attacks on the Labour leader. She did note that Lord Dubs was on BBC Radio 4, but not a whisper or mention of Heseltine. Also, she gave no indication of Dubs’ position:

And, as many people also noticed, the BBC itself downplayed Heseltine’s “anti Tory intervention”, choosing to criticise Corbyn instead:

During a general election, the media is bound by special rules on political reporting. As Channel 4 notes in its guidance for producers:

These rules are designed to ensure one party or candidate does not get an advantage over the others and exist in addition to the general rules concerning impartiality.

Clearly the BBC’s blatantly disregarding these rules. It’s already been forced to apologise after editing out audience members laughing at Boris Johnson during the leaders’ debate. And Kuenssberg went all out to back Johnson’s manifesto.

When pro-Tory media bias is this blatant, it becomes even more vital how much we need to vote for change on 12 December.

Featured image via YouTube – BBC News

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. “I cannot vote for people who are going to take away my £95K EU landowners grand and leave me 95 grand a year poorer, full stop, end of.” Michael Heseltine, who demands his welfare for the rich but doesn’t give one flying fuck for millions of people left destitute, homeless and starving by his own vile government.

    2. Unfortunately, news media have embraced culture of personality wherein persons hired to present and analyse news become a ‘medium’ obfuscating the ‘message’. The people-funded BBC must change the contractual terms of presenters on its payroll. Setting aside often grossly excessive emoluments arising from a pseudo-market for ‘talent’ within entertainment industries, there is the matter of clearly defined professional responsibilities. This particularly during election campaigns.

      Behind the scenes editors decide what is news. Household-name presenters and analysts carry the BBC’s imprimatur of competence, diligence, and general respectability: they are the BBC so far as viewers and listeners are concerned. We inhabit a world immersed in social media. Every twit with a mind to is free to twitter endlessly. Within that maelstrom of inanity well known figures carry vicarious authority regardless of the content of their contributions.

      Thus, during contentious public discourse household-name people ‘fronting’ BBC programmes ought be forbidden from engaging in social media conversation pertaining to the disputed issue.

    3. Why was this never a headline: WORLD’S GREATEST LINGUISITIC PHILOSOPHER SAYS HE WOULD VOTE FOR CORBYN. ?
      Is Rabbi Mirvis a more important figure than Noam Chomsky? Won’t he be soon forgotten while Chomsky’s work will endure? Why should a rabbi’s intervention be treated by the BBC and other media as so important? Because he’s a rabbi? Because he’s the Chief Rabbi? Well, haven’t leading members of the Catholic Church engaged in child abuse? Should we be deferential to religious leaders because they’re religious leaders? Surely there is far more reason to respect and listen to Chomsky. He is one the greatest intellectuals of modern times. Doesn’t that make him more significant than a time-serving cleric?

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.