1) Benefits - I'm on benefits and I can't afford to pay my bills. How come we've got a welfare state and there's still poverty? : Errr.... who is this mysterious I? Not me, or you! Next...
2) BSkyB - Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has been given government approval for its controversial takeover of BSkyB. Should we be worried about one company having so much control over the British media? : If I was a gambling man I would happily have bet £100 that you would talk about this today. It is yet another opportunity to rubbish another broadcasting organisation. It is well known that you BBC guys are avid haters of the Murdoch empire, so you are not going to miss an opportunity to have another go, are you? Can I remind you of some facts:
3) Gillian Duffy - Gordon Brown called Gillian Duffy a bigot. We confronted him on this programme. We meet Mrs Duffy in her home and talk to her on the same sofa on which the then Prime Minister apologised to her : And the point of this item is what, exactly? She looks terrified in that photo, as though she has met her Stalker-In-Chief. This is OLD NEWS and even the web page you link to is dated 10th April 2010 - 10 months ago. It appears to be an attempt to resurrect your past glories from the dead. Get over it man! It happened, you got the praise, it's done. Instead of looking at something you did well why don't you try looking at something you did badly? I can give you some examples! Next...
Right, can't stay any longer as I have to go and vote in a referendum, but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? Why do you consider your listeners in Manchester to be more important than those in Wales?
Complaint lodged on BBC web site:
Mr Vine is discussing the following today (copied from his web site): "BSkyB - Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has been given government approval for its controversial takeover of BSkyB. Should we be worried about one company having so much control over the British media?"
I take issue with the use of the word "controversial" in this description as it implies that Mr Vine has pre-conceived views on this topic and will almost certainly lead to a biased discussion. The last time this happened was as recently as 26th January where Mr Vine attempted to link Sky Sports commentator Andy Gray's comments with The Sun's Page 3 ... both being parts of Murdoch's business.
According to http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/dec/30/murdoch-to-control-22percent it is the BBC that has more control over the British media (39%) than anything that Murdoch does (22%), yet Mr Vine - again - chooses to hold the BBC as sacrosanct and immune from any criticism.
Mr Vine has made no mention of anybody from the Murdoch organisation contributing to the show to put their side of the argument.
My primary complaint is that this is yet another opportunity for Mr Vine to berate Mr Murdoch for his involvement in the media.
My secondary complaint is that discussion of Murdoch's involvement in the media smacks of too much self-interest by Mr Vine and his programme makers.
Another complaint lodged on the BBC web site about 28th February programme:
Web page http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yrrld says: "Paddy discusses the speed limit on the motorway, whether people should be allowed to have air rifles, the increase in foreign aid budget and wild horses in Bridgend.".
This programme did not contain a discussion about wild horses in Bridgend but instead discussed drunks in Scottish hospitals.
I have brought this to the attention of the Jeremy Vine show staff on four separate occasions, yet their error has not been corrected.
I consider factual accuracy to be the cornerstone of news reporting so my complaint is that a supposedly credible news programme has failed to keep its own house in order by failing to correct a factual error, despite several requests to do so.
I had a message from a friend today to tell me that George Galloway appeared on the 3rd March programme in the BSkyB/Murdoch discussion. A quick check of iPlayer showed that this was true. I am, as usual, at a loss as to what value is contribution made to the programme.