The BBC: are claims of political bias justified? Part 2.

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Yep... this goes back to a need for the media to be far clearer about how they present their information. If they want to transform news reporting into some form of quasi legal court, then they need to be MUCH clearer about how witness information is presented, in particular the need to differentiate between a "witness of fact" and and "expert witness". In a court of law, only an expert witness is allowed to give an opinion! A "witness of fact" can only report what they saw.

Expert witnesses are bound to give opinion based only on their professional knowledge and experience, and must present this in a way that does not unduly favour either side. They must be explicit about the basis of their opinion, and should be tested regarding this via a legal c.v. or through questioning to demonstrate to the jury that the basis of their opinion is valid (voir dire).

If the MSM is attempting to manipulate public opinion rather than simply present information, then perhaps they need to be held to a much higher standard of admissibility of evidence that was necessary in the past. I think we have misunderstood the need for a degree of deference between the media and the government and that if the media feels it has a direct role in the direction of national affairs, then it need to be much more accountable than it presently is. Much of modern media behaviour can be traced back to the satirical movements of the 60s where the boundary between political commentary and comedy became blurred. Assuming the guise of the court jester, the media discovered that it could take swipes at "the establishment" to great effect, and more importantly with little actual risk to them. What however is missing is the ability of the king to remove the head of the jester from its body should it get too big for its boots!

The bottom line I think is that we have allowed the boundaries between politics, press, the judiciary and the government to become far too loose, and there needs to be a re-establishment of some clear water between them if the public are to have any trust in what is being presented to us...!
We have also moved to "soundbite" reporting where the headline seems more important than the substance of the report. This has led to the ridiculous sight of the likes of Laura K shouting out "Are you embarrassed Prime Minister" or "Will you apologise Prime Minister". Stupid questions that they know will receive a severe ignoring - but they have got their dig in and that is what is at the front of the viewers mind now.
 
We have also moved to "soundbite" reporting where the headline seems more important than the substance of the report. This has led to the ridiculous sight of the likes of Laura K shouting out "Are you embarrassed Prime Minister" or "Will you apologise Prime Minister". Stupid questions that they know will receive a severe ignoring - but they have got their dig in and that is what is at the front of the viewers mind now.
It might be ridiculous and stupid to ordinary folk, but I'll bet the shouter is on a six-figure salary (publicly-funded of course) for being ridiculous and stupid.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
We have also moved to "soundbite" reporting where the headline seems more important than the substance of the report. This has led to the ridiculous sight of the likes of Laura K shouting out "Are you embarrassed Prime Minister" or "Will you apologise Prime Minister". Stupid questions that they know will receive a severe ignoring - but they have got their dig in and that is what is at the front of the viewers mind now.
I know this is repetition but it's more calculated than that. The mis-reporting at prime time and then the muted withdrawals and faux contrition once the furore has passed is/are happening too often.

It's not unreasonable that if a story has been the shock lead at prime time then the retraction should be, too.

The 'Burberry PPE' story is a case in point.
 
Last edited:
On the R4 comedy half hour,1800-1830 yesterday they claimed that what is now going in re the Supreme Court is a battle between over powerful gvmt and the rights of individuals to hold it to account.
In English this means the rights of unelected but rich people thwarting the democratic process.
They also lied when they said that the SC called BJ's prorogation illegal.
 

no f in beer

War Hero
I currently have the bbc on 'ignore' it is working fine for me. The TV licence will be going on ignore next. I doubt i will be alone in this
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I currently have the bbc on 'ignore' it is working fine for me. The TV licence will be going on ignore next. I doubt i will be alone in this
As soon as they get rid of the 6 nations which seems more and more likely then it's getting binned too.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
On the R4 comedy half hour,1800-1830 yesterday they claimed that what is now going in re the Supreme Court is a battle between over powerful gvmt and the rights of individuals to hold it to account.
In English this means the rights of unelected but rich people thwarting the democratic process.
They also lied when they said that the SC called BJ's prorogation illegal.
We're back to 'holding to account'. This seems to be an increasingly common refrain.

I'd like to see how this would actually work. We already have a situation where mobs are able to get away with far more than they should be allowed to, while senior police officers wring their hands and mumble about 'policing by consent'. We already have a situation where someone can play the ethnicity card and the officers who dealt with them properly are ordered to go round to the house of the miscreant and apologise.

This is a very liberal country, in the sense that many of the things being protested about give lie to the assertions that it isn't.

What, exactly, needs to be held to account in terms of government in this country, other than that the electorate didn't vote the way that some people wanted them to?
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
No problem with that. I presume it applies to all ‘experts’?
Absolutely. In fact I also like the idea that MPs should wear t-shirts into House, naming all the companies and groups that pay them.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Absolutely. In fact I also like the idea that MPs should wear t-shirts into House, naming all the companies and groups that pay them.
Knowing our MPs they would charge the companies for the advertising space!
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
And you experience consists of what exactly?
Being consistently wrong! Trolling! Various mong activities. I think that just about covers his CV.
 
Yesterday there bbc news interviewed 2 Asians in Bradford. I paraphrase here but “This new lockdown is clearly a deliberate attempt to feck Muslims about at eid and is discriminatory to Muslims” was left totally unchallenged.
Edit to add- it was also set up for them to say that with them being asked prior, words to the effect of “do you feel Muslims are being unfairly targeted“.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
This was suggested on my YouTube feed.


The BBC documentary that got him so incensed seems to be a festering pile of race-based propaganda with no real research at all. As its Great War connected it seemed appropriate for this site.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
This was suggested on my YouTube feed.


The BBC documentary that got him so incensed seems to be a festering pile of race-based propaganda with no real research at all. As its Great War connected it seemed appropriate for this site.
Man is bang on there.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
This thread, Version 2, has been going for nearly 30 pages so I suppose it is time to turn the question back in the O0, @bigeye

"The BBC: are claims that it is neutral justified?"
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Yesterday there bbc news interviewed 2 Asians in Bradford. I paraphrase here but “This new lockdown is clearly a deliberate attempt to feck Muslims about at eid and is discriminatory to Muslims” was left totally unchallenged.
Edit to add- it was also set up for them to say that with them being asked prior, words to the effect of “do you feel Muslims are being unfairly targeted“.
I assume there was no mention of Easter and Christian churches being closed.
 
The following does not apply only to the BBC but the BBC's failure to cover the news, and its attempt to undermine the truth regarding farm murders in South Africa shows how much it is agenda-driven.

The only UK news organisation to cover the story so far has been the Daily Mail.

A few days ago, an elderly white farmer and his wife and daughter were abducted. The daughter was found, murdered in terms which genuinely defy description here, and after a further search, the bodies of the elderly couple were found, hanging from a tree. Nothing of mich worth had been taken and it may be speculated that the killings - carried out by black South Africans - were at least in part racially motivated.

Story here: South Africa farm slaughter: Woman and her elderly parents are killed

There have been many murders of white farmers in SA this year - 26 deaths by the middle of the year. A number of websites cover these sad killings. Some are a hard read as they feature photos of the crime scenes and victims, or of beaten (usually elderly) victims of robbery.

A (non-graphic) news story from a reputable source, about the numbers of farm murders, is here:


This is not directed specifically at the bbc as the situation in SA is everywhere ignored. However, there is NO recent coverage of this issue by the BBC, despite finding time to cover other, crime-related, news stories from SA. There also seems to be little interest in this issue from the UK.

I recently read that SA is the main source of immigration into NZ, and no wonder.

My point is: why are these murders literally non-news, as far as the UK media is concerned? The death of one BAME person in the US gets covered by the BBC, particularly if the killer is white. However, the routine murder of whites in a country closely linked to the UK is ignored.

The part of BBC coverage which most exemplifies the Corporation's agenda is here:


This 2017 'reality check' feature was I assumed commissioned to address concerns that the racial nature of SA farm murders was all too apparent. The 'reality check' is, to anyone who has worked with data, a good example of undermining data by applying so many caveats to each data set, that the story told by the data is undermined. If the BBC applied the same approach to all 'Reality check' articles, each one would conclude - as the feature of SA farm murders concluded - that data was too unclear to form the basis of any firm conclusions.

Anyway, being a white murder victim in SA is apparently yesterday's news to the BBC. There is silence as we are expected to accept that racism against whites either doesn't happen, or doesn't matter.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top