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

[Themanwho]

I wouldn't disagree with you. As noted, I don't necessarily agree with his politics but the crafting of his speeches is something that you just don't see any more.

Sadly.

Not entirely true. Michael Gove is an exceptional speaker by modern standards, and a talented one by any standards.



There are others - not many, but they are still there; part of the problem is that the 24 hour news cycle, allied with the perceived goldfish attention span which media caters to, means that any reportage of parliament is distilled into a few pithy (or more often rather crap) one-liners rather than substantial excerpts of the debate.

 

[Cold_Collation]

Not entirely true. Michael Gove is an exceptional speaker by modern standards, and a talented one by any standards.



There are others - not many, but they are still there; part of the problem is that the 24 hour news cycle, allied with the perceived goldfish attention span which media caters to, means that any reportage of parliament is distilled into a few pithy (or more often rather crap) one-liners rather than substantial excerpts of the debate.

So is JRM.

But on the other side of the House?

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

The needle is still stuck on Brexit, unfortunately...

To some extent, that is the undercurrent from London where the media is concentrated. But outside that city, the tory defector is right, to argue the cost of living crisis and the widespread sense that Green Boris has very little interest in the north has undermined everything.

The Beeb like most of the media have taken on the mantle of the opposition and just like an archetypical lib dem campaign, the message is constantly shifting and changing as each door is knocked on in turn. So yesterday it was all about high morals and the nudge/wink of brexit and tommorow its cost of living and I always likened the lib dems to a car that is forever changing gears dependent on the road conditions(audience).

 

[Themanwho]

The Beeb like most of the media have taken on the mantle of the opposition and just like an archetypical lib dem campaign, the message is constantly shifting and changing as each door is knocked on in turn. So yesterday it was all about high morals and the nudge/wink of brexit and tommorow its cost of living and I always likened the lib dems to a car that is forever changing gears dependent on the road conditions(audience).

But always breaks down before reaching the planned destination....

 

[Democritus]

But always breaks down before reaching the planned destination....

Or ends up at Little Relevance in the Marsh. (Or Ramsbottom, given the party's penchant for ... inclusiveness.)

 

[Northern_Biff]

Or ends up at Little Relevance in the Marsh. (Or Ramsbottom, given the party's penchant for ... inclusiveness.)

Oi, there's nowt wrong with Rammy.

 

[Themanwho]

Oi, there's nowt wrong with Rammy.

No judgements dear, it's legal now so you plough your own furrow and good luck to you....

 

[Democritus]

Oi, there's nowt wrong with Rammy.

Indeed not. Plenty wrong with Davey's Dullards, though.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

But always breaks down before reaching the planned destination....

That's very true. The Beeb claims of objectivity requires they're look at all sides and then use facts, past knowledge and your own expertise to divine any truth. If your wholly biased or lacking in knowledge, then you can't see any other truth but your own.

To follow the driving metaphor. Its like somebody who claims to be an expert on driving, or public transport, whilst sitting in the back of a chauffeur driven car and using private trains or planes. From a privileged position, your either trying to remember what something used to be like, or taking advice and that is coming entirely from the young and/or your own privileged children and the BBC achilles heel has always been it listens to only one side and its staff lack expertise in anything anymore.

 

[Dunservin]

Can anyone even explain what Starmer's agenda is?

Spend, spend, spend and, if in doubt, spend.

 

[Themanwho]

It has to be said that Tina Daheley has been a breath of fresh air sitting in for Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 this week. She actually allows both sides of an issue to be heard without butting in with a brainless comment or some gormless one-sided summing up. Worth a listen today if you haven't caught her.

I wonder if she'll ever be heard of again?

 

[Not a Boffin]

Spend, spend, spend and, if in doubt, spend.

But only once the recipients have been packaged into a nice little identity bundle to ensure that the spending goes where it can alleviate the damage done by the evil tories.

We probably need to set up a Ministry of Identity/Victimhood and staff it with CS and lawyers to ensure we don't get sued by human rights lawyers for getting it wrong.

 

[Themanwho]

I suspect their biggest task today is to ignore and downplay the mad cat woman Cadwalaha getting handed her arrse in court and then tweeting the same libel straight after.

A snip from yesterday's Cat lady testimony:

MS CAROLE CADWALLADR (affirmed)

MR MILLAR: Could you give the court your full name, please?
A. Carole Jane Cadwalladr.
Q. Go to bundle A, there is a witness statement in your name
A. Yes.
Q. On the screen now. It runs internally for 47 pages and ends at page 289 in the bundle, where there is a signature.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature in the witness statement?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s dated 23 November 2021. Are the facts as stated in that witness statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
A. Yes.
MR MILLAR: Would you wait there, please.

Cross examination by MR McCORMICK

MR McCORMICK: So, Ms Cadwalladr, you’ve checked the witness statement, you’re satisfied there is nothing needs to be changed?
A. (inaudible) something.
Q. First of all, if you could answer the question I asked you: are you satisfied that there’s nothing that needs to be changed?
A. There are since making (inaudible) the witness statement, I have reflected upon the contents of it. My first draft was 40,000 words and, with my legal team’s help, it was condensed. I tried to be completist about what I included and, on the instruction that I should I needed to include what was in my head at the point that I made the TED Talk. And so to truthfully reflect on what was in my head when I made the TED Talk, I wrote the first draft of it at extreme length and it was subsequently cut down somewhat.
Q. I’m sorry, Ms Cadwalladr, the question I asked you was: did you feel there were any changes that needed to be made to your witness statement? I think that requires a yes or a no, followed by whatever explanation you might want to give. But I have asked the question now three times, so can you please answer it with a yes or no and then any qualification.
A. Yes sorry. Sorry, yes, I ’m obviously satisfied at the point that I submitted in my witness statement. There are .. I think there are other things which could have been included.
Q. But what’s included in your witness statement, are you content that those are entirely accurate?
A. I think there are some minor inaccuracies in the statement that .. I think there are potentially some 20 minor inaccuracies in the statement. It was true to the best of my knowledge at the time that I submitted it.
Q. But not when you simply swore to say that it was true to the best of your knowledge and belief a few moments ago, because by that stage you had realised there were some minor inaccuracies in it ?
A. I wrote the statement with the instruction to write it absolutely honestly and truthfully of what was in my head before I gave the TED Talk, and that the statement reflects that absolutely and truthfully.
Q. I’m sorry, Ms Cadwalladr, that’s not the question I asked you. You said that there are some minor inaccuracies in the statement. You have just sworn that to the best of your knowledge and belief that statement is true. Now, are there minor inaccuracies in the witness statement?
A. There .. it’s possible.
Q. What do you mean it’s possible? You mean you haven’t identified whether or not there are any or you have identified them? You’re the first one who has mentioned minor inaccuracies in the statement, so I ’m assuming from that, but correct me if I ’m wrong, that you realised before you took the oath that there were minor inaccuracies in your witness statement. Is that correct?
A. (Pause). I ’m sorry, Mr McCormick, I’m trying so hard to be absolutely and honestly truthful in every respect, and I apologise if I blustered .. if I stumbled at this point.
Q. There’s no need to apologise, Ms Cadwalladr. It’s a stressful position to be in, I appreciate that. You were the one who mentioned that there were minor inaccuracies in your witness statement, you volunteered that, and I’m asking you to confirm that there are or there aren’t minor inaccuracies in your witness statement. It ’s relating to what you believe concerning the accuracy of your own witness statement.
A. There was identified in my head a point of fact that I wished to check.
Q. When did you identify that point of fact that you wished to check?
A. I think on .. some point on Thursday.
Q. Right. And have you checked that point?
A. I have not checked that point.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I have been reviewing thousands of documents.
Q. And when you went into the witness box and took your oath, had you forgotten that there was a point of fact that you wished to review?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. And I have brought it to your attention?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any other matters, because you referred to minor inaccuracies, plural , are there any other matters that you have identified?
A. No.
Q. So it’s just one?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. I’m sorry?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. Okay.

I'd like to say you couldn't make it up, but apparently she can and does....

Carole Cadwalladr Admits Minutes After Swearing To Her Witness Statement's Truth, That It Is Inaccurate

Carole Cadwalladr has already admitted that her claims that Arron Banks was in the pay of the Russians were untrue and apologised to him for making them,

order-order.com

 

[Walter_Ego]

It has to be said that Tina Daheley has been a breath of fresh air sitting in for Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 this week. She actually allows both sides of an issue to be heard without butting in with a brainless comment or some gormless one-sided summing up. Worth a listen today if you haven't caught her.

I wonder if she'll ever be heard of again?

With Sophie Rayworth and Tina Daheley doing a good job it may be time to give the BBC another go.

Vine is an idiot. I have never heard any other presenter consistently getting hold of the wrong end of the stick when taking calls from the public. It’s as if he has no real world experience and cannot relate or empathise with anything outside his limited bubble

 

[Truxx]

That's very true. The Beeb claims of objectivity requires they're look at all sides and then use facts, past knowledge and your own expertise to divine any truth. If your wholly biased or lacking in knowledge, then you can't see any other truth but your own.

To follow the driving metaphor. Its like somebody who claims to be an expert on driving, or public transport, whilst sitting in the back of a chauffeur driven car and using private trains or planes. From a privileged position, your either trying to remember what something used to be like, or taking advice and that is coming entirely from the young and/or your own privileged children and the BBC achilles heel has always been it listens to only one side and its staff lack expertise in anything anymore.

To develop your hypothesis further the Beeb is the expert who has their own idea of how things should be and selects those things that most supports their vision.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

To develop your hypothesis further the Beeb is the expert who has their own idea of how things should be and selects those things that most supports their vision.

I've used the word 'unsophisticated' a few times today. I think its arguable it applies very much to the BBC in the 21st century. The flat out refusal to accept the world as it, runs at the heart of the corporation these days. The activist nature of most of its content, is always to my mind unsophisticated, bordering on the moronic and fits the narrative always promoted for a revolution, which of course will fix everything.

To stretch the motor car metaphor to the extreme; The BBC car breaks down and they're sit in the car twisting and moaning angry at everybody and everything. Then find out from the AA, that they've not put any petrol in the car and go ballistic at the AA man for his deep failings and then seize his vehicle for historic injustices and to conclude the Beeb is what it is i.e. a place of the immature and never grown ups.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

when taking calls from the public.

Having heard him several times, it seems to me that he does not listen to whoever is talking. So I have taken a leaf from his book.

 

[SauceDoctor]

BBC Climate Change Service, early hours today: a round-table debate about the licence fee. Some breathless twonk, lately of The Guardian, telling listeners that we need the BBC in its current form. Pretty much the broadcasting version of "Project Fear" will happen if we don't.

This is the second or third programme (may have been one repeat) on this subject. I think they're getting worried. A figure of £600 million has been bandied about for "core services", from direct taxation, the rest being subscription. Big change from 3 billion-odd.

 

[Cold_Collation]

A museum on South Georgia. No mention at all of the Falklands Conflict. A rather glaring omission, I feel.

No doubt some within the esteemed national broadcaster have some colonial/colonising views on this.

Subtle, but it makes me angry.

South Georgia: The museum at the end of the world reopens for business

On a British island at the edge of the Antarctic is one of the most remote tourist spots in the world.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Cold_Collation]

Actually, it's not subtle. It's airbrushing of history.