The BBC Tells the Truth for a Change

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#61
#62
Noted this morning that the ITV and Sky News channels were both covering the alleged anti semitism on display at the Labour conference in Brighton - in particular the story that Laura Kuenssberg ( a BBC reporter ) had acquired a bodyguard due to apparent threats against her. No mention of it on the BBC website.

The Evening Standard tonight -

The party is also facing accusations members have bombarded BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg with vile abuse online during this week’s conference in Brighton.
The corporation's political editor was assigned a bodyguard for the Labour conference after an 18-month campaign of abuse by online critics.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#63
Why does she have to have a bodyguard? Would not body armour be cheaper?
 
#65
This has always got me wondering about who supplies the news source. Broadcasters of various persuasions often report on the same things at the same time (unsurprisingly), but it's not always 'big' news. For example it might be the results of a recent study, or lumps of fat stuck in a sewer, All this when there are events occurring at home and all around the world that are far more newsworthy of air time but are never reported in the mainstream media.
Is there a single source that supplies news agencies that in turn provides press releases for broadcasters? There just seems to be a lot of synchronicity within the mainstream media in the news we are provided with.
Not as many agencies as used to.

'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies makes for an interesting read. The number of stringers and the amount of checking of the veracity of stories has declined drastically over the years.

News may sell papers but cheap news is more profitable.
 
#68
I’d guess the powers that be have decided to “up” her profile even more. I agree- publicity stunt, unless of course the bbc tried to keep it under wraps. I do remember bigeye raising the issue some while ago about bodyguards.
 
#69
I’d guess the powers that be have decided to “up” her profile even more. I agree- publicity stunt, unless of course the bbc tried to keep it under wraps. I do remember bigeye raising the issue some while ago about bodyguards.
It was reported in the Spectator that during the election she had had a security escort with her, though I guess the Spectator doesn't get the coverage on Arrse that it deserves. I think perhaps more likely it is a foil to the claims that are made about Abbott and the threats she receives which appears to put those threats into some sort of perspective. More interesting would be a few court cases against those who have actually made threats or abusive comments so we could evaluate the sort of person who is doing these things, whether to LK, Abbott, Luciana Berger, or anyone else in the political sphere. At a guess, I would say many would be what would be considered to be core Labour voters.
 
#70
#73
In which case, why highlight it was a Syrian Migrant? Why not just 'Person Dies' in German blast?
Perhaps that was the information provided?
Trying to provide as much information as available?
I do not have a definitive answer.
 
#74
Perhaps that was the information provided?
Trying to provide as much information as available?
I do not have a definitive answer.
The bbc are noticeably less reticent when headlining events incorporating their declared enemies. Take the recent soldiers in far-right.... scandal as an example. When it looked like it could be assumed nazis have infiltrated the army they were jubilant in their reporting. When it became obvious the issues were not as significant, and that 2 had been released, suddenly the reporting was much more subdued.
 
#75
The bbc are noticeably less reticent when headlining events incorporating their declared enemies. Take the recent soldiers in far-right.... scandal as an example. When it looked like it could be assumed nazis have infiltrated the army they were jubilant in their reporting. When it became obvious the issues were not as significant, and that 2 had been released, suddenly the reporting was much more subdued.
That is broadly true of any "Person XYZ arrested" "Person XYZ released without charge" story covered by any outlet, regardless of who what or why, and due to newsworthiness. What is different is that you have a particular interest in stories involving (in this instance) servicemen and so you will want to know the outcome, and therefore will be acutely aware of the difference in prominence given to the "Nothing to see here folks - move on". As an example, compare and contrast the coverage of Freddie Starr's arrest and his subsequent release without charge.
 
#76
That is broadly true of any "Person XYZ arrested" "Person XYZ released without charge" story covered by any outlet, regardless of who what or why, and due to newsworthiness. What is different is that you have a particular interest in stories involving (in this instance) servicemen and so you will want to know the outcome, and therefore will be acutely aware of the difference in prominence given to the "Nothing to see here folks - move on". As an example, compare and contrast the coverage of Freddie Starr's arrest and his subsequent release without charge.
Ok, an example then...presidential election night. Did you watch the live feed? Did you notice how the bbc correspondents were “buzzing” when anything pro Hilary came in, or anything derogatory about Trump? Did you notice how it suddenly went quiet (and even stopped updating for quite a while) when it became apparent Hillary was not going to win. Did you notice how, instead of providing further updates, the bbc then concentrated on emojis on Twitter that were trending, depicting horror at Trump? Did you notice Emily Maitlis (pbuh) as she wrapped up the nights proceedings, almost in tears declaring “how did we (the bbc) get it so wrong” when interviewing someone about the poll predictions.
 
#78
You must pay the BBC £147 a year if you receive real-time TV broadcasts of any description, whether from them or anybody else. Curiously enough, this itself is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights: the BBC is interfering with your right to receive information. So far, despite a couple of low-profile cases, nothing has been done about this. Possibly some private, quid pro quo, arrangement is in force between the BBC and the European Commission perhaps, who knows? It would certainly explain the BBC's hysterically pro-Europe bias.

The simple answer to the BBC's shite is simply not to pay the telly tax. It's quite easy to do. If you want to stay legal, the best option is to get rid of your set. Try it, it's wonderfully liberating!
 
#79
At least you are now no longer bothered then.

There are dozens of information sources available free (radio, online etc) and at relatively low cost (newspapers, magazines, books etc).

Nobody has stolen your right to receive information. You might just as well argue that nicking a copy of the Times from the corner shop is your inalienable human right as you can’t be denied information.

Entertainment comes in dozens of different formats from thousands of sources. Somewhere down the line somebody somewhere has to pay for its production. You can’t argue it is a fundamental human right to go to the cinema for free.

What colour is the sky on your planet FFS?
 
#80
You must pay the BBC £147 a year if you receive real-time TV broadcasts of any description, whether from them or anybody else. Curiously enough, this itself is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights: the BBC is interfering with your right to receive information. So far, despite a couple of low-profile cases, nothing has been done about this. Possibly some private, quid pro quo, arrangement is in force between the BBC and the European Commission perhaps, who knows? It would certainly explain the BBC's hysterically pro-Europe bias.

The simple answer to the BBC's shite is simply not to pay the telly tax. It's quite easy to do. If you want to stay legal, the best option is to get rid of your set. Try it, it's wonderfully liberating!
I've not had a TV since 1986 & don't watch 'catch up' on t' interweb.

There are more objective news sources out there. Use them.
 

Similar threads

Top