The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[bickster]

It's been mentioned a lot in many of the Politics topics but our national broadcaster is becoming a disgrace when it comes to it's political content. I've always been a supporter and realise that slight biases will always be apparent in a service that has an obligation to be fair and unbiased but I do feel it has crossed the line from the unconscious bias programmes always showed (both ways) into an area where it's overt bias is now becoming very apparent and destructive to both itself and the country.

I'm still a proponent of the licence fee but something really needs to change at the BBC, their political content is shockingly biased and seemingly they aren't even trying to hide it.

I came across this story today and it highlights how ludicrous the situation has become. I'm a supporter of neither the Unionist or the SNP

Quote

Revealed: Question Time secretly edited SNP answer to Unionist plant

THE BBC has been plunged into fresh controversy with the sensational new revelation that Fiona Hyslop’s full response to an angry Unionist was secretly edited out from last week’s Question Time in Motherwell.

Billy Mitchell, a former Ukip candidate who has appeared in the show’s audience four times, was given more than a minute of uninterrupted airtime to direct his Unionist rant at the SNP minister.

But her response to him appeared to be just seven seconds long – with some in the Yes movement suggesting in the days that followed that her rebuttal should have been much more thorough.

However, The National can now reveal that her full response WAS in fact significantly longer, but was chopped out in the final edit by the show’s producers.

In the broadcast programme, Mitchell is invited to have an extended rant about independence, eventually ending with: “You’re losers. You need to get voted out and leave Scotland to prosper.”

Hyslop then replies: “I appreciate your point. A slight exaggeration. We had a white paper, whether you liked it or not, there were 600 pages of it–”

Without The National, Question Time would have got away with misleading audiences on Scotland and selectively editing SNP responses. We will make sure they are held to account. Support us by subscribing to The National today.

The camera then cuts back to the audience, and host Fiona Bruce introduces a new questioner and the debate moves on.

Click here to see Hyslop's edited response, which is shown approximately 14 minutes in.

However, we can now reveal that Hyslop had in fact continued to reply at length, but as she was giving her answer Mitchell started to shout over her.

Host Fiona Bruce was happy to allow him to speak up, but an audience member told us that at one point during the exchanges he started shouting about recent allegations surrounding former First Minister Alex Salmond.

Court restrictions around the live case ensured that the BBC would be unable to broadcast the footage, and therefore most of Hyslop’s response to him.

But producers will now be facing urgent questions over why they then made the decision to broadcast his initial anti-independence rant without a proper right of reply, rather than just axing the entire exchange with Mitchell.

Instead, Hyslop was made to appear as though she hadn’t been able or willing to respond fully to his points.

The BBC confirmed to The National that there had been a cut for legal reasons, but refused to say more.

These revelations add to growing pressure on the BBC over the Unionist bias on its show last week, and it comes at the same time as a fresh analysis of the show has also revealed the scale of the disproportionate voice given to Unionists in the audience.

In the first section of the show, on Brexit, one Yes voter from the audience spoke for 17 seconds – far shorter than Mitchell’s contribution.

The show followed this up with a question on independence, which was: “With the ensuing carnage created by Brexit, on what planet do the SNP believe Scotland leaving the union is for the good?”

In that section on independence, the audience were called on by Bruce nine times.

Only on one of these instances was it a Yes voter who was asked to speak.

Another occasion saw an audience member say they had moved from a Yes vote to unsure – and even though they stressed that they wanted to ask about food banks, Bruce urged them to explain the shift in their decision.

The other eight audience contributions were all from No voters – which includes a follow-up from the man who asked the question, after Bruce asked for his response to the answers.

Across the show as a whole, Unionist audience contributions took up 3 minutes 32 secs of run-time. Pro-independence viewpoints from the members of the public were heard for only 53 seconds.

This is despite Motherwell having an SNP MP and MSP, and North Lanarkshire voting for Yes in 2014.

Mitchell’s speech was the longest by any person from the audience, and no other was more than a minute long.

READ MORE: Why we shouldn’t let Question Time debacle obscure bigger problems

Across the show as a whole, Hyslop spoke for 8:24, and Tory peer Michael Forsyth for 8:18.

Pro-independence activist and supermodel Eunice Olumide spoke for the longest, with 8:40, but the vast majority of this came in response to a question over the Liam Neeson racism controversy.

Labour’s Anneliese Dodds was given 6:37 of speaking time, and journalist Hugo Rifkind 3:57.

The only substantial, prolonged interventions from presenter Bruce came as she challenged Hyslop on her pro-independence stance and Forsyth on his pro-Brexit stance.

Keith Brown, the SNP’s depute leader, said: “If the BBC is going to maintain the confidence of the audience it is vital that Question Time is fully transparent and accountable around its decision making.

“Day by day new details are emerging about last week’s programme, all of which are deeply troubling and not a good look for the BBC.

“Question Time has got itself in a real mess in recent weeks, and we will be meeting with the BBC to outline all of our concerns.”

The National

[chrisp65]

I'd stopped watching QT some time ago, but I've been fascinated by this story.

He's been in the audience and got selected for a comment or a question on a minimum of four occasions. But apparently, other audience members have been saying he was already in the studio and seated when they were allowed in.  

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I'd stopped watching QT some time ago, but I've been fascinated by this story.

He's been in the audience and got selected for a comment or a question on a minimum of four occasions. But apparently, other audience members have been saying he was already in the studio and seated when they were allowed in.  

Same here, apart from one show a short while back, I haven't watched it for over two years. Every now and again I catch a five or ten minute segment by accident and all it does is reaffirm my decision to stop watchiing

[Chindie]

There's clearly something rotten with the BBC's political coverage. There's various allegations about one of the senior people in that area, Question Time is effectively done as a serious show (and it's been a car crash for years), the leadership has been stuffed with Tories by many accounts...

If you're kind, some of the problems might be done to a dumb and crack handed attempt at being unbiased. But some of it is ****.

[peterms]

Lots of problems date back to the David Kelly affair and the fallout from that.

They have also been installing quite right wing figures in key positions, I gather.

Their approach to news is timid, looking for the lead to be given by the press and then following that, which given the makeup of the press, means they are following a right wing agenda all day every day.

Then there's the inbuilt conservatism to ths programming: the format of the Today programme could be an exhibit in the Natural History Museum.

The attitude of the presenters is to accept the government line in anything of substance, especially anything vaguely related to "national security" or interference in other countries' affairs, while having a few staged argy bargies where they interrupt rudely while still failing to ask penetrating questions.

And rhe funding framework is falling apart underneath them.  At such a time, they need friends, but they have alienated many natural suppporters.

It's tragic.

 

 

[Demitri_C]

Laura kuesssnberg is a so blatent tory its un real. 

[bickster]

9 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Laura kuesssnberg is a so blatent tory its un real. 

Why does every question sound like... Mrs May, can I be your next press secretary?

[peterms]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Why does every question sound like... Mrs May, can I be your next press secretary?

Like this lad?

Quote

Guto Harri (Welsh pronunciation: [ˈɡɪtɔ.hariː]; born 8 July 1966) is a writer, broadcaster and strategic communications consultant. A former BBC chief political correspondent, in May 2008 he was appointed as communications director for Mayor of London Boris Johnson's administration at London City Hall.

 

[peterms]

This may help explain why the Question Time audiences are like they are.

And not named in this article, but I assume she's the one they mean.

Quote

BBC Question Time Staff Reminded Of Impartiality Rules After Producer's Britain First Posts Revealed

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

Question Time has increasing engaged the audience too much over the years, it used to be that they asked questions and every now and then someone could raise a point, now it seems like the audience talks more than the panel, and you only watch it in the first place to hear what the panel has to say, rather than what some idiot off the street (or a plant) thinks. BBC have lost sight of things, yet again.

[sharkyvilla]

I always thought Question Time was live so couldn't be edited like that.  You learn something new every day.  As for the BBC itself, it seems to get accused of bias from both sides, I've not really noticed bias from any British TV networks and think they're all pretty good on that front.  

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I always thought Question Time was live so couldn't be edited like that.  You learn something new every day.  As for the BBC itself, it seems to get accused of bias from both sides, I've not really noticed bias from any British TV networks and think they're all pretty good on that front.  

There used to be genuine accusations from both sides. Now there are only genuine accusations from one side, the Right appear to have mainly shut up and just chuck the odd false one in now and again for "balance"

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

12 hours ago, peterms said:

Their approach to news is timid, looking for the lead to be given by the press and then following that, which given the makeup of the press, means they are following a right wing agenda all day every day.

Spot on.  It used to be in the 70's % 80's "This is the News".  They are now so unsure of themselves,  "The BBC understands that",  which I take as,   we have looked at some Twitter / Facebook stuff and really don't know.  They are more Mavis Riley than Selena Scot now IMO.   Maybe rose tinted glasses but do you know what I mean anyone ?

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Spot on.  It used to be in the 70's % 80's "This is the News".  They are now so unsure of themselves,  "The BBC understands that",  which I take as,   we have looked at some Twitter / Facebook stuff and really don't know.  They are more Mavis Riley than Selena Scot now IMO.   Maybe rose tinted glasses but do you know what I mean anyone ?

The money for actual investigative journalism appears to have gone.

There is reaction reporting, and puff pieces. But somebody building a story for a few weeks, that's quite rare now. News happens and someone from the BBC tells us what we can see, they describe the pictures. Now, that's a very simplified version, but it's where it's going. They do try to establish facts, which can make them appear to be behind the curve on some truly breaking stories. You'll see 'numbers of deaths' confidently quoted on other news outlets long before the BBC, because in fairness to the BBC they won't just guess a number that's slightly more dramatic than the next guy's.

But increasingly, I think they are under budget constraints, so people can't work on a story, because they feel a story is only good for the day it runs now. If it's not today's hot news, then it's relegated to a One Show article or a Matt Allwright in a laundry basket stunt.

There's not the research or the experience anymore. From my local news, BBC Wales ran an article and phone in last week on changes in the education system -  the changes didn't apply in Wales but the BBC didn't appear to know that. 

It'll only get worse when BBC budget diverts to subsidising TV licenses for the over 75's.

They've taken a couple of consecutive wrong decisions and someone needs to grab hold and stop the rot. Because the alternative is the american model.

[Xann]

Put this up before, but it goes some way to explain why the BBC's gone rotten.

Quote

 

I hope you don't mind me posting this again, The Daily Politik - and with apologies for its length, but I used to write for the BBC and have a lingering fondness for the place, which is one of the reasons I’ve been paying very close attention to what’s been happening behind the scenes.

A number of changes made during the last eight years or so, spearheaded by David Cameron, have led to the corporation’s news and politics departments becoming little more than ventriloquists' dummies. Of particular note are the following:

a) important posts at the BBC being filled by pro-government figures from the private sector (Rona Fairhead, David Clementi, James Harding, Robbie Gibb, Keith Blackmore etc)

b) direct links with the manipulative Murdoch being strengthened by Downing Street giving important positions to dubious characters like Andy Coulson and Craig Oliver

c) the subsequent recruitment of people like Alison Fuller Pedley (of Mentorn Media), who is responsible for choosing who gets to be in the Question Time audience, and Sarah Sands (formerly of the Telegraph, Mail and Evening Standard) who now edits Radio 4's Today programme

d) all of the above follows Cameron’s appointment, in June 2010, of John Browne (Baron Browne of Madingley) to the post of 'Lead Non-Executive Director' for Downing Street, his role being that of 'recruiting business leaders to reformed departmental boards' - Browne's questionable history at BP notwithstanding (remember Deep Horizon!)

e) how all of this quiet, underhand activity has been largely unreported, but has given the current Conservative government immense power within fashionable and influential circles.

This means they can not only dictate what information is made available to the public, but also the manner in which it is presented. History is full of examples of unscrupulous political leaders exercising control over the populace by taking control of the means of communication.

 

Marcus Moore Facebook

[NurembergVillan]

They need to stop sending threatening letters to my new house too, the arseholes.

I updated my license as soon as I moved in November and I've had a letter a month since then with an increasingly threatening tone.  The latest one tells me that my details have been passed on to the enforcement agency who work 7 days a week, mornings, afternoon and evenings.

If someone bangs on my door and wakes my kids up to see a TV license I paid for 10 months ago, they'll get a remote control so far up their jacksie they'll be able to change channels by burping.

[NurembergVillan]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The money for actual investigative journalism appears to have gone.

There is reaction reporting, and puff pieces. But somebody building a story for a few weeks, that's quite rare now. News happens and someone from the BBC tells us what we can see, they describe the pictures. Now, that's a very simplified version, but it's where it's going. They do try to establish facts, which can make them appear to be behind the curve on some truly breaking stories. You'll see 'numbers of deaths' confidently quoted on other news outlets long before the BBC, because in fairness to the BBC they won't just guess a number that's slightly more dramatic than the next guy's.

But increasingly, I think they are under budget constraints, so people can't work on a story, because they feel a story is only good for the day it runs now. If it's not today's hot news, then it's relegated to a One Show article or a Matt Allwright in a laundry basket stunt.

There's not the research or the experience anymore. From my local news, BBC Wales ran an article and phone in last week on changes in the education system -  the changes didn't apply in Wales but the BBC didn't appear to know that. 

It'll only get worse when BBC budget diverts to subsidising TV licenses for the over 75's.

They've taken a couple of consecutive wrong decisions and someone needs to grab hold and stop the rot. Because the alternative is the american model.

Comes to something when two of the best investigative reporters on TV are the winner of Strictly Come Dancing and Grant Mitchell.

[OutByEaster?]

I was listening to Radio 1 on the way from work today and the coverage of the MP's quitting the Labour party today was absolutely abysmal - any pretence of neutrality was out of the window and the descriptive language they used to describe the Labour party and Corbyn was something you'd expect of the worst of the gutter press. I was genuinely appalled. I guess this is the sort fo dumbed down news for a younger audience, but they don't half let the mask slip when they think no one is listening.

 

[snowychap]

43 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I was listening to Radio 1 on the way from work today and the coverage of the MP's quitting the Labour party today was absolutely abysmal - any pretence of neutrality was out of the window and the descriptive language they used to describe the Labour party and Corbyn was something you'd expect of the worst of the gutter press. I was genuinely appalled. I guess this is the sort fo dumbed down news for a younger audience, but they don't half let the mask slip when they think no one is listening.

 

Did you think it was 1985?

Edit: I want to stress the respect I have for your posts, Scott.

Edited February 18, 2019 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I was listening to Radio 1 on the way from work today and the coverage of the MP's quitting the Labour party today was absolutely abysmal