The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

She mentioned on R4 this morning that she had ‘noted’ the style and content of BBC’s coverage of her report this morning.

He asked her several times what was wrong with the coverage, if she took issue with anything. By the end he had her saying categorically there was absolutely nothing wrong with any of the coverage in any way.

Unfortunately, this sort of incident, a Tory being called out and made to look amateur is actually exactly what she meant. It’s not accuracy they are after, it’s a softer ride for themselves. Unfortunately for them, their cheek has become lazy and incompetent at the same time as the other cheek has sorted itself out sufficiently not to be constantly undermined.

Stop the thread, we have a winner.

It's interesting they have nothing to say about organisations that typically report in their favour. The BBC is a publicly funded entity so it's right they're held to a different standard but it's always struck me that they go out of their way to ensure balance, even when it's difficult to justify.

Does seem like all they want is to avoid scrutiny for their under performance/lies/corruption and they'll use any tool in the box to shut it down.

On the Gaza hospital thing. They weren't the only ones to misreport that. It's an active warzone where reporters have been denied access and even if they weren't, sending in reporters when you know the danger to life is unacceptable is something they should rightfully consider carefully. If they're not happy with the reporting on that and think it strays to bias then surely there's a mechanism to investigate it properly and independantly without the secretary of state making a policitcal point of it? I haven't looked into it so I don't know if that actually happened.

[tonyh29]

On 20/01/2024 at 10:44, Jon said:

Really? 

As others have noted, the tories have never in recent history achieved 50% of the vote.  Factor in the none voters, and the proportion of the population voting tory is signicantly less again. You'd be looking at about 30% or less of the population voting for them. 

You are forgetting the silent Tories , who stay so silent they vote for someone else   

 

[tonyh29]

On 20/01/2024 at 16:05, bickster said:

You only have to look at say how Question Time audiences were rigged in the run up to Brexit,

I did a few googles on yahoo , but couldn't actually find this audience bias information  , could share your source on the audience bias  please 

 

On 21/01/2024 at 07:36, blandy said:

The BBC as you say gave undue prominence to Leave

 I'm not sure if you have moved on to a wider BBC as a whole here , or still on the QT theme  ? but there is documented evidence that the panels they used during the Brexit period were over represented by Remain   .. with the caveat that they believe it was reflecting the view of parliament etc , rather then the view of the public 

Edited January 22 by tonyh29

[chrisp65]

[bickster]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

I did a few googles on yahoo , but couldn't actually find this audience bias information  , could share your source on the audience bias  please 

 

try Mooneying "Alison Fuller Pedley Reprimanded" (for social media posts retweeting far right activists dribblings), there was a show, a "Brexit Special" where Pedley actively sought to invite local EDL members for a show broadcast from sleepy Brexit Boston in Lincolnshire. There isn't an audience big enough on QT to warrant the inclusion of EDL members as being representative

Like I said, as a result of the whole debacle, the BBC first refused an FOI request to reveal the audience selection process but they have as a result now made that more transparent. IIRC correctly there's a fairly balanced opinion piece on Open Democracy that looks at the issue with a degree of balance (on the suggestion that AFP is a fascist - conclusion, she isn't) 

 

25 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm not sure if you have moved on to a wider BBC as a whole here , or still on the QT theme  ? but there is documented evidence that the panels they used during the Brexit period were over represented by Remain   .. with the caveat that they believe it was reflecting the view of parliament etc , rather then the view of the public 

We aren't talking about panel members, it isn't relevant to anything I was saying

There are also quite a few people who appear to have quite out there on the fringes of the right that have appeared in the audience multiple times. There's one particular former UKIP council candidate known as Orange Jacket man (IIRC his name is Billy Fuller, which I only remember because its the same name as one of Beak> the band) who has been spotted in the audience at least 4 times

[chrisp65]

Can I just say that as an anecdotal random sample of 1, I have been asked to be in the QT audience as someone that wouldn’t be recognised as a regular member of a party’s entourage, so a specific question could be asked without it being dismissed as from the usual candidates.

 This is pre Covid, pre brexit.  I can only imagine the audience manipulation just exploded once brexit became a thing.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Can I just say that as an anecdotal random sample of 1, I have been asked to be in the QT audience as someone that wouldn’t be recognised as a regular member of a party’s entourage, so a specific question could be asked without it being dismissed as from the usual candidates.

 This is pre Covid, pre brexit.  I can only imagine the audience manipulation just exploded once brexit became a thing.

Who asked you, the BBC?

[chrisp65]

Just now, bickster said:

Who asked you, the BBC?

No, people that were given an allocation of seats and the promise of one question to read out.

I declined, by the way.

The questions are submitted in advance by ‘the public’. That the question is written by a party researcher and the public are signed up party members was news to me at the time. That QT select from the submitted questions was always kind of obvious. I hadn’t realised you could negotiate how many questions you got and where they came in the narrative arc of the programme. We’re all young once.

I’ve not watched it in years and years, the entire thing was a weird contrivance. 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

No, people that were given an allocation of seats and the promise of one question to read out.

Thanks for the response, I kinda suspected that would be the case with the major parties. It's utterly wrong. The idea that the audience is representative of the area / constituency of the show is utterly false when the audience is made up, almost entirely of party activists. An audience drawn from party activists is never ever going to be representative of an area

[tonyh29]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

We aren't talking about panel members, it isn't relevant to anything I was saying

which I why I quoted blandy and not you for that section of my post   

 

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

try Mooneying "Alison Fuller Pedley Reprimanded" (for social media posts retweeting far right activists dribblings), there was a show, a "Brexit Special" where Pedley actively sought to invite local EDL members for a show broadcast from sleepy Brexit Boston in Lincolnshire. There isn't an audience big enough on QT to warrant the inclusion of EDL members as being representative

Like I said, as a result of the whole debacle, the BBC first refused an FOI request to reveal the audience selection process but they have as a result now made that more transparent. IIRC correctly there's a fairly balanced opinion piece on Open Democracy that looks at the issue with a degree of balance (on the suggestion that AFP is a fascist - conclusion, she isn't) 

 

Liking a few posts about Poppies is not not really evidence that QT was rigged for Brexit . It does appear this woman has questionable views  , despite her protesting her innocence , and some some say in selecting audience members,  though at the time the BBC issued a statement saying She has no involvement in picking the panellists  (she herself appears to confirm on her Facebook page that she does have responsibility)  

maybe the FOI refusal is damning proof , but  I'm not seeing that real evidence tbh

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

It does appear this woman has questionable views

actually, no it doesn't, the whole thing is about her trying to appeal to Far RW Leave voting groups to be in the audience, EDL et al, which is precisely my point, appealing to the fringes of Leave to appear in a very limited number audience IS exactly what I describe, rigged audiences

It's not even really known if she herself voted Leave or Remain, there is an idea that she voted remain after previously being soft leave and changed her mind after hearing Cameron on a QT. (like I said, the Open Democracy piece out there on her is actually a very fair minded piece)

Quote

and some some say in selecting audience members

She is literally in charge of it

Quote

maybe the FOI refusal is damning proof , but  I'm not seeing that real evidence tbh

The FOI refusal is damning in that it shows the lack of transparency at the time. A public broadcaster should always be transparent in such matters. Its actually damning that a FOI request was even needed let alone refused

[blandy]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm not sure if you have moved on to a wider BBC as a whole here , or still on the QT theme  ?

BBC as a whole, really, though Gareth’s comment to which I replied was about QT..My point was really that the official Tory Government position was “remain”. Any assertion therefore that BBC selection of undue pro leave pieces or bias could not justifiably be said to be evidence of pro government bias.

I think the BBC coverage I saw and heard and read, mostly TV, was too uncritical of both sides claims and didn’t reflect the reality. I voted, reluctantly, remain. I’m not and wasn’t a EU enthusiast. We left, whatever…crack on. The version of leave we got was dreadful, a consequence of throbby tories back seat driving, Cameron’s idle entitlement, May’s home counties small mindedness and Johnson’s narcissism and dishonesty.

The whole thing was just so dumbed down. That’s where I’d have hoped the BBC might have been more informative rather than going with the momentary melodrama of personality.

[MakemineVanilla]

I can't see how it would be possible to organise a balanced QT audience which was representitive of the UK population.

Even if we take a typical sample of those who are on VT most days, the proportion of those who comment on the political threads is very much a minority - in short, those who are not interested in politics, or prefer to be without the aggro, are in the majority.

On any particular issue, the majority would tick the "don't know" box.

Those of us who are interested in politics are actually not in the habit of changing our minds, but we think other people might be, so we demand that only our own views are expressed, and anything else is political bias.

Can anyone think of an example where something they learned off the BBC, actually changed their opinion?

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I can't see how it would be possible to organise a balanced QT audience which was representitive of the UK population.

Alternately I can see how not to do it and thats invite the audience from the local political parties

[bickster]

 

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

 

Are we absolutely sure it wouldn't be possible to select the end of 2 other interviews where she finished polite and smiley to a Labour MP and short thrift with a Tory? 

Surely it depends on the nature of the closing comments, if there was a bit of a tussle between them over something. 

Edited January 28 by sidcow

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Are we absolutely sure it wouldn't be possible to select the end of 2 other interviews where she finished polite and smiley to a Labour MP and short thrift with a Tory? 

Surely it depends on the nature of the closing comments, if there was a but of a tussle between them over something. 

It’s a fair point I guess. 

[Chindie]

Labour need to get over Kuennsberg, any appearance of bias is just their false perspective of her common sense reaction to them and their hateful ways.

[Nicho]

If anything the BBC has given unfair exposure to the Tories and Brexit. 

It’s absolutely crazy to me that they’ve managed to con some of the public that factual reporting of their actions is biased against them.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

Are we absolutely sure it wouldn't be possible to select the end of 2 other interviews where she finished polite and smiley to a Labour MP and short thrift with a Tory? 

Surely it depends on the nature of the closing comments, if there was a bit of a tussle between them over something. 

 

Her fawning over Johnson was legendary, it was a running joke on radio comedy shows, it became a bloody meme.

But to be fair, since people started that mix of laughing at her and booing her, she does appear to have moderated her behaviour. Although I guess it could be because she was more of a Johnson fan than an actual tory.

A sort of sober Nadine Dorries.