The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I do wonder how the BBC squares having a single party debate on at primetime, which then features un-countered claims about the Opposition, and impartiality.

I'm more concerned about their acting as a transmission channel for the government line on things, and their failure to report things which throw doubt on that line, such as the leaked OPCW report, the Integrity Initiative and so on.  It's things like that which really close down the information available to us, not an equality of minutes made available to political parties.

[Chindie]

Just now, ml1dch said:

Just compare it to the time that they did that hour-long, Prime Time special feature with the potential Labour party leaders.

Ah yes, I remember when that didn't happen.

[chrisp65]

I'd have happily opted out of that 16p slice of my licence fee.

[snowychap]

40 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I do wonder how the BBC squares having a single party debate on at primetime, which then features un-countered claims about the Opposition, and impartiality.

I imagine they were more concerned with how they could possibly have got a Brexit MEP involved.

[ender4]

On 13/06/2019 at 14:55, LakotaDakota said:

If all of the BBC services moved to an optional subscription fee of £12.99 per month how many of you would actually pay it?

I'm not that bothered with paying the current license fee, and i like the idea of a public broadcaster...

but if it moved to a subscription service at £5/month, i wouldn't bother to subscribe.

I might have watched 5 things on the BBC in the last 5 years, and don't think i'd particularly miss any of them.

 

[Chindie]

Healthy.

[choffer]

The fact that BBC set George Ezra at Glastonbury as a “must watch” shows how lacking in objectivity they are. 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

Healthy.

I may be wrong, but isn’t it the party centrals that select who they want to be their representative on Question Time every week?

Maybe he should ask JC why he doesn’t want    a member of the Labour Movement for Europe representing them on the show instead of trying to make some faux political point about the BBC? 

[peterms]

BBC hits 'new low' after cover-up of Boris Johnson xenophobia

Quote

The Tory leadership frontrunner, being filmed for a documentary while foreign secretary, was caught calling officials “French turds” amid frustrations over Brexit talks, according to the Daily Mail.

The footage was reportedly cut from a subsequent three-part series, Inside the Foreign Office, after secret negotiations with Tory government officials...

...The Foreign Office is said to have lobbied for the clip of the former foreign secretary to be axed from the documentary, claiming it could make relations between London and Paris “awkward”.

According to a Whitehall memo seen by the Daily Mail, the BBC were initially intent on broadcasting the “French turd” comment on the basis that it was an accurate and fair portrayal of Johnson at work.

Officials were also concerned about footage in which Johnson said the French were “shafting Britain” amid fears of an angry backlash from Emmanuel Macron at a time when they were trying to win concessions in Brexit negotiations.

BBC chiefs relented, however, after the Foreign Office argued the remarks could cause “significant damage” to the UK and went against the Government’s aims in agreeing to the documentary – namely, to “promote Global Britain to a UK audience”...

 

[bickster]

Quote

A BBC News presenter has surprised viewers by using the label 'remoaner' while hosting a panel programme that discussed Brexit and the Tory leadership race.

Host Carrie Gracie baffled viewers of the BBC's Dateline programme by saying that because there were no Brexiteers on the programme's panel, they had to avoid 'any remoaning speeches', despite the programme discussing the October 31st deadline.

The intervention came as Scottish journalist Isabel Hilton was trying to explain how the British had behaved over Brexit.

Hilton said: "Speaking from Scotland, I would say we are behaving pretty sensibly.

"There is an England problem, there is definitely an England problem when it comes to Brexit.

"Boris has recognised that the Tory Party is in the grip of a cult and that cults tend toward extremes and he has won them over."

But Gracie intervened, telling her to stop the 'remoaning' speech, due to the lack of balance on the show.

She said: "Hold on. We don't have any firm Brexiteers on this panel today so I won't let you make any remoaning speeches."

Hilton initially laughed it off before looking baffled as the comments sunk in. Viewers watching the programme were not impressed by her choice of words as they turned to Twitter.

European

More proof that the BBC's idea of "political balance" is ludicrous

[HanoiVillan]

They are obsessed by wanting a) more opinion, all the time, but b) a spurious sense of 'balance'. The result is an incoherent mess. 

[KentVillan]

On 28/06/2019 at 19:19, Chindie said:

Healthy.

This is a bit misleading. MEP is a less prestigious position than MP, so usually parties will put forward an MP for QT. But until 2014, UKIP had never won a single seat in Westminster, so their senior politicians were always MEPs.

A better statistic would be all elected politicians (MPs, MEPs, MSPs, AMs, etc.) and I think the proportion there would be much fairer.

[bickster]

4 hours ago, KentVillan said:

so usually parties will put forward an MP for QT

No one is sure if this is the process. The BBC won't comment on it

[KentVillan]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

No one is sure if this is the process. The BBC won't comment on it

It is the process, I used to work for a political party. The BBC will always have a Labour politician and a Conservative politician, and then the other parties will appear on a rough rotation.

The Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems politicians will virtually always be MPs, and usually ministers / shadow ministers, or prominent backbenchers (e.g. Jacob Rees-Mogg). This is a mixture of direct invites and haggling with party HQs. The BBC's preference is for high profile, outspoken figures, and the party HQs prefer "safe pair of hands", so the BBC do go behind their backs at times, but typically the parties manage to exert some control over who appears (in New Labour's heyday, this control was very strong, nowadays it's more of a free-for-all).

Anyway, there is such a large pool of famous, outspoken, media-ready MPs, Peers and Advisers from the main parties, that there is rarely any case for inviting an MEP from any of those parties.

So MEPs will almost always be from UKIP. Indeed, they'll almost always be just one MEP - Nigel Farage.

Don't get me wrong, I think Question Time is a zoo of ignorance that serves no useful purpose, but I think this stat is misleading and the implied criticism is unfair.

[bickster]

12 hours ago, KentVillan said:

so usually parties will put forward an MP for QT.

14 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

This is a mixture of direct invites and haggling with party HQs.

14 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

so the BBC do go behind their backs at times,

Sorry, can't help but see the contradiction here

 

[VILLAMARV]

From back in 1996

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sorry, can't help but see the contradiction here

The original stat (whatever the overall merits of the "balance" case) are basically garbage, for the reasons given. Whether the Tory or UKIP or Labour or Lib or Green or whoever has a job as an MP or as an MEP or as a councillor, or as a whatever is neither here not there in terms of balance. You might as well use "which blokes called Nigel get invited on to QT" and make the same claim - because most all the Nigel's have been UKIP/Brexity rocket polisher, the BBC is clearly biased.

Anyone not trying to score points on twitter or wherever that graphic poriginated from, who wanted to be more even handed and make an actual coherent case might look at the overall balance of panels and audiences and make a case as to where they've gone wrong.

Quibbling over alleged contradictions about how parties put up possible panel members, or how they get invited is (IMO) missing the point.

[KentVillan]

25 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sorry, can't help but see the contradiction here

 

You will always put forward a panellist, but if you put forward some low-profile deadbeat, the producers will do their own thing. I was simplifying it somewhat, and can see how it looked contradictory, but you're nitpicking here.

It's not really central to the point I was making, which is that MEPs are bottom tier politicians for the major parties. Neither the parties nor the BBC are interested in booking them on Question Time.

Whereas UKIP's key leadership figures have typically been MEPs (Nigel Farage, Diane James, Gerard Batten, Paul Nuttall).

You may then ask why a party with no MPs deserves air time on Question Time, but they were the third largest party by vote share at the 2015 General Election, and consistently strong performers in EU elections, so I think the BBC had no option.

Edited July 8, 2019 by KentVillan

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

The original stat (whatever the overall merits of the "balance" case) are basically garbage, for the reasons given. Whether the Tory or UKIP or Labour or Lib or Green or whoever has a job as an MP or as an MEP or as a councillor, or as a whatever is neither here not there in terms of balance. You might as well use "which blokes called Nigel get invited on to QT" and make the same claim - because most all the Nigel's have been UKIP/Brexity rocket polisher, the BBC is clearly biased.

Anyone not trying to score points on twitter or wherever that graphic poriginated from, who wanted to be more even handed and make an actual coherent case might look at the overall balance of panels and audiences and make a case as to where they've gone wrong.

Quibbling over alleged contradictions about how parties put up possible panel members, or how they get invited is (IMO) missing the point.

I agree, that wasn't my point at all. I was merely saying no-one knows the selection criteria as the BBC refuse to be drawn on it. And you know being supposedly balanced an all that should include transparency

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

but you're nitpicking here.

No, I really am not. I don't disagree on your substantive point, MEPs vs MPs is an irrelevance. this thread is on the bias of the BBCs political output and you mentioned something that is an annoyance. The BBC hide behind the "balance" thing but refuse to be transpatrent on things like how they choose panelists for QT