peterms 7,750 Report post Posted February 19 5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: and the coverage of the MP's quitting the Labour party today was absolutely abysmal - any pretence of neutrality was out of the window As one of the comments in the thread notes, even more remarkable when the incident happened on one of the BBC's own programmes. 5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: when they think no one is listening You've been checking the listener figures, haven't you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bickster 10,517 Report post Posted February 22 More from The National on audience bias on new Question Time for Scotland Quote THE BBC invited Scotland In Union members to apply to be part of Scottish “Question Time” – but nobody at any of the major pro-independence groups, The National can reveal. Members of the public can apply online to be in the audience of Debate Night in Edinburgh, which will air on the new BBC Scotland channel for the first time on February 27. An email was sent yesterday from Scotland in Union (SIU) to all its members with details of how to apply to be part of its debut episode. Several National readers were worried that the hardcore Unionists might be sneakily trying to fill up the audience with anti-independence campaigners. But The National understands that the BBC had directly contacted SIU about the new show, asking them to make their supporters aware of the application process. We asked the BBC if they could tell us which pro-independence organisations had been contacted. In response, the broadcaster only confirmed to The National that various “charities, organisations, community groups and political parties across the spectrum” are made aware of the application process. We asked the BBC again which independence-supporting organisations had been contacted. They simply said: "We appreciated The National retweeting the web address where the public can apply to be on the programme." Progress Scotland, Women For Independence, Business For Scotland and the Scottish Independence Convention all confirmed to us that they had never been contacted. A spokesperson for the Scottish Independence Convention said: “If the BBC were to contact us, we’d be delighted to participate.” A BBC spokesperson said: “We’re delighted that interest in Debate Night is building across the political spectrum. “The programme team make various charities, organisations, community groups, and political parties across the spectrum aware that the application process is open. “We only ever advertise that the process is open, that all applications come through the BBC online form and are considered in exactly the same way. Potential audience members for Debate Night are asked a range of questions on the big issues. “We also take into account other important considerations such as the gender, ethnic and socio-economic mix of the audience to make sure we properly reflect modern Scotland." We understand that all of the main Scottish political parties were made aware of the application process for Debate Night. The show’s online application form asks people for their views on Brexit and Scottish independence, and which parties they have recently voted for – but not which political groups they are a member of. A spokesperson for Scotland In Union said: “We hope the new show is a success and reflects the diverse opinions in Scotland, with the full range of political viewpoints adequately represented.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BOF 23,010 Report post Posted February 22 Oh, good thread. I'll just put this here for anyone who thought Auntie was even remotely clean. They're knowingly and wantonly biased, but they play on the clean image which IMV is much more insidious. Here they are, retrospectively and surreptitiously editing a direct quote, because they initially hadn't realised it revealed more than they; or the Saudis; felt that it should. BBC Protects U.K.’s Close Ally Saudi Arabia With Incredibly Dishonest and Biased Editing Quote BBC Protects U.K.’s Close Ally Saudi Arabia With Incredibly Dishonest and Biased Editing Glenn Greenwald October 26 2015, 12:26 p.m. The BBC loves to boast about how “objective” and “neutral” it is. But a recent article, which it was forced to change, illustrates the lengths to which the British state-funded media outlet will go to protect one of the U.K. government’s closest allies, Saudi Arabia, which also happens to be one of the country’s largest arms purchasers (just this morning, the Saudi ambassador to the U.K. threatened in an op-ed that any further criticism of the Riyadh regime by Jeremy Corbyn could jeopardize the multi-layered U.K./Saudi alliance). Earlier this month, the BBC published an article describing the increase in weapons and money sent by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf regimes to anti-Assad fighters in Syria. All of that “reporting” was based on the claims of what the BBC called “a Saudi government official,” who — because he works for a government closely allied with the U.K. — was granted anonymity by the BBC and then had his claims mindlessly and uncritically presented as fact (it is the rare exception when the BBC reports adversarially on the Saudis). This anonymous “Saudi official” wasn’t whistleblowing or presenting information contrary to the interests of the regime; to the contrary, he was disseminating official information the regime wanted publicized. This was the key claim of the anonymous Saudi official (emphasis added): The well-placed official, who asked not to be named, said supplies of modern, high-powered weaponry including guided anti-tank weapons would be increased to the Arab- and western-backed rebel groups fighting the forces of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Lebanese allies. He said those groups being supplied did not include either Islamic State (IS) or al-Nusra Front, both of which are proscribed terrorist organizations. Instead, he said the weapons would go to three rebel alliances — Jaish al-Fatah (Army of Conquest), the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Southern Front. So the Saudis, says the anonymous official, are only arming groups such as the “Army of Conquest,” but not the al Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front. What’s the problem with this claim? It’s obvious, though the BBC would not be so impolite as to point it out: The Army of Conquest includes the Nusra Front as one of its most potent components. This is not even in remote dispute; the New York Times’ elementary explainer on the Army of Conquest from three weeks ago states: Who are its members? The alliance consists of a number of mostly Islamist factions, including the Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate; Ahrar al-Sham, another large group; and more moderate rebel factions that have received covert arms support from the intelligence services of the United States and its allies. The Telegraph, in an early October article complaining that Russia was bombing “non-ISIL rebels,” similarly noted that the Army of Conquest (bombed by Russia) “includes a number of Islamist groups, most powerful among them Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra. Jabhat al-Nusra is the local affiliate of al-Qaeda.” Even the Voice of America noted that “Russia’s main target has been the Army of Conquest, an alliance of insurgent groups that includes the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria, and the hard-line Islamist group Ahrar al-Sham, as well as some less extreme Islamist groups.” In other words, the claim from the anonymous Saudi official that the BBC uncritically regurgitated — that the Saudis are only arming the Army of Conquest but no groups that “include” the Nusra Front — is self-negating. A BBC reader, Ricardo Vaz, brought this contradiction to the BBC’s attention. As he told The Intercept: “The problem is that the Nusra Front is the most important faction inside the Army of Conquest. So either the Saudi official expected the BBC journalist not to know this, or he expects us to believe they can deliver weapons to factions fighting side by side with an al Qaeda affiliate and that those weapons will not make their way into Nusra’s hands. In any case, this is very close to an official admission that the Saudis (along with Qataris and Turkish) are supplying weapons to an al Qaeda affiliate. This of course is not a secret to anyone who’s paying attention.” In response to Vaz’s complaint, the BBC did not tell its readers about this vital admission. Instead, it simply edited that Saudi admission out of its article. In doing so, it made the already-misleading article so much worse, as the BBC went even further out of its way to protect the Saudis. This is what that passage now states on the current version of the article on the BBC’s site (emphasis added): He said those groups being supplied did not include either Islamic State (IS) or al-Nusra Front, both of which are proscribed terrorist organizations. Instead, he said the weapons would go to the Free Syrian Army and other small rebel groups. So originally, the BBC stated that the “Saudi official” announced that the regime was arming the Army of Conquest. Once it was brought to the BBC’s attention that the Army of Conquest includes the al Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front — a direct contradiction of the Saudi official’s other claim that the Saudis are not arming Nusra — the BBC literally changed the Saudi official’s own statement, whitewashed it, to eliminate his admission that they were arming Army of Conquest. Instead, the BBC now states that the Saudis are arming “the Free Syrian Army and other small rebel groups.” The BBC simply deleted the key admission that the Saudis are arming al Qaeda. As Vaz told The Intercept: This is an incredible whitewashing effort! Before they were directly quoting the Saudi official, and he explicitly referred to “three rebel alliances,” including “Jaish al-Fatah” [Army of Conquest]. There is no way a journalist was told “other small rebel groups” and understood what was written before. In their reply to my complaint they said the mistake was an “editorial oversight,” which is truly laughable. What we saw was a prestigious western media outlet surrendering the floor to an anonymous official from the most medieval of regimes, the official pretty much saying that they were going to supply (more) weapons to an al Qaeda affiliate, and instead of pointing this out, the BBC chose to blur the picture and cover the terrorist-arming/funding activities of the Saudis/Qataris/Turkish. I personally don’t view the presence of al Qaeda “affiliated” fighters as a convincing argument against supporting Syrian rebels. It’s understandable that people fighting against an oppressive regime — one backed by powerful foreign factions — will align with anyone willing and capable of fighting with them. Moreover, the long-standing U.S./U.K. template of branding anyone they fight and kill as “terrorists” or “al Qaeda” is no more persuasive or noble when used in Syria by Assad and the Russians, particularly when used to obscure civilian casualties. And regarding the anti-Assad forces as monolithically composed of religious extremists ignores the anti-tyranny sentiment among ordinary Syrians motivating much of the anti-regime protests, with its genesis in the Arab Spring. But what this does highlight is just how ludicrous — how beyond parody — the 14-year-old war on terror has become, how little it has to do with its original ostensible justification. The regime with the greatest plausible proximity to the 9/11 attack — Saudi Arabia — is the closest U.S. ally in the region next to Israel. The country that had absolutely nothing to do with that attack, and which is at least as threatened as the U.S. by the religious ideology that spurred it — Iran — is the U.S.’s greatest war-on-terror adversary. Now we have a virtual admission from the Saudis that they are arming a group that centrally includes al Qaeda, while the U.S. itself has at least indirectly done the same (just as was true in Libya). And we’re actually at the point where western media outlets are vehemently denouncing Russia for bombing al Qaeda elements, which those outlets are manipulatively referring to as “non-ISIS groups.” It’s not a stretch to say that the faction that provides the greatest material support to al Qaeda at this point is the U.S. and its closest allies. That is true even as al Qaeda continues to be paraded around as the prime need for the ongoing war. But whatever one’s views are on Syria, it’s telling indeed to watch the BBC desperately protect Saudi officials, not only by granting them anonymity to spout official propaganda, but worse, by using blatant editing games to whitewash the Saudis’ own damaging admissions, ones the BBC unwittingly published. There are many adjectives one can apply to the BBC’s behavior here: “Objective” and “neutral” are most assuredly not among them. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peterms 7,750 Report post Posted February 24 On 22/02/2019 at 16:45, BOF said: Oh, good thread. I'll just put this here for anyone who thought Auntie was even remotely clean. They're knowingly and wantonly biased, but they play on the clean image which IMV is much more insidious. The BBC have for decades submitted to MI5 the names of prospective appointees to positions more senior than toilet cleaner. If they are advised ("advised") not to appoint, they don't. Even the Torygraph recognises this, and recognises, deep within its obedient, conforming soul, that this is a deeply wrong thing ro be doing. Quote Confidential papers, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, have revealed that the BBC allowed MI5 to investigate the backgrounds and political affiliations of -thousands of its employees, including newsreaders, reporters and continuity announcers. The files, which shed light on the BBC's hitherto secret links with the Security Service, show that at one stage it was responsible for vetting 6,300 different BBC posts - almost a third of the total workforce. They also confirm that the corporation held a list of "subversive organisations" and that evidence of certain kinds of political activity could be a bar to appointment or promotion... They present it as historical. Of course it is still happening, but we shouldn't speak about that. I see that just in the last day or so, the former head of MI6, who lied to us so brazenly and immorally about WMD in Iraq, thinks that control over broadcasters is not enough; he wants the "intelligence" services to appoint Jeremy Corbyn's political advisers as well. These are truly dangerous people, and they have to be put back in their box. One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the military are subordinate to the poltical process. The military often don't like this, thinking that they know better. They are overstepping the mark, with their interference with broadcasting, with the political process, and with their corrupt "Integrity Initiative" propaganda nonsense. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bickster 10,517 Report post Posted March 5 I know nothing of the programme this relates to but the polls have backed up her point for some considerable time. Framing the Brexit debate in NI as Unionist vs Nationalist is wrong. Why would the BBC do this? Is it deliberate or lazy? Possibly even deliberately lazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HanoiVillan 14,322 Report post Posted March 16 I don't watch it, but I understand that 'Newsnight' chose to invite a member of far-right fringe group Generation Identity onto the show to discuss the Christchurch massacre, presumably because 'balance' requires hearing the pro-race-hate side of the argument as well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VILLAMARV 6,300 Report post Posted March 16 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: I don't watch it, but I understand that 'Newsnight' chose to invite a member of far-right fringe group Generation Identity onto the show to discuss the Christchurch massacre, presumably because 'balance' requires hearing the pro-race-hate side of the argument as well Surprised it wasn't Bannon himself Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bickster 10,517 Report post Posted March 17 It’s no longer even shocking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bickster 10,517 Report post Posted March 17 On 16/03/2019 at 00:11, HanoiVillan said: I don't watch it, but I understand that 'Newsnight' chose to invite a member of far-right fringe group Generation Identity onto the show to discuss the Christchurch massacre, presumably because 'balance' requires hearing the pro-race-hate side of the argument as well 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Demitri_C 10,368 Report post Posted March 18 You may not be a Tommy robinson fan but watch this sums up the bbc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bickster 10,517 Report post Posted March 18 1 minute ago, Demitri_C said: You may not be a Tommy robinson fan but watch this sums up the bbc Oh FFS! Dem, I'm absolutely gobsmacked. Why would you even entertain such bollocks, I'm currently no fan of the BBC but Yaxley-Lennon's opinion on anything isn't valid And if that documentary is about the BBC's reporting on him then he can f*** the f*** off Seriously again, you need to have a word with yourself 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisp65 22,491 Report post Posted March 18 18 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: You may not be a Tommy robinson fan but watch this sums up the bbc Thanks, but no thanks. Racist piece of shit with a fake name making money out of racist morons. Don't spread this guy's shit, it stinks. 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Demitri_C 10,368 Report post Posted March 18 (edited) 25 minutes ago, bickster said: And if that documentary is about the BBC's reporting on him then he can f*** the f*** off Seriously again, you need to have a word with yourself You haven’t even watched so no point responding to this it’s not about Robinson and I haven’t even defended him all i said is what the bbc are capable of Edited March 18 by Demitri_C Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bickster 10,517 Report post Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: You haven’t even watched so no point responding to this I watched approx 30 secs in the middle and called bollocks twice, its exactly what it purports to be against. It is Fake 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chindie 8,657 Report post Posted March 18 There's a song I quite like by Frightened Rabbit called How It Gets In. It comes to mind at the moment. Dunno why. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Demitri_C 10,368 Report post Posted March 18 1 minute ago, bickster said: I watched approx 30 secs in the middle and called bollocks twice, its exactly what it purports to be against. It is Fake There actually is a lot of evidence in that video. Don’t let the bbc get away with their antics because of your hatred for Robinson. I think his views are racist pathetic and causes hate. But that’s don’t change the bbc are corrupt bastards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bickster 10,517 Report post Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: There actually is a lot of evidence in that video. Don’t let the bbc get away with their antics because of your hatred for Robinson. I think his views are racist pathetic and causes hate. But that’s don’t change the bbc are corrupt bastards. Dem did you see who started this very topic? There are many things wrong at the BBC, absolutely none of them will be in that video. The evidence you are shown isn't evidence, it's manipulated and fake Please don't get taken in by this shit 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VILLAMARV 6,300 Report post Posted March 18 1 minute ago, Demitri_C said: I think his views are racist pathetic and causes hate. So why watch/share videos from his verified YT channel? 4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Don’t let the bbc get away with their antics because of your hatred for Robinson. No one is. BBC bias has nothing to do with the convicted fraudster Yaxley-Lennon. The idea that he is some sort of poster boy for biased reporting is so wrapped in Irony it's verging on truly offensive. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites