Jump to content

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation


bickster

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

The Sunday Times today published their story about what no deal means

Gove first of all sends a tweet saying that the government doesn’t normally respond to leaks (like leaks are kidnappers and terrorists!) but by doing so gives credence to the story by admitting it’s true.

so the story gathers a bit of pace

Gove now needs to go on the telly box so gives a BBC reporter to ask him questions.

First question is a doozy and allows Gove to state his case (this bit is ok), it allows Gove to say all he said before and that it was an old document (is it shite that old) and the government has done an awful lot of planning since that document was written (it’s a mater of weeks)

The next question from any journalist, and I really mean any should be along the lines of what planning, will there be medicine, can you guarantee that?

Well it wasn't, the follow up question was so banal I've forgotten it already.

It makes me so angry!

Will there be shortages with food I think it was. Will the proles still get wagon wheels. Not medication. When I heard it I thought who gives a **** about food. Medication bitch. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Will there be shortages with food I think it was. Will the proles still get wagon wheels. Not medication. When I heard it I thought who gives a **** about food. Medication bitch. 

Yeah that was it but is was just asked and no pushing to qualify anything, Will there be food? There may be a few bumps in the road but everything should be ok. There was just no desire to get any qualification from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

The Sunday Times today published their story about what no deal means

Gove first of all sends a tweet saying that the government doesn’t normally respond to leaks (like leaks are kidnappers and terrorists!) but by doing so gives credence to the story by admitting it’s true.

so the story gathers a bit of pace

Gove now needs to go on the telly box so gives a BBC reporter to ask him questions.

First question is a doozy and allows Gove to state his case (this bit is ok), it allows Gove to say all he said before and that it was an old document (is it shite that old) and the government has done an awful lot of planning since that document was written (it’s a mater of weeks)

The next question from any journalist, and I really mean any should be along the lines of what planning, will there be medicine, can you guarantee that?

Well it wasn't, the follow up question was so banal I've forgotten it already.

It makes me so angry!

The lead on R5 news a moment ago was "Govt says leaked document is part of Project Fear".

Probably the best presentation a govt spin doctor could hope for, focussing on the denial rather than the picture of big problems for millions.

Also see attached, who has been previously mentioned - these are the people who make the decisions on how to present this stuff.

IMG_20190817_194045.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yeah that was it but is was just asked and no pushing to qualify anything, Will there be food? There may be a few bumps in the road but everything should be ok. There was just no desire to get any qualification from him.

I completely agree, it was a short question, Gove waffled on without substance and the BBC softballed him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might have seemed an innocent mistake, but the parent of the injured child apparently told the journo more than once that it was a Turkish airstrike.  To report it as Syrian raises interesting questions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

It might have seemed an innocent mistake, but the parent of the injured child apparently told the journo more than once that it was a Turkish airstrike.  To report it as Syrian raises interesting questions.

How the hell would anyone know which countries aircraft attacked them from the ground in this day and age?

Now far be it for me to say what the correct answer is or that the BBC isn't biased but that has the whiff of being untrue as it seems the only evidence here of who the responsible party was is the mother and unless her car was fitted with some sort of highly sophisticated radar system that identifies the aircraft then how would she know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

How the hell would anyone know which countries aircraft attacked them from the ground in this day and age?

Now far be it for me to say what the correct answer is or that the BBC isn't biased but that has the whiff of being untrue as it seems the only evidence here of who the responsible party was is the mother and unless her car was fitted with some sort of highly sophisticated radar system that identifies the aircraft then how would she know?

Direction the plane came from?  Markings?  Reports from others in a position to know?  Distance learning course from "Belligcat" on "open source material"?

The beeb have (incrementally, slowly) changed their story to say now, several days after it's not news and being read any more, that it was Turkey.  But not why they falsely claimed what they did in the first place, despite what they were told.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Direction the plane came from?  Markings? 

You cant be serious, were they bi-planes with limited fuel?

 

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Reports from others in a position to know?

Never mentioned

 

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Distance learning course from "Belligcat" on "open source material"?

Most likely answer

Far be it from me to stick up for the BBC reporting anything these days but could it be Mistake -> oh shit  -> checking facts -> Ah now we know

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Far be it from me to stick up for the BBC reporting anything these days but could it be Mistake -> oh shit  -> checking facts -> Ah now we know

I think you've missed the point.

The BBC journo was told it was a Turkish attack.

It would have been reasonable for him/her to ask how that was known, rather than simply accept it, and perhaps report the source of the attack as unconfirmed.

Instead, it was reported, falsely, as a Syrian attack, on the basis, it seems, of no supporting evidence whatever, and contrary to what the eye witness said, which was later agreed to be correct.  Why would that be?

Your questions about the basis on which the source of the attack was known would be more suitably directed to the BBC journo, whose job is supposed to entail such rather basic issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, peterms said:

I think you've missed the point.

The BBC journo was told it was a Turkish attack.

Nope, I've not missed any point, the journalist was told by someone who really wouldn't have a clue, it was a Turkish attack, turns out they were right

The person being attacked by a modern warplane is highly unlikely to be a reliable eye witness, surely you can see that? the first thing they were likely to have known was about half a second before impact

BBC journalist isn't a member of VT nor did he make the posts I'm replying to. My questions are to you because you appear not to have thought about anything in the tweets, then tried to say they'd have seen the plane markings and the direction of travel would indicate which airforce they were from like it was 1940.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Nope, I've not missed any point, the journalist was told by someone who really wouldn't have a clue, it was a Turkish attack, turns out they were right

The person being attacked by a modern warplane is highly unlikely to be a reliable eye witness, surely you can see that? the first thing they were likely to have known was about half a second before impact

BBC journalist isn't a member of VT nor did he make the posts I'm replying to. My questions are to you because you appear not to have thought about anything in the tweets, then tried to say they'd have seen the plane markings and the direction of travel would indicate which airforce they were from like it was 1940.

I'm sorry if my facetious comments didn't come across as such.  The internet's like that, I suppose.

The journo was told it was a turkish attack.

They reported it as a Syrian attack, with no evidence.  They chose not to say it was uncertain, unconfirmed, whatever.  That was a decision.

That is the point.

Your comments are a deflection from that.

Why are you doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

The journo was told it was a turkish attack.

By someone who wouldn't know

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

They reported it as a Syrian attack, with no evidence

How do you know there was no evidence? Maybe two people told him it was a Syrian plane, maybe his translator f***ed up who knows

 

13 minutes ago, peterms said:

Why are you doing that?

Because I'm a Mossad agent

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they are reporting an eye witness account they can still report what that person said then put in a bit about how it is unconfirmed. They changed a person's statement. Whether that statement is wrong or right is moot, it's what that person said.

You tell a reporter "it was a Turkish plane":

'Bickster said "it was a Turkish plane" although at this time this cannot be confirmed'.

'Bickster said "It was a Syrian plane".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

But if they are reporting an eye witness account they can still report what that person said then put in a bit about how it is unconfirmed. They changed a person's statement. Whether that statement is wrong or right is moot, it's what that person said.

You tell a reporter "it was a Turkish plane":

'Bickster said "it was a Turkish plane" although at this time this cannot be confirmed'.

'Bickster said "It was a Syrian plane".

The main point here is that the conspiracy theory is nonsense, there are a thousand and one reasons why this happened. Essentially, a mistake was made then it was corrected. This is not the BBC acting as agents of the Israeli state as the throbber who wrote the tweet would like you to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bickster said:

This is not the BBC acting as agents of the Israeli state as the throbber who wrote the tweet would like you to think.

The tweets make no mention of Israel.  You've introduced that yourself, strangely.  Like an echo of the invention the tweets was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterms said:

The tweets make no mention of Israel.  You've introduced that yourself, strangely.  Like an echo of the invention the tweets was about.

Sorry, my apologies you are correct, the endless references to Zionist(s) in her tweets obscured my view of her Pro-Putin, Pro-Russia, Pro-Stalin tweets

In fact her tweet logic is so deranged I've almost convinced myself its a Russian bot

Still no conspiracy here though

The BBC made a mistake, then corrected it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They interviewed Shane Warne this morning on Radio 4. Yes, the bald Aussie cricket bloke.

His view was that Boris is great and we should just get on with it.

To be fair I felt he knew more about it than Mark Francois does.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â