Seat68 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 25 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Maybe thay should ask him WHY he's a Labour activist? I'm sure he'd be happy to give a good reason. Because he didn't want to be a Vegan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 I imagine a tory activist would have been in a hospital with a better patient to nurse ratio. Somewhere a little less, NHS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 4 hours ago, ml1dch said: While I'm sympathetic to the above, it only holds water if we see the same breathless revelations from the other direction. So when assorted members of the Question Time audience are revealed to to be UKIP, NF or Conservative "activists", where are her excited Tweets on that? Fair enough, and I think this highlights a broader issue with "vox pop" and "have your say" culture in today's media. There is no such thing as a nondescript "member of the public", and individuals shouldn't be presented as such. If you're going to make a public contribution to a political debate in the media (e.g. on Question Time, or in a radio phone-in, or whatever), you shouldn't be able to disingenuously hide behind the anonymity of just being a member of the public. The same obviously applies to all the Tory, Brexit, NF, etc. activists who sneak their way onto debate shows. Of course, stuff like "doxxing" and inviting pile-ins is irresponsible, but we should be given some idea of where a political opinion is coming from. Whether someone has worked for a politician or party previously is relevant IMO. Highlighting someone's political background (using information clearly put into the public domain by that individual) is totally separate from the argument that someone with a political background / political beliefs is allowed to express an opinion. Of course they are. But to just describe this man as a random "father" omitted some fairly important context. All the other points people are making here are just whataboutery and goalpost shifting. Did LK do anything wrong by retweeting him? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 19, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 19, 2019 1 minute ago, KentVillan said: activists who sneak their way onto debate shows. I really don't think there's any sneaking going on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, bickster said: I really don't think there's any sneaking going on I wasn't suggesting that there is a helicopter fast rope insertion under cover of dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 11 minutes ago, KentVillan said: activists who sneak their way onto debate shows. By sneak, I think you mean they were already sat in prime locations when the rest of the audience arrived and were then randomly selected to contribute. If the guy had been there to berate Johnson, I can agree his background is a factor. He was there by random chance because he has a sick child. To mention his politics as his main attribute suggests a planned ambush or publicity stunt. It wasn't him that invited the cameras. Will I have to keep my mouth shut if I encounter Johnson, because of my twitter account? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 19, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 19, 2019 3 hours ago, chrisp65 said: It is not the job of Laura, or the BBC to get the defence in early for Boris Johnson. You're right. Nor is it the job of the BBC to keep pertinent information from us. They have clearly failed as per the QT examples. I feel that not revealing that the man was a politcal campaigner for (in this case) Labour would be wrong, particularly when he himself advertised that fact on his twitter, re the incident. Identifying "politican confronted by political opponent" is not "defending" the politician. The exchange video is available in full on the BBC website. I percieve that many Labour people kicking up a fuss about LK, or the BBC, rather than Johnson lying again, on camera, are helping distract from him lying. The actual news value of "man tells Johnson there are not enough staff on hospital ward" is low. It's possibly lower still when the man is a Labour campaigner. The News value is in Johnson lying again, surely. LK telling the truth in a tweet is seemingly more of a thing, for some. It seems oddly disproportionate to me. The BBC is biased towards the establishment and struggles to differentiate between "balance" and "truth" sometimes - some interviewers granting some politicians an easy ride, or programmes allowing non-experts to appear as experts, or their arguments to be given equal weight without any merit. In this instance, I don't think there's much if anything wrong - fail to report the man was an activist, and it's "bias", report the fact he is and it's "bias" - better to reveal the facts, than hide them I'd suggest. If people then go off on one and make the story about LK or the BBC rather than Johnson, then they help the tories, paradoxically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 If that fella was there at that time due to his sick child, and Johnson walked past then it's genuine, if he hopped on a bus found the ward the great buffoon was on and then berated him. Well that might be for the cameras in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 57 minutes ago, blandy said: You're right. Nor is it the job of the BBC to keep pertinent information from us. We agree. It is not the job of the BBC to keep pertinent information from us. Did they mention why either Boris or the parent were there? Not on the versions I watched. They spun it in to an ambush story. I'm just trying to stress the point as I've put it elsewhere, that they mentioned his politics, but not the reason he was randomly in that hospital at that time. I know focusing on this is detracting from the liar story or the resource story. But if it isn't challenged it goes on and on. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted September 19, 2019 Share Posted September 19, 2019 strange that channel 4 actually "outed him"a full half an hour before old laura k but it's not popular to hate the John Snow fan club i guess so she should be sacked & is a disgrace. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 19, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 19, 2019 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: Did they mention why either Boris or the parent were there? Not on the versions I watched. They spun it in to an ambush story. I'm just trying to stress the point as I've put it elsewhere, that they mentioned his politics, but not the reason he was randomly in that hospital at that time. Yes, the BBC reporting I heard did say why both were there and didn't spin it into an ambush story at all. But what you heard was obviously different, and so they should have done better going on what you say. Even the tweets. Another very, very awkward encounter for PM - taken to task by a parent on a children’s ward in London where he says repeatedly the ‘NHS has been destroyed’ - Johnson like rabbit in headlights pic.twitter.com/byRiXlD0ig — Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) September 18, 2019 followed by This is him here https://t.co/77Hqqo9Avz — Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) September 18, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 I don't usually buy into all this BBC bias nonsense, but I'm astounded by the lack of BBC coverage of today's Sunday Times exclusive on Boris Johnson overruling officials to divert public money to a "close female friend" so that she could travel to international events with him. I would at least expect Kuenssberg et al to retweet the Times article link, as Krishnan Guru Murphy has: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 As if by magic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 On 19/09/2019 at 13:07, blandy said: You're right. Nor is it the job of the BBC to keep pertinent information from us. I thought that the issue raised on that twitter was that Kuenssberg's input added to a pile on rather than she had actually 'outed' him. I may be wrong but I got the impression that Staines's crew had grabbed that flag (the outing). The real issue was as per ChrisP's comments, the Beeb framed this as a 'Labour activist v PM' thing rather than a dad who happened to be a Labour activist and who happened to have a seriously ill child in a hospital visited by a lying PM who seemed to lie in front of cameras about the cameras that were there to capture him apparently lying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, snowychap said: I thought that the issue raised on that twitter was that Kuenssberg's input added to a pile on rather than she had actually 'outed' him. I may be wrong but I got the impression that Staines's crew had grabbed that flag (the outing). The real issue was as per ChrisP's comments, the Beeb framed this as a 'Labour activist v PM' thing rather than a dad who happened to be a Labour activist and who happened to have a seriously ill child in a hospital visited by a lying PM who seemed to lie in front of cameras about the cameras that were there to capture him apparently lying. I personally thought the info that was put out about him having worked previously for Emily Thornberry was pretty relevant to the story. Here's his take on it: Some outlets report this as him "defending" Kuenssberg. Obviously it's more equivocal than that, because he questions how big a scoop it is. But my understanding was she never really presented it as a scoop. The BBC coverage of the story I saw was pretty unflattering to Boris, so I don't really get all this revisionism about the BBC sanitising it and pumping out Boris's attack lines for him. So I always thought LK's behaviour in this instance was defensible. My bigger issue with the BBC and LK is that they're giving Boris a free pass over the potential corruption and illegality relating to this Sunday Times story. This ought to be the lead story for the next week or so, but they're focusing on the internal machinations of the Labour party at the moment. Edited September 22, 2019 by KentVillan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, KentVillan said: I personally thought the info that was put out about him having worked previously for Emily Thornberry was pretty relevant to the story. Here's his take on it: Some outlets report this as him "defending" Kuenssberg. Obviously it's more equivocal than that, because he questions how big a scoop it is. But my understanding was she never really presented it as a scoop. The BBC coverage of the story I saw was pretty unflattering to Boris, so I don't really get all this revisionism about the BBC sanitising it and pumping out Boris's attack lines for him. So I always thought LK's behaviour in this instance was defensible. My bigger issue with the BBC and LK is that they're giving Boris a free pass over the potential corruption and illegality relating to this Sunday Times story. This ought to be the lead story for the next week or so, but they're focusing on the internal machinations of the Labour party at the moment. I think that's fair enough and probably counters the pile on line so I'll happily row back on that. I'm not sure it does for the 'BBC coverage of the story' that you didn't see and others did, i.e. that it was presented as Labour activist versus... The point about the rest is that they always appear happy to give Johnson (can we stop calling him 'Boris' as though he were a friend) a pass and that, even in this instance where you could go to lengths to show that, perhaps, she wasn't being typical Keunssberg, there was a real possibility that they were being more favourable to the tory PM than they were to the father of the seriously ill child in the hospital (i.e. the salt of the earth for whom they'd normally be chewing their own arms off to write some sort of piece in favour of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 Did the BBC get to the bottom of why he was there with a press pack when he was supposedly too busy to bother having to bother with parliament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 22, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, snowychap said: there was a real possibility that they were being more favourable to the tory PM than they were to the father of the seriously ill child in the hospital (i.e. the salt of the earth for whom they'd normally be chewing their own arms off to write some sort of piece in favour of). Yeah, possibly. I’d say they shouldn’t be “favourable” to anyone. It’s when they are that the problems start. Their news is sort of lost, they’ve lost their compass, they’ve lost their assurance really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 22, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Did the BBC get to the bottom of why he was there with a press pack when he was supposedly too busy to bother having to bother with parliament? or you know, negotiating in them there foreign lands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 minute ago, bickster said: or you know, negotiating in them there foreign lands Another fave: You should be in Brussels. I am, I’m in Brussels. You’re not, you’re here, in Leeds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts