The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

I see the BBC cancelled the Panorama on the cruelty of Universal Credit yesterday

Have we had any kind of official explanation for this? I haven't seen one, but it's possible I missed it.

[HanoiVillan]

 

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Have we had any kind of official explanation for this? I haven't seen one, but it's possible I missed it.

No idea if anything has been said but if I were a betting man I'd plump for some bollocks about  General Elction, throw in bias and maybe mutter about charter

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

No idea if anything has been said but if I were a betting man I'd plump for some bollocks about  General Elction, throw in bias and maybe mutter about charter

Cards on table, that's what I'm fishing for - an admission from the BBC that a documentary examination of the lived experience of millions of people encountering government policies counts as 'bias'.

I doubt they'll be dumb enough to actually say it out loud.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Cards on table, that's what I'm fishing for - an admission from the BBC that a documentary examination of the lived experience of millions of people encountering government policies counts as 'bias'.

I doubt they'll be dumb enough to actually say it out loud.

I doubt they'll be dumb enough to say anything at this juncture

[snowychap]

 

[peterms]

6 hours ago, bickster said:

I doubt they'll be dumb enough to say anything

Mmmmm.  Possibly.  I'd bet their compulsion to self-excuse takes over.

[peterms]

 

[peterms]

Yes, this is so.

Quote

...It soon became clear that the Conservatives had no intention of Johnson being interrogated by Andrew Neil, and instead offered to put the prime minister forward for The Andrew Marr Show, widely perceived to be a softer option. The BBC declined, publicly calling on Johnson to sit down with Neil, as the other leaders had, or had agreed to do. Meanwhile, BBC Politics put out a video of the prime minister eating a scone and commenting in his usual jocular manner about the technicalities of applying jam and cream.

Remarkably, the BBC’s neglect of its public service obligations did not end there. Following a terrorist attack in London — which the Conservatives shamelessly sought to politicize contrary to the explicit wishes of one of the victims’ family — it agreed to have Johnson on The Andrew Marr Show after all. It cited the “public interest” to justify the U-turn while emphasizing that it would “continue to urge Boris Johnson to take part in the prime-time Andrew Neil interview as other leaders have done.” There were then regular reports that negotiations over the Neil interview were ongoing, but Neil himself subsequently confirmed that this was another lie. There were no negotiations.

Facing an unprecedented deluge of criticism, the BBC’s Fran Unsworth wrote a piece for the Guardian affirming the BBC’s commitment to political impartiality. She was, she said, “as disappointed as our audiences that the prime minister, unlike all his fellow leaders, has not yet confirmed a date,” explaining that the “logistics of pinning down party leaders is complex.”

The complacency of the apologia is quite something. The BBC’s failure to secure an interview with the prime minister ahead of broadcasting politically damaging interviews with opposition leaders is a major political scandal, not a slightly unfortunate mishap. But what is more, the whole sorry episode is revealing of a systematic failing at the BBC. Here is a state broadcaster subjecting the opposition to relentless and damaging political interrogation, while seeming unable or unwilling to do the same when it comes to the government.

 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

The BBC’s failure to secure an interview with the prime minister ahead of broadcasting politically damaging interviews with opposition leaders is a major political scandal, not a slightly unfortunate mishap. But what is more, the whole sorry episode is revealing of a systematic failing at the BBC. Here is a state broadcaster subjecting the opposition to relentless and damaging political interrogation, while seeming unable or unwilling to do the same when it comes to the government

It is not so. Listen, I think the BBC's coverage has been poor, and at times appears biased towards the establishment, but the quoted criticism is utterly feeble minded.

1. Failure to secure an interview with Johnson is not "a scandal". Just think on a moment. Suppose Johnson had agreed to a date, there is nothing whatsoever to stop him later reneging on any agreement, with some feeble minded "events" excuse. There is no legal way anyone can be compelled to be interviewed by anyone, nor should there be. The failure/decision of Johnson to avoid Neill is not the BBC's fault in any way at all. It is not a scandal. The broadcasting of the interviews with Corbyn, Swinson, Farage may or may not be considered "politically damaging" by supporters or opponents of those people, or may be they did well in others' view. They freely agreed to be interviewed. That Johnson indicated he would then never fixed a date is not the BBC's or the other leaders' fault. Johnson has been widely seen and called for cowardice. No scandal. Stupid comment.

2. "a state broadcaster subjecting the opposition to relentless and damaging political interrogation, while seeming unable or unwilling to do the same when it comes to the government"  - also bollocks. From what I've seen, the BBC has interviewed various tories to the same level as the labour or other parties. They have not been (overall) soft soaped compared to other parties' spokespeople in interviews. And again "damaging" interrogation suggests to me that the Labour and other people interviewed didn't respond well in that writer's eyes when their more loony policies or positions were subjected to questioning. Personally the Tory positions have also been "damaging" when interviewed - from the extra nurses idiocy, to the extra hospitals, to the extra police and so on - these have all been repeatedly exposed as lies across all the broadcasters.

The BBC has not done at all well, it has been cowed and feeble at times, and this has been the case for 10 years or more - ever since Alistair Campbell went at them both Labour and Tories have kept them under pressure when in Government, and they have consequentially been weaker than we'd like.

But the whole whining about the media, the BBC, whoever, from Labour is a sign that (as ever) they are not prepare to look at themselves and their own performance. "Whose fault is it we lost - must have been the BBC, if only they'd been fair, we'd have won" - delusional claptrap. Labour is a disorganised shambles, led by an unelectable twerp with too many ludicrous policies to allow the good that they have to come to light. They have good MPs, some good policies, but are letting the tories off the hook because of Corbyn and his acolytes, not because the BBC couldn't force Johnson to be interviewed, or because Laura K repeats too much unattributed briefing.

As angry as people are at the BBC, I think they're misdirecting their ire. It belongs with feeble **** running Labour. That's why, despite the worst (by a mile) government in history, the result isn't going to be what it should have been if Labour were remotely competent - a Labour landslide. And that's where the anger should be directed.

Edited December 9, 2019 by blandy
typo

[StefanAVFC]

As much I don't like Corbyn, I'm not sure how it's how it's his fault the BBC is complicit with the Tories. Cameron stacked the management.

[Dr_Pangloss]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

As angry as people are at the BBC, I think they're misdirecting their ire. It belongs with feeble **** running Labour. That's why, despite the worst (by a mile) government in history, the result isn't going to be what it should have been if Labour were remotely competent - a Labour landslide. And that's where the anger should be directed.

It's kind of like whenever we lose and some people just blame the ref rather than our actual performance.

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

The failure/decision of Johnson to avoid Neill is not the BBC's fault in any way at all. It is not a scandal.

Yes, it is, on both counts. The people involved get paid very large sums of money, which are taken from every household that owns a working TV (ie, nearly everyone). It might not be 'easy', but they can be measured by their results just as much as fund managers or headmasters or hospital administrators can, and their jobs aren't 'easy' either. They have manifestly failed to provide equal scrutiny to the parties in this election. 

6 hours ago, blandy said:

the result isn't going to be what it should have been if Labour were remotely competent - a Labour landslide. 

There is no conceivable way in which this election could ever have been a Labour landslide, under any leadership whatsoever. Name the Brexit policy that would have united a country split 50/50 between Leave and Remain - go on, I'd love to hear it. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

There is no conceivable way in which this election could ever have been a Labour landslide, under any leadership whatsoever. Name the Brexit policy that would have united a country split 50/50 between Leave and Remain - go on, I'd love to hear it. 

I agree, that's fair comment - particularly if you take the starting point as sometime in the pretty recent past. You're right, that with the current situation on Brexit, it would always end up divided, whoever was in charge of Labour. Fair comment.

Where I disagree, and the point I've been making for several years, pretty much since Corbyn took over Labour, is that his ineptitude during the referendum (he mostly hid), immediately after it ("trigger A50 immediately") up to and during this election "I'm neutral on Brexit and any Labour deal I hope to negotiate". As well as pie in the sky plans for 4 days weeks and nationalising everything (I exaggerate, but not by much) - these things scare voters. His attitude to terrorists and Russia and South African socialist despot regimes scares voters. In order to win there is a need to appeal to people outside your clique, and outside your world view.

The NHS is on it's knees, homeless people on the streets, no-one apart from the super rich has had a real pay rise in years, businesses are packing up and leaving, investment's stopped, racism on the rise, the roads and rail are a mess, energy policy is a mess...all these things (some of which Corbyn rightly raises and campaigns on) should see a credible opposition look like a government in waiting and romp home, had they had a clear eyed stance on opposing the Tory Brexit clusterpork of the last 3 and a half years and 10 years of "Austerity" (ideologically driven cuts). Labour has utterly failed over the past 4 years or so to present any kind of opposition to the tories. We've got catweazle and his bunch of angry tramps to thank for that.

I would suggest that go back 4 years to when Cameron called the referendum and play it differently from there and my hypothesis is not as daft as you correctly point out if you take "right now" as the time frame. So go back, Labour campaigns unambiguously and hard against the UKIPy tory "Leave" lot, they sell EU membership, they point out the lies and flaws in what the Leavers were arguing, they do, in effect, some of what Caroline Lucas, Rory Stewart and others did, but on a much bigger scale which was go and talk and listen to people and point out that people in the North and Midlands are not and were not ignored because of the EU, but because the UK governments have neglected them (us). And listening to concerns about immigration, crumbling rail, housing, all the investment going into the South, and so on, and formulating and explaining how things will change. How membership of the EU can be used as a positive. It's not that big a leap of faith to think that the 51.7%/48.3% result would not have ever arisen with such a campaign.

Even with the result as it actually was, Labour's response has been pitiful, and still is.

[peterms]

11 hours ago, blandy said:

1. Failure to secure an interview with Johnson is not "a scandal".

Correct.  The scandal is failing to tackle his duplicity.  We had the short clip of Neil criticising him, but they should have aired a longer programme, critically scrutinising his claims, and leaving them unanswered because he wouldn't turn up.  It's not just any old interview at any old time.  They have promoted it as a key set piece in their election coverage, and they should have acted accordingly.

Instead, they allowed him to take what is perceived as the softer option of an interview with Marr.  They used the pathetic excuse that the recent terror incident made it necessary to hear from him.  It is plain to everyone that this flimsy excuse doesn't wash - it is a deceitful way to try to cover their own weakness in colluding with him.

11 hours ago, blandy said:

From what I've seen, the BBC has interviewed various tories to the same level as the labour or other parties.

Just to take one example from a couple of days ago, when the leaked documents about the NHS appeared, the BBC led, several times, with some nonsense about the leak having come from someone with connections or sympathies with Russia.  It was utterly laughable.  They even featured that arse Ben Nimmo, of the Atlasntic Council/Integrity Initiative mob, a professional propagandist with a very clear agenda.  I bet the tory spin doctors couldn't even believe how tamely the BBC went along with this shameless piece of misdirection.

This is the behaviour we might expect of the Mail or the Sun.  It is not what we have a right to expect of the state broadcaster.

[HanoiVillan]

On the one hand:

11 hours ago, blandy said:

Labour is a disorganised shambles, led by an unelectable twerp with too many ludicrous policies to allow the good that they have to come to light.

 

11 hours ago, blandy said:

feeble **** running Labour. 

 

2 hours ago, blandy said:

pie in the sky plans for 4 days weeks and nationalising everything (I exaggerate, but not by much) - these things scare voters. His attitude to terrorists and Russia and South African socialist despot regimes scares voters. In order to win there is a need to appeal to people outside your clique, and outside your world view.

 

2 hours ago, blandy said:

catweazle and his bunch of angry tramps

On the other hand:

2 hours ago, blandy said:

his ineptitude during the referendum (he mostly hid)

 

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I would suggest that go back 4 years to when Cameron called the referendum and play it differently from there

Do you really not see any tension at all between 'Corbyn is a useless **** who scares voters' and 'if only he'd participated more in the referendum campaign, we'd have won it handily'?

[LondonLax]

Corbyn should have left a long time ago, the writing has been on the wall for a while now. 

Super frustrating that the UK has an unelectable opposition leader at such a crucial time. 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Corbyn should have left a long time ago, the writing has been on the wall for a while now. 

Super frustrating that the UK has an unelectable opposition leader at such a crucial time. 

Next one will be exactly the same, less baggage maybe but essentially the same

[Rodders]

there will be another reason that the media make up to smear him or her, unless they're a tory lite candidate in which case they might be allowed some leeway

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Do you really not see any tension at all between 'Corbyn is a useless **** who scares voters' and 'if only he'd participated more in the referendum campaign, we'd have won it handily'?

Sure. Absolutely. But that misses at least half my point.

Put simply, he is unfit and has always been unfit to be leader. I'm not talking in the hypothetical about, really, how he could have done better, because he's frankly not capable of that. Others are and were. Labour choosing him (at the time he stood as a "buggins turn to be the token arse") was a massive howler, and a massive shock when he won. (the reasons why are another subject altogether, Blair, wars, multiple failings... etc).

But I suppose it depends on your (anyone's) perspective. Mine is that I want to see an end to the tories, for ever. I'm not pro any particular party, I'm not a "loyalist" to any party political cause. I know I detest the tories, I know that the closest parties to my personal take are a mix of Green, Lib Dem and Labour when you look at the current manifestos (as per that thread that had graphs from a survey in it).

So in order to get what I personally want, an end to Tory rule, and [all fluffy things and harder things I like], it needs the Tories to get hoofed out. For that to happen with the current system (FPTP) then Labour needs to be not the recipient of some tactical votes out of sympathy, but an actual electoral force, a genuine alternative government. It is none of those things with Corbyn in charge, you're right. He does scare the horses. So maybe more of him in front of voters, putting a case for something he doesn't believe, like Remain, might have re-inforced those opinions of him as a voter scarer. yeah. With the time machine, him never being made leader is what I'm thinking. Not specifically Corbyn could've done better, but Starmer, Cooper, Benn, Burnham..many names, would have done better.

The likes of Corbyn, Len McLuskey, Abbott, and others of that ilk are basically bumbling fools at best, or poison at worst. Their incompetence is enabling tories. Their incompetence enables the BBC and other broadcasters to reflect the reality that these effwits are not going to solve anything, when the country is crying out for credible politicians and leaders.