Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bickster

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, peterms said:

I wonder how to make sense of her comment, if it's not insinuating Labour should not have removed them

That's a road that is dangerous - I mean if you're calling people out for writing or saying something that you read as insinuating something (which isn't in their words) then before long you'll have people, I dunno, say calling others out for writing or saying things about..ooh, say, Israel, or Zionists because they "wonder how to make sense of the comment, if it's not insinuating Jews...[whatever]" for example. Where could that lead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's a road that is dangerous - I mean if you're calling people out for writing or saying something that you read as insinuating something (which isn't in their words) then before long you'll have people, I dunno, say calling others out for writing or saying things about..ooh, say, Israel, or Zionists because they "wonder how to make sense of the comment, if it's not insinuating Jews...[whatever]" for example. Where could that lead?

It's just how we use language every day, all day.  If we only understood the purely literal meaning of the words used, we would have a very impoverished understanding of what people are trying to communicate.  Like a more extreme form of autism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, peterms said:

That's a very odd comment by Kuenssberg.  She obviously knows that committee places are allocated according to party groups.  Why would she think an exception should be made for these people?  Why does she think it appropriate to suggest that being depressed is the likely reaction to replacing these two?

Deliberate.

Everything is to promote her friends, firstly the Tories, and secondly the Tingependent Group.

"[Labour MP] stood on an ant today, this shows they will walk over anybody"

"May showing her strength and courage today as she puts the country first by killing 4 children"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thread outlining one person's experience of being invited to appear on a BBC programme.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alyn Smith, an SNP MEP, made a decent point I think on the latest Cakewatch podcast. He basically said that part of the problem seems to be that a lot of journalists with the highest exposure aren't actually that informed on much, and seemingly are more interested in being part of the debate rather than trying to find the truth in that debate.

Incidentally Smith seems like a good bloke. It's a shame the rest of the UK seems not to have many politicians cut from a similar cloth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peterms said:

A thread outlining one person's experience of being invited to appear on a BBC programme.

 

That was interesting.

The Andrew Neil Programme invite experience sounds kind of like what you'd expect from that particular programme - dominated as it is in all respects by Neil. Basically dreadful. An intelligent host, but one who allows and pushes through his own personal right wing establishment take on the world and which basically revolves around his ego and a few guests happy to take the money and pronounce their own personal views of whatever. And then a few guests who undergo what he's recounted himself. So, lazy, ingrained, complacent, closed minded...etc.

The two clips he links to are a different thing altogether. The Daily show interview with a comedian, who is (as per that show's brief) trying to entertain, provide jokes and also understand where the guest is coming from, what he's like, what he thinks, but ultimately not really pushing at the ideas.

The Newsnight BBC one is (obviously) a different type of show - it's not comedy, or entertainment, but has interviews and segments on narrower ideas - it's not about his background, or what sort of person he is, it 's about, in that instance universal benefit. The interviewer is an economics expert and asks questions on the narrow subject which directly challenge the guest's opinions with evidence.

They're both, IMO, good interviews. One is more open "what do you think, what's your view?"  the other is more "you've said this, but there's this other evidence to counter that view's validity, or there's an absence of it, to support your view, isn't there?". It's questioning from a point of a better understanding of a narrow area.

So, yeah - Andrew Neil programme stands up a lot of the complaints about bias and complacency and establishment etc. The other two both offer a better alternative by a mile. One BBC, one non-BBC. You could do the same with the likes of John Humphries and compare him with, I dunno, James O'Brien or Emma Barnett or some of Sky's or Channel 4's coverage ...whoever. The BBC needs to be less (not at all) Humphries and Neil closed minded, dominated (in those areas) by overpaid, over full of themselves narrow minded, dismissive, ingrained egos and more of the questioning and listening and responding type of approach.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see question time this week? Fiona Bruce demonstrated their biased opinions when a guy raised avert good point about brexit and the crowd were clapping. Instead of arguing the point she said "it seems there is everyone clapping and cheering but really it's only a few of you" disgraceful and pathetic biased bbc agenda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did that song about May being a Liar, Liar when she said she wouldn't call an early election etc. Various outlets refused to play it. They invited this guy on to BBC2's version of 'This Morning'.

I've met/booked/skanked to Captain Ska. They seemed really alright people. As this snippet pre-dated the thread I just thought I'd dip into the (fairly recent) archives.

14 seconds of honesty slipped out on the air, starting around the 33 second mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Estimate of people on the march today is approx million, the BBC however are reporting as thousands, not tens of, or hundreds of, just thousands.

I know its only a little thing but its there all the time

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's changed throughout the day in fairness. They started at thousands, the headline is now hundreds of thousands. I daresay I've they get actual figure estimates later they'll shift to over a million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's changed throughout the day in fairness. They started at thousands, the headline is now hundreds of thousands. I daresay I've they get actual figure estimates later they'll shift to over a million.

So giving them the benefit of doubt they were just VERY slow to update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

It's changed throughout the day in fairness. They started at thousands, the headline is now hundreds of thousands. I daresay I've they get actual figure estimates later they'll shift to over a million.

It did. Thousands to 10s to 100s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

When was the last time there was a march this big?  The people have spoken. 

When the Illegal War thing didn't get stopped

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else think the tone of today's news pieces might change a bit if they stopped running lines like

'The Tories might get a "caretaker Leader" to fill in until a leadership ballot'

and wrote something like

'The Tories are talking about having a "caretaker" Prime Minister to run the country for a bit'

probably just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, the Queen has to be close to leaving her post and handing control over to someone else. It wouldn't surprise me if her final act of power would be to dissolve parliament and call for a general election. It's clear to see that the people of the country have no faith in these MuPpetS anymore so Lizzy must be seeing it too. 

Obviously, if the above did happen, it would give the establishment a great chance to rig another vote and arrive at their ultimate destination of keeping us in that vile EU institution. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, villarocker said:

You know, the Queen has to be close to leaving her post and handing control over to someone else. It wouldn't surprise me if her final act of power would be to dissolve parliament and call for a general election. It's clear to see that the people of the country have no faith in these MuPpetS anymore so Lizzy must be seeing it too. 

Obviously, if the above did happen, it would give the establishment a great chance to rig another vote and arrive at their ultimate destination of keeping us in that vile EU institution. 

it would be an excellent opportunity to move a step closer to being a grown up republic

one less toff to be sucking up to

 

that'd stick one to the elite and the establishment wouldn't it, a goodly monarch on a trusty steed coming to save the day

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â