The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[LakotaDakota]

[HanoiVillan]

Very bad BBC presenter Justin Webb just openly bashing the left, and endorsing specific, named Democratic presidential candidates in a piece for the awful cow site:

EDIT: I should add, I don't even think he's wrong on the broader picture stuff, particularly, but it's certainly not unbiased.

Also worth noting that he quotes some stuff about washing machines from a thinktank called the 'American Institute for Economic Research'. When you access their report, it turns out to be quoting something from the 'Competitive Enterprise Institute', which in turn is a thinktank 'funded heavily by the Bradley Foundation and the Koch Family as well as numerous gas/oil companies such as Amoco and Texaco' (source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/competitive-enterprise-institute/)

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Very bad BBC presenter Justin Webb just openly bashing the left, and endorsing specific, named Democratic presidential candidates in a piece for the awful cow site:

I know you can read, and I know you're intelligent and thoughtful.

 I have absolutely no idea why you wrote what you wrote after reading that article.

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

I know you can read, and I know you're intelligent and thoughtful.

 I have absolutely no idea why you wrote what you wrote after reading that article.

Do you think this is a neutral description of Donald Trump's political opponents?

'the Brahmins who complain about Trump’s sexism, but actually employ Hispanic maids to fill their dishwashers.'

And is this not, in fact, a clear promotion of two named candidates?

'The implications of David McDonald’s work are quite profound for the Democrats it seems to me: they need to get power first, with a modest small set of programmes. A call for civility and reasonableness above all else. And then, as the mood of the nation changes, come up with the radical stuff. It’s an argument for Biden or Bloomberg.'

EDIT: I have changed 'endorsement', because to be fair that is too far. It's clearly promoting two specific candidates though. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Do you think this is a neutral description of Donald Trump's political opponents?

'the Brahmins who complain about Trump’s sexism, but actually employ Hispanic maids to fill their dishwashers.'

And is this not, in fact, a clear endorsement of two candidates?

'The implications of David McDonald’s work are quite profound for the Democrats it seems to me: they need to get power first, with a modest small set of programmes. A call for civility and reasonableness above all else. And then, as the mood of the nation changes, come up with the radical stuff. It’s an argument for Biden or Bloomberg.'

As per your now edited post above, the first is a comment on the broader picture. He doesn't "favour" either Trumps supporters or critics in terms of their arguments.

The second is specifically saying David McDonnald's work has that implication. He isn't endorsing anyone. 

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

As per your now edited post above, the first is a comment on the broader picture. He doesn't "favour" either Trumps supporters or critics in terms of their arguments.

The second is specifically saying David McDonnald's work has that implication. He isn't endorsing anyone. 

No, the first is a tedious insult on exactly the level of 'Islington dinner parties' and 'champagne socialists'. Your point about the second is rather undermined by the presence of the words 'it seems to me', which shows that he agrees with the 'profound implications' of McDonald's work. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

It's a pretty good article to be honest I do not see anything wrong with it. I'm not sure what is wrong with him writing an opinion piece for another publication.

[blandy]

52 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

No, the first is a tedious insult on exactly the level of 'Islington dinner parties' and 'champagne socialists'. Your point about the second is rather undermined by the presence of the words 'it seems to me', which shows that he agrees with the 'profound implications' of McDonald's work. 

It's funny how people see the same thing differently. And long may that continue. The "it seems to me" implies, er, to me, that he's saying it seems to me that McD's conclusions are...., not that he agrees with or disagrees with.

The first one, yes it's a simplistic reference to a group (to me, for brevity) and he does the same to Trumps "rubes" for the same reason. Balanced, in other words. Using the terms they use at each other, in their battles.

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's funny how people see the same thing differently. And long may that continue. The "it seems to me" implies, er, to me, that he's saying it seems to me that McD's conclusions are...., not that he agrees with or disagrees with.

The first one, yes it's a simplistic reference to a group (to me, for brevity) and he does the same to Trumps "rubes" for the same reason. Balanced, in other words. Using the terms they use at each other, in their battles.

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from, even if I see it differently. However, I don't think that writing an article about the 'accidental brilliance' of Donald Trump on a right wing website, quoting rubbish talking points from right wing thinktanks funded by the Koch network, is something I can possibly consider 'unbiased'.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from, even if I see it differently. However, I don't think that writing an article about the 'accidental brilliance' of Donald Trump on a right wing website, quoting rubbish talking points from right wing thinktanks funded by the Koch network, is something I can possibly consider 'unbiased'.

Also fair enough. My take would be that the website an article is posted on doesn't make it biased, only the actual content can be used to say "biased" - For example, in general, an article written for one site or outlet and then reproduced on different site with different "values" doesn't add bias because the new publisher is right or left of the original publisher.

If the data used is suspect, then I agree that can lead to poor analysis of the specific point being analysed using it.

[Dr_Pangloss]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from, even if I see it differently. However, I don't think that writing an article about the 'accidental brilliance' of Donald Trump on a right wing website, quoting rubbish talking points from right wing thinktanks funded by the Koch network, is something I can possibly consider 'unbiased'.

Sorry I'm being a bit lazy here but is that actually a 'right wing' website? Just scanning it didn't scream 'right wing' to me but stand to be corrected.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Sorry I'm being a bit lazy here but is that actually a 'right wing' website? Just scanning it didn't scream 'right wing' to me but stand to be corrected.

Yes, it's of the centre right (though not everything it does politically is strongly partisan). It was funded at start-up by a Brexit-supporting hedge fund guy called Paul Marshall, and the first editor was Tim Montgomerie, the former editor of ConservativeHome.com.

Not all of their contributors are right wing, but the majority are and some, like Douglas Murray, Claire Fox and Eric Kaufman, are at the rightmost edge of Conservative Party politics, if not beyond.

[HanoiVillan]

Why was it so essential for Emily Maitlis to 'like' this?

[bickster]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Why was it so essential for Emily Maitlis to 'like' this?

That's her own personal account though and not connected to the BBC. She's allowed to have personal opinions. In fact it's better that presenters do have personal opinions, it's much easier to spot the bias if we know where their personal opinion lies

The only thing wrong with that tweet is that Burgon's nonsense still trumps RLB's. Both are absolutely bonkers policies though

RLB wants me to get a pay cut, I get paid to work out of hours, so she can eff the eff off

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

That's her own personal account though and not connected to the BBC. She's allowed to have personal opinions. In fact it's better that presenters do have personal opinions, it's much easier to spot the bias if we know where their personal opinion lies

The only thing wrong with that tweet is that Burgon's nonsense still trumps RLB's. Both are absolutely bonkers policies though

RLB wants me to get a pay cut, I get paid to work out of hours, so she can eff the eff off

Of course she is allowed to have opinions, but the question is whether she should demonstrate them through social media. The post that she's 'liked' here isn't a critical analysis of the policy, or a philosophical or practical argument against it, all of which would be easier to defend as adding something to the conversation - instead, it's just a drive-by insult.

I also don't really think that the division between personal and professional accounts exists in the way you're suggesting here - the corporation has a series of guidelines about what is and isn't appropriate for employees to post on 'personal' accounts, just as many other businesses do. If they would like to make the case that all of their news and politics presenters should be able to voice and demonstrate their real opinions then they should make that argument in public, but it would be a change of policy because it's not their current position.

[bickster]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

instead, it's just a drive-by insult

Its a tweet pointing out the stupidity of some of the Labour candidates policies, she liked it, presumably because she agrees with it, I would imagine most voters in the country think the policies are idiotic tbh

Of course she should be allowed to express personal opinions on Social Media, we'd be living in some kind of totalitarian regime if she wasn't. She shouldn't be allowed to do that from a BBC account but her own personal one, why not? Transparency is the key here

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Its a tweet pointing out the stupidity of some of the Labour candidates policies, she liked it, presumably because she agrees with it, I would imagine most voters in the country think the policies are idiotic tbh

Of course she should be allowed to express personal opinions on Social Media, we'd be living in some kind of totalitarian regime if she wasn't. She shouldn't be allowed to do that from a BBC account but her own personal one, why not? Transparency is the key here

If you think that represents a totalitarian regime, then we're already living in one. I don't post about the politics of Saudi Arabia or China on social media under my own name for business reasons. I would imagine that huge numbers of people are circumspect in some way, to some extent or other, about what they post under their own name on social media.

The answer to the question 'why not', is because it arguably breaks the BBC's guidelines on using social media, which state in part (under 'personal social media use'):

'You shouldn't state your political preferences or say anything that compromises your impartiality.'

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_03_15_bbc_news_group_social_media_guidance.pdf)

There is a question about the extent to which 'likes' or 'retweets' constitute stating something. That's why I say it would be more defensible if the post she liked had any kind of argument or analysis in it (because then she might be 'liking' the argument or the thought process or the contribution to political debate or something), but the fact it just says 'this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard' means her 'like' can't be for anything except the sentiment.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The answer to the question 'why not', is because it arguably breaks the BBC's guidelines on using social media

Yes but I'm not really arsed about that. Personally I think they should be able to on their own accounts

People should always be circumspect about what they post for all manner of reasons but that should be their own personal choice and they will be aware of their own personal circumstances which dictate that. If that brings trouble on themselves as a result, then, they have to accept that. If they get accused of bias and the personal opinions crossing into their word, they only have themselves to blame

I don't think the BBC has once done anything to Andrew Neil who runs his own twitter account with abandon, Emily Maitlis liking someone elses post hardly comes into the same ball park as AN.

[HanoiVillan]

27 minutes ago, bickster said:

I don't think the BBC has once done anything to Andrew Neil who runs his own twitter account with abandon, Emily Maitlis liking someone elses post hardly comes into the same ball park as AN.

I certainly agree that he's by far the worst offender.

[snowychap]