Jump to content

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation


bickster

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Who else can you possibly talk to about what somebody did on a family trip to a private property, other than a member of the family or someone who is passing on a message for one of them? 

Presumably Cummings’ story was being workshopped around the government before it was released to the media. Cummings didn’t tell Kuenssberg his story before he told his colleagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

Cummings didn’t tell Kuenssberg his story before he told his colleagues.

That seems like just as much of an assumption.

EDIT: and also, if the story is nothing more than a workshopped script, then she should be even keener to point out when the story changed. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

That seems like just as much of an assumption. 

Sure, and as I say that guys whole criticism of her was based on an assumption he doesn’t know to be true.

It seems like he has an opinion of her and has created a narrative to fit that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Sure, and as I say that guys whole criticism of her was based on an assumption he doesn’t know to be true.

It seems like he has an opinion of her and has created a narrative to fit that.

I don't suppose I'm going to persuade you here, but I haven't seen anybody at all other than yourself questioning that that description of events came from Cummings himself (or, plausibily, at an outside chance, his wife). My very strong impression is that it is an open secret, as @bickster noted before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That seems like just as much of an assumption.

EDIT: and also, if the story is nothing more than a workshopped script, then she should be even keener to point out when the story changed. 

I have some more sympathy for the point in your edit. The only thing I would suggest there is that, as a journalist, the only way you are able to maintain relationships with sources willing to give you information is if you are somewhat ‘diplomatic’ with how you present the information you receive from them. If she came out and said “Hey Twitter followers get a load of the rubbish these guys are trying to shovel my way! Can you believe it! They can’t even get their stories straight!!” I suspect she would not get much more from them.

Edit: Just to go further on that, if she has sources who are changing their story behind the scenes and she has presented them as above has she not just subtlety exposed them as liars or truth twisters for the rest of us to see? It’s all we are talking about after all. 

Edited by LondonLax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I have some more sympathy for the point in your edit. The only thing I would suggest there is that, as a journalist, the only way you are able to maintain relationships with sources willing to give you information is if you are somewhat ‘diplomatic’ with how you present the information you receive from them. If she came out and said “Hey Twitter followers get a load of the rubbish these guys are trying to shovel my way! Can you believe it! They can’t even get their stories straight!!” I suspect she would not get much more from them.

That is indeed the argument we always get, and the consequence has been a large stream of effluent emerging from the BBC chief political correspondent's Twitter feed. This is not her first offence. I haven't so easily forgotten when she allowed the current Health Secretary to claim that a member of his team had been 'assaulted' by Labour activists during the election campaign, a claim which categorically did not happen and was subsequently withdrawn.

She has 1.2 million followers or something. She has a duty not to just pass on rubbish.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

That is indeed the argument we always get, and the consequence has been a large stream of effluent emerging from the BBC chief political correspondent's Twitter feed. This is not her first offence. I haven't so easily forgotten when she allowed the current Health Secretary to claim that a member of his team had been 'assaulted' by Labour activists during the election campaign, a claim which categorically did not happen and was subsequently withdrawn.

She has 1.2 million followers or something. She has a duty not to just pass on rubbish.

She has a history of using sources to hit out at the opposition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

She has a duty not to just pass on rubbish.

Yes she does. She really ought to have wised up by now that she’s being used. I don’t think she’s consciously biased, deliberately spreading her pro Tory slant. I think she’s managed to get or been given a government contact(s) including Cummins. But rather than careful consideration of what’s passed to her, she just parrots it straight out on Twitter. That might be fine if it was unguarded leaks etc. but it’s clearly Cummings deliberately using her to put out, not leaks,  but propaganda. She needs to smarten her act.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yes she does. She really ought to have wised up by now that she’s being used. I don’t think she’s consciously biased, deliberately spreading her pro Tory slant. I think she’s managed to get or been given a government contact(s) including Cummins. But rather than careful consideration of what’s passed to her, she just parrots it straight out on Twitter. That might be fine if it was unguarded leaks etc. but it’s clearly Cummings deliberately using her to put out, not leaks,  but propaganda. She needs to smarten her act.

I think that might be generous. I wouldn't be too surprised if she's got her next job lined up alongside some of the people she currently reports on.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think that might be generous. I wouldn't be too surprised if she's got her next job lined up alongside some of the people she currently reports on.

 

Nah, the same romour was going around when she was fawning over Treeza May. She just loves it up the Tory (party)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Nah, the same romour was going around when she was fawning over Treeza May. She just loves it up the Tory (party)

i can see her getting a comms chief thing at a big company owned by Lord suchandsuch where she does very little but earns well by way of a thank you - not like a bribe, nothing so uncouth, just friends looking after friends and so on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/05/2020 at 21:21, LondonLax said:

I have some more sympathy for the point in your edit. The only thing I would suggest there is that, as a journalist, the only way you are able to maintain relationships with sources willing to give you information is if you are somewhat ‘diplomatic’ with how you present the information you receive from them. If she came out and said “Hey Twitter followers get a load of the rubbish these guys are trying to shovel my way! Can you believe it! They can’t even get their stories straight!!” I suspect she would not get much more from them.

Edit: Just to go further on that, if she has sources who are changing their story behind the scenes and she has presented them as above has she not just subtlety exposed them as liars or truth twisters for the rest of us to see? It’s all we are talking about after all. 

Maybe so but then you’re trading journalistic integrity for continued self gain.

Which is not what true journalism should be about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kuwabatake Sanjuro said:

Is this real?

The comments seem to indicate that there were protesters from both sides there. Did the BBC know this? I don’t know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
46 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Hmm, what might this refer to?

Oh, I see:

It's Giant Superman Sunak personally handing out money to people in a dole queue with a smile on his face. Uh-huh.

The like/confused/sad/thanks/haha button options don't really cover my feelings here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â