Forum menu
BBC Scotland panel discussing the GE last night. One each from Lab, CON, LD.
What’s missing from this picture?
Green Party and Brexit Party?
Also in the last general election Corbyn was asked twice as many negative questions as May was.
ie May would be asked " your economic policy is to do x? Corbyn would be asked " many people say your economic policy will lead to disaster"
Important that no editing takes place.
First off, it was a live broadcast so couldn't be edited without a delay and then wouldn't be either live or accurate.
Second, the audience was balanced to reflect the parties represented so probably representative of general population.
Third, the laughter was in response to Johnson's comments regarding trust which is being played by tories as an important consideration in assessing Corbyn.
Fourth, what about laughter at Corbyn's comments about Brexit.
Agree with paradiso^^^ re Johnson's integrity - or lack of.
couldn’t be edited without a delay
I’m referring to the clip used on the news.
BBC Scotland panel discussing the GE last night. One each from Lab, CON, LD.
What’s missing from this picture?
What other parties are fielding candidates for every seat?
(I see your point but it could be for any number of reasons, from that one to simply the SNP not putting anyone up for it).
I’m referring to the clip used on the news.
What was your point?
There were plenty of clips on the bbc news this morning of Jeremy and Jo getting booed so I dont think Borris came out of it badly in that respect.
If I want to be exposed to brainless propaganda I’ll buy the Mail – I don’t see why I should be forced to pay a licence fee so that others can get their fix.
Other sources are available; it’s not the law that you have to watch it. I don’t, I read people’s comments about being exposed to brainless propaganda, and wonder why they don’t just go and do something else...
Yeah, but it's the law that you have to pay for it, even if you only ever watch other stuff. That's like being forced to pay for the Daily mail even though you only ever read the Guardian.
This showed up in my fb feed today. No idea of veracity therein. Which, I suppose, is the general effect of social media 😎
and wonder why they don’t just go and do something else…
BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S HAPPENING!! That's kind of the whole point of calling it out.
Of course former Labour politicians have never held senior positions in the BBC
the BBC's credibility is going to be dead in a ditch soon
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1198968230955622400
The laughter was very well covered on the BBC so there was no consipracy to hide it on the BBC. It was specifically discussed on Brexitcast & (iirc) Pienaar's politics.
Also in the last general election Corbyn was asked twice as many negative questions as May was.
Is this an actual stat or just your general impression from the news programmes you happened to watch presented as an actual fact?
The laughter was very well covered on the BBC
If I just watched the news, would I have seen a clip where the laughter and first hesitant response from Johnson were edited out? The fact that a deeper dive into current affairs programming, or sitting through the entire original programme, would have exposed me to the laughing, really isn’t all that relevant.
Was edited out on evening news & breakfast news
Plenty of people only tune into one news/current affairs programs every day
I'm not sure whether it's cock up or conspiracy tho
martin hutch - a piece of decent research IIRC but I cannot cite it. Certainly not my impression - I gave up in tv news a long time ago
Quite a bit to digest in John Sweeney’s letter to Ofcom.
https://twitter.com/johnsweeneyroar/status/1198692440011689987?s=21
Of course former Labour politicians have never held senior positions in the BBC
Comprehension fail, try again with the FaceBook post above.
So I’m not one for the theory that the BBC is biased, but they tested my resolve on that position this evening;
Listening to R4 news on the way to work tonight;
first story - Antisemitism in Labour!
Second story - Islamophobia in the Tory party (fair dos I thought...)
Third story - muslims are bigoted! Footage of Muslims falsely accusing schools of paedophilia, AntiLGBT protest permanently banned.
Fourth story - Story about Islamic extremist terrorism somewhere in the world that I can’t even find on the BBC news front page.
Now I don’t dispute that they are all news, but smashing home an ‘Islam - BAD’ message straight after the supposedly balanced reporting of the top two stories seemed a bit sinister to me.
Just seen this pop up on social media. Apologies if already done
https://www.johnsweeney.co.uk/?p=letter.to.ofcom
John Sweeney
November 4 2019
PRIVATE AND IN CONFIDENCE
To the Chief Executive, OfCom,
Dear Ms White,
I am writing to you as a reluctant whistle-blower to ask for a thorough investigation into BBC News and Current Affairs in regard to, firstly, a number of films relating to the far-right, Russia and Brexit that were not broadcast, secondly, films that were broadcast but were improperly compromised and, thirdly, a number of senior journalists who have been allowed to compromise BBC editorial values by taking financial inducements or benefits in kind.
At the outset I should say that I have been informed, entertained and educated by the BBC my whole life. I worked for the BBC for 17 years and left last month and I feel grateful to many of my extraordinary colleagues who do great work for the public good. I pay the license fee and passionately believe in the BBC’s mission.
It is exactly because of that belief that I feel compelled to share what I know from the inside of BBC News and Current Affairs. BBC management, led by Director-General Tony Hall, has become so risk-averse in the face of threats from the far-right and the Russian state and its proxies that due impartiality is being undermined and investigative journalism is being endangered. Films have been not broadcast or enfeebled. Senior journalists have taken money or benefits in kind from Big Tobacco, a dodgy passport-selling company, and proxies for the Russian state.
My concerns centre on the following programmes or films:
* Our Panorama on far-right activist Tommy Robinson which should have been broadcast in February or March this year. It had fresh information on Robinson’s links with German far right sources and there was potential to explore how Robinson was being indirectly funded by Kremlin money. Robinson set out to intimidate the BBC. Not broadcast.
* Our Newsnight investigation into Lord Mandelson which caused him to change his House of Lords’ register recording money he got from a Russian company connected to the mafiya. After a direction intervention by Mandelson’s friend, then BBC Head of News, James Harding, the investigation stopped. Not broadcast.
* Our Newsnight investigation into the dubious connections between former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale MP and Dmitri Firtash, the pro-Kremlin oligarch currently fighting extradition to the United States. Not broadcast.
* Our Newsnight investigation into Henley & Partners, a dodgy passport-selling firm which sought to silence Daphne Caruana Galizia before she was assassinated. Outside a H & P event in London I was physically assaulted by security for the Maltese PM. Inside a BBC presenter was doing a paid corporate gig for H&P. Not broadcast.
* A Newsnight investigation into the pro-Russian sympathies of Labour spin doctor, Seumas Milne. Not commissioned. Not broadcast.
* A Panorama on Roman Abramovich: made and completed. I did not work on this but know of it. Not broadcast.
* A BBC News investigation into Brexit funder Arron Banks. I did not work on this but know of it. Not broadcast.
Please note that roughly in the same time frame BBC News – not Current Affairs - did broadcast investigations into Cliff Richards and Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan on the basis of a fantasist. Both investigations should never have been broadcast.
The BBC did broadcast films I made that were weakened by management. They include:
* A series of Newsnight films into Arron Banks, the man who helped fund Brexit and Nigel Farage. Some were broadcast but the strength of the journalism was enfeebled by management. One, exploring Nigel Farage’s worries about Mr Banks’ connections to Russia, was not broadcast. A second, on Katya Banks and how she came to the United Kingdom, was not broadcast.
* A Panorama on Russia called Taking On Putin. This was broadcast last year. In the course of making it the acting head of the BBC Moscow bureau told our Panorama team to leave the bureau though we had sensitive rushes on us and were being pursued by Moscow police. He then informed the Foreign Ministry that I had been filming without a press pass. Not giving me a press pass is a routine piece of administrative harassment by the Russian state. Our fixer was forced to leave Russia for good. It felt like our BBC Moscow colleagues saw the Kremlin as their friend and us as the enemy.
On all the films above I worked on, I sought to complain to BBC management about failures to broadcast or weakening of editorial stance. Most did not seriously engage with my complaints. One senior manager did not reply to four emails I sent asking for a meeting so we never spoke.
To be fair, BBC management have an extraordinary difficult task. Brexit has split the country and maintaining fairness and due impartiality under ferocious pressure, accelerated by social media, is exhausting. The problem is this exhaustion has led to corporate risk aversion and this is destroying investigative journalism at the BBC.
Separately, I fear that BBC values have been undermined by the following senior editors and presenters. Jon Sopel, BBC North America, doing a paid corporate gig for US tobacco giant Philip Morris this year. Justin Webb, Today programme presenter, doing a paid corporate gig for Henley & Partners on two separate occasions.
Sarah Sands, editor of the Today programme and Amol Rajan, BBC Media Editor, receiving benefits in kind from their former employer, Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev. They attended parties thrown by Lebedev in his Italian palazzo. A third guest was Boris Johnson, now prime minister. It seems impossible for any reporter on the Today programme to fully investigate widely reported stories that as Foreign Secretary Mr Johnson was seen as a “security risk” because of his attendance at Mr Lebedev’s parties if their editor was also a beneficiary of Mr Lebedev’s generosity. Amol Rajan as BBC Media Editor has reported on Mr Lebedev’s business affairs and he too has been a beneficiary of the oligarch’s generosity.
None of this non-BBC work or benefits are for the public good.
It is a characteristic of someone in my position to overstate the significance of their complaints. I do not want to do this. The vast majority of the BBC’s output is excellent and to be trusted.
But the sorry history of investigations not broadcast I report above demonstrates a general pattern of risk aversion and fearfulness. This is a common complaint of BBC journalists. My particular concern is the ability of the Russian state and its proxies to cramp the BBC’s journalism when it investigates what the Kremlin & Co are up to. You cannot make a series of Panoramas on Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump without seeing the evidence of the Russian state and its proxies interfering with democratic politics around the world. That interference includes the United Kingdom. I note that Number Ten has indicated that blocked the publication of the Commons select committee on Russian interference today.
Beyond these points there is a wider issue of the effective non-regulation of social media. The experience of being attacked by Tommy Robinson’s supporters – they behave like a cult – whilst the BBC did not broadcast our Panorama on him was maddening for me, literally so. A freelance colleague made a radio programme about one of his supporters. The stress of being a victim of the far-right online hate machine caused my colleague, who was heavily pregnant at the time, to have a panic attack so intense she mistakenly feared it was a miscarriage. Happily, mother and baby are fine. My observation as a front-line investigative journalist is that public interest broadcasting is over-regulated and social media hardly at all. Social media must be brought within the rule of law or our democracy will be poisoned.
I have evidence to back up every point I make in this letter and practical suggestions to reform and develop the OfCom code if you decide to take the matters raised here further. Please let me know what your response is. I am separately writing to the chair of the House of Commons select committees on the media and copying in the chairs of the intelligence and foreign affairs committees.
Yours sincerely,
John Sweeney
I am amazed that a corporation complicit in the Jimmy Savile scandal being seen as biased towards their own self serving interests seems a bit much to believe for some folks.
^ re tonight’s running order on the radio news. On the BBC news app the lead story is Corbyn fails to apologise to Jews but you have to scroll down to 7th to find the Tories/ islamophobia story. In the middle of an election campaign this is not fair or balanced.
True. Everyone on every news channel chatting about Labour AS, and BBC news has ‘someone wins lottery’ higher than the Tory islamophobia story.
Blimey.
Was 9th when I found it. The whole Tory Islamaphobia story has consistently been buried behind Labours anti-Semitism story
weird, they are stories 1 & 2 on the /news/uk page right now
and News@10 first story is a full mix of labour AS and conservative islamaphobia with hints of LD viewpoints
totally biased.
1 & 2 are Labour AS, 3 is Tory I, on the website. On the app, Labour AS is 1, MCB criticism of the Tories is 10th.
Re: John Sweeney’s letter.
I‘ve just started reading Timothy Snyder’s book ‘The Road to Unfreedom’, in which he states on page 10 of the prologue, that ‘In our time, as rising inequality elevates political fiction, investigate journalism becomes the more precious’. If what Mr Sweeney writes in his letter is true, the reluctance of the BBC to broadcast programmes that have investigated and uncovered, for example, Russia’s involvement in British politics is truly shocking. I hope his complaint is upheld.
Wonder if Laura Kuenssberg (or anyone at the BBC) will be asking Boris about this...
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/872075827575492609
On the BBC news app the lead story is Corbyn fails to apologise to Jews but you have to scroll down to 7th to find the Tories/ islamophobia story.
Boris apologised for Islamophobia within hours of Corbyn refusing to apologise for AS. Corbyn's refusal to apologise is a massively bigger story than an apology for very good reason. We have a control sample here too - John McDonnell *did* apologise for AS and just like Boris's apology it barely made the news.
Maybe the bias is 'The public/media aren't interested when politicians do the right thing.' but that's not party bias.
.... aaand again.
BBC changes its mind on allowing Johnson on Marr without agreeing to be interviewed by Neil.
OOB - Johnson did not apologise for his own racist comments nor has he actually done anything about it in any way. He is a racist pure and simple as has been shown by many comments over the years
His "apology" was a non apology anyway
DrJ, let's give that a little context; BBC have said that, in view of London Bridge attack, it would be appropriate for Johnson to appear.
I'm ok with that provided that Marr focusses on that incident and does not stray into GE/Brexit.
Regrettably, I can't see that happening.
Can't Marr just change places with Andrew Neil in the morning?
Would love it if Boris was sitting there on the sofa tomorrow morning, cameras rolling, ready to go. Marr steps out and Andrew Neil appears and starts asking some decent questions for 30 minutes.
I live in hope...
DrJ, let’s give that a little context; BBC have said that, in view of London Bridge attack, it would be appropriate for Johnson to appear.
So we're letting terrorists interfere with/influence our political processes now?
Ask the BBC; not my decision.
Thats an excuse not a reason
DrJ, let’s give that a little context; BBC have said that, in view of London Bridge attack, it would be appropriate for Johnson to appear.
Yes they said that. And it makes no sense whatsoever.
Surely it should be home secretary making an apperance if it was the real motivation
Tragically the BBC needs us for support to dissuade government (of any shade) from interferring in their operations. They are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
Laura K blatantly pro Boris and anti Corbyn, she cant help it.
Whhhat? Is this factual? (BBC censor/cut studio audience laughing at PM?)
I wonder if the BBC will be reporting this, given the national importance of anti-Semitism?
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01740-19
Decision of the Complaints Committee 01740-19 White v The Jewish Chronicle
Summary of complaint
1. Audrey White complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Jewish Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles:
Given the video above, suprised Owen Jones hasn't twigged that Jim Waterson is Jess Brammar's squeeze:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1204799777831112704
This Jess Brammar (who also edited Newsnight for a bit and sits on the DSMA Committee)
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/411538413360545792
And now Lying Laura is being investigated by the met for breaking electoral law by revealing postal vote trends.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/12/uk-news-push-alerts-negative-labour-positive-tories
This is worth a listen: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004f5s
There was one bit in particular that jumped out for me, in that bias lies in lack of diversity, and that diversity isn't just about race and gender, but education, viewpoints, perspectives, life experience and there is a direct conflict between journalistic standards and accommodating all of these (and more) angles. It's a really interesting programme.
Laura Kuenssberg, the state of her!
Huw Edward's take:
v8ninety called this correct from the start of this thread:
Whilst people at both ends of the political spectrum continue to loudly protest the the BBC are biased, I can’t help but think that they must be doing alright. Examples that ‘prove’ both positions are always available.
Hopefully Boris will get rid of the licence fee and unite both left and right behind him.
v8ninety called this correct from the start of this thread:
Whilst people at both ends of the political spectrum continue to loudly protest the the BBC are biased, I can’t help but think that they must be doing alright. Examples that ‘prove’ both positions are always available.
And I'll repeat, it's not about Left and Right. Folk who view it like that are missing the bigger picture.
And I’ll repeat, it’s not about Left and Right. Folk who view it like that are missing the bigger picture.
This.
Pertinent following the preceding post which is typical of one who is a bit hard of critical thinking.
Interesting stuff from Sweeney in his interview on JO’B’s podcast this morning which puts a bit of flesh on his letter to OfCOM.
My Tory parents were moaning about Leftie BBC bias this morning - would not accept that those on the left could possibly see it the other way
Did the Telegraph tell them to think that?
My experience of political views opined by the parents is basically that of an animated, walking, talking copy of the Telegraph. Anything that doesn't agree with them is usually "getting that from the Guardian".
They only get the Torygraph on a Saturday, the rest of the week they get their right wing propaganda from that there left leaning BBC.
No, I don't understand it either
The problem is that we hold the BBC to a higher level of scrutiny than the rest of the media. We know that the newspapers are biased, so therefore the BBC must be. The BBC do try to be neutral, but as has been said before, if they report something you don't like, they must be biased. Sometimes the reporting is poor, therefore that must mean they are biased. Sometimes they don't report stuff, which means they must be biased.
We know that the BBC is not perfect, but for some reason if they make the smallest mistake they are screamed at. Remember that the BBC will have effectively be the opposition while the Labour party guts itself. Questioning the Tory governments policies and actions. You can already see the Tory War Machine gearing up to fight the BBC, who else has the clout to report and challenge what is going on. And if the licence fee goes, so does Channel 4 and S4C
If we really want to know what the media would be like without the BBC look at the USA. Do we really want that, both the quality and the cost. (Remember that we only get the very best of US Television - most is lucky to be called dross). Do we want Fox News as a main source of news? And remember that if the BBC goes then Sky, Amazon, etc will raise their prices - because their main competition will have gone. Driven out both those who cannot stand anyone who disagrees with them, who want an extra cup of Costa coffee a week and those who sit behind the anonymous wall of social media and scream at the BBC.
(Sorry - too much coffee today)
Hopefully Boris will get rid of the licence fee and unite both left and right behind him.
I've been a LibDem for less than five days and both main partys are already gunning for something I value. 🙁
And if the licence fee goes, so does Channel 4 and S4C
A friend's dad was on the board of S4C when I was at university. I remember there being a story in the Welsh press about him being paid £120K a year for 1 day a month. And that was in the early 90s. Not sure if that's a great use of licence payer's money, tbh.
JP
My experience of political views opined by the parents is basically that of an animated, walking, talking copy of the Telegraph. Anything that doesn’t agree with them is usually “getting that from the Guardian”.
You are showing your class there. For me it was Daily Mail/Sun versus Mirror.
The BBC/Channel 4 are good for non biased news and probing interviews, however the rest of the output is nothing special so the argument around better quality holding up others to the same quality and production of programs around niche subjects is long gone.
So basically a question of is the license fee worth it for the non biased news and scrutiny of government?
Interesting stuff from Sweeney in his interview on JO’B’s podcast this morning which puts a bit of flesh on his letter to OfCOM.
I’d like to listen to that, but do you have a linky please, as I’ve no idea what ‘JO’B’s podcast’ is.
Ta.
So basically a question of is the license fee worth it for the non biased news and scrutiny of government?
With our current government I think that's an overwhelming yes.
I’d like to listen to that, but do you have a linky please, as I’ve no idea what ‘JO’B’s podcast’ is.
Ta.
😀
Yeah, sorry for the presumptuous use of abbreviations there. My bad. It’s the most recent episode of James O’Brien’s Disclosure. Some cracking other interviews on there if you go back through as well.
EDIT: Full Disclosure
Whatever your feelings for the BBC we are unlikely to have to worry about it for much longer
BBC News - What the election fall-out means for the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50817529
Thanks DD.
Not that biased after all, both sides complain in comparable numbers:
Not that biased after all, both sides complain in comparable numbers
The truth is not determined by a show of hands.
The truth is not determined by a show of hands.
When it comes to something as difficult to pin down as bias I think a show of hands is probably as close an approximation as we're going to get. I certainly don't see the people claiming the BBC *is* biased offering objective conclusive proof - all the "proof by example" claims are nothing more than a show of hands.
However I'm sure the BBC and most other broadcasters would be delighted if you gave them an objective conclusive way to determine bias, it would allow them to get it exactly right and prove they'd done so. You have one, do you?
Note to self make a gazillion complaints to the BBC about pro right bias between now and next election.
I'm far more persuaded by examples of bias than I am by a letter-writing campaign. Laura K, John Humphrys, Nick Robinson, Sarah Sands, Robbie Gibb - all card-carrying Tories, counterbalanced by ... what?
I’m far more persuaded by examples of bias than I am by a letter-writing campaign. Laura K, John Humphrys, Nick Robinson, Sarah Sands, Robbie Gibb – all card-carrying Tories, counterbalanced by … what?
Quite a lot who probably carry a labour or lib dem card, add in those who have been through Common Purpose programmes etc etc
The BBC has a lot more than half a dozen journalists
I’m far more persuaded by examples of bias than I am by a letter-writing campaign.
So your opinion is based on a logical fallacy.
Laura K, John Humphrys, Nick Robinson, Sarah Sands, Robbie Gibb – all card-carrying Tories
Incorrect, from that list LK and NR (at least) are not members of any party.
Nick Robinson? Chairman of the National Young Conservatives, a position he held for 3 years after joining the BBC, before he turned in his membership as he moved up the political journo ladder (for obvious reasons). Pretty clear where he comes from regardless of whether or not he remains a member.
So your opinion is based on a logical fallacy.
Nope. Based on observation.
Incorrect, from that list LK and NR (at least) are not members of any party.
Missing the point. Those individuals are all firm supporters of the right wing, whatever their memberships.
(the fascist on the left is Britain First candidate Jayda Fransen)
Missing the point.
Your point was NR (and others) are "card carrying tories". He's not. LK isn't.
Here:
Laura K, John Humphrys, Nick Robinson, Sarah Sands, Robbie Gibb – all card-carrying Tories
You're wrong.
OoB - the article from the Guardian you posted was quite amusing - folk accusing the BBC of bias because some audience members at last night of the proms wore EU hats and a singer waved a rainbow flag. Really?
As for LauraK - card carrying? Wouldn’t know, haven’t checked, but I would be surprised if she was. Pro-Tory? Absolutely, she just oozes a gentle but clear right-wing tendency as she flirts with BoJo. Either that or she’s a lefty trying to hard not to show pro-Corbyn bias.
Card carrying or not, Laura K should be sacked and face prosecution for her antics a few weeks ago.
You’re wrong.
Nope - you are.
2a : strongly identified with a group (as of people with a common interest)
card-carrying members of the ecology movement
— R. J. Neuhaus
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/card-carrying