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.

It’s ok guys, there’s a totally rational explanation. It turns out the BBC accidentally used a clip of archive sound from years ago, from before the time when the word ‘trust’ in relation to Bojo caused everybody present to immediately piss their pants.
pic.twitter.com/cVhgMB853J

— Malcolm Tucker (@Tucker5law) November 23, 2019

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

Statement on the BBC's use of an edited clip from the Question Time Leaders' special: pic.twitter.com/OiBcidy3ZH

— BBC News Press Team (@BBCNewsPR) November 25, 2019

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.

BBC says editing out audience laughter from news bulletin footage of Boris Johnson was "a mistake"https://t.co/9dMg4zjDGZ

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) November 25, 2019

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.

My letter to OfCom is on my website: https://t.co/JJ1hX5AH4V https://t.co/0dBIXR6zG4

— John Sweeney (@johnsweeneyroar) November 24, 2019

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…

“Why has your govt suppressed a report on the funding of terror groups?” @MichaelLCrick challenges Foreign Sec on relationship with Saudi. pic.twitter.com/iU4EqdauWL

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 6, 2017

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