This is the complete quote from the article, Ernie:

“One analyst told the BBC that, while some people would find the results reassuring, others would see them as evidence that the tests were not credible.

He said that demands from the financial authorities that banks began immediately to bolster their core capital “is an acknowledgement that there is a risk of sovereign default”.

The failed banks would have to find an estimated 2.5bn euros in new funding by the end of the year, he said.”

The BBC uses the quote of an anonymous analyst to devalue the stress tests thus making the situation appear worse than it is in Europe. The whole article bigs up the UK whilst undermining confidence in Euroland finances. Who benefits from this sort of propaganda? The city, Biritish financial institutions and the British government. In that it is not a true reflection of the economic states of the UK and Euroland it may lead UK citizens to make choices that are not in their best interests but in the best interests of the City, Uk financial institutions and the British government.

I mean who are the people with vested interests in the BBC?

Perhaps you could persuade everyone at the BBC to disclose their interests, Darcy. I don’t think you’ll be able to though. Vested interests can be financial, political, religious, romantic… . Just as well Ernie doesn’t work for the Beeb eh!

What do you think of Nigel Farrage, “Edukator”?

The BBC uses the quote of an anonymous analyst to devalue the stress tests ……

No, they name the analyst who ‘devalues the stress tests’, it’s Jason Karaian of The Economist Intelligence Unit. And the Guardian, the Daily Express, and the Daily Mail, all quote him in his criticism of the stress tests.

And the Daily Express for example, does exactly the same as the BBC, ie, they refer to analysts before naming Jason Karaian of The Economist Intelligence Unit in a later paragraph.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/259210/Markets-tense-as-8-banks-fails-EU-stress-test

It’s just basic journalism – you provide the overall picture initially, and then provide the fine details as the article progresses. Often the reader of an article only wants to know the overall picture without bothering with the fine details and stops reading the article before reaching the end – they then move onto another article. That’s why headlines try to cram in as much information about the story as they can, and the first paragraph of a news story has so little detail.

Just as well Ernie doesn’t work for the Beeb eh!

How do you know I don’t ?

Mr Farrange has some interesting views. He no doubt represents the opions of many Britons if you look at polls on Europe. My dual nationality means I don’t have to worry about Mr Farrange too much but the million or so British expats living/working/retired in EU coutries would be well advised to vote against him.

So Edukator- where’s your retraction, now that you’ve been shown that the article does identify it’s analyst, and that your entire rant was inspired by a lack of reading?

Something you said about London Underground suggests you don’t work for the Beeb, Ernie, but no, I don’t know if you work for the Beeb.

That is your interpretation of whom the journalist is, Ernie. There is absolutely nothing in the lexical construction of the article, its sections, paragraphs or sentences to indicate whom it might be. It is not “just basic journalism”; it’s bad, misleading journalism. You should never have to guess who is being quoted. In this case you really have no idea who “one analyst” is.

Something you said about London Underground suggests you don’t work for the Beeb

Did I say I have to take the tube everyday to Holborn – the nearest station to Bush House ?

It is not “just basic journalism”

Yes it is, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Have a look how the Daily Express constructed their article :

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/259210/Markets-tense-as-8-banks-fails-EU-stress-test

That Express article is well constructed and respects conventions, the BBC one does not. The article starts with “analysts” in general then as soon as it quotes Jason in particular it gives his name.

The BBC makes it clear that the analyst is “analyst Jason Karaian of the Economist Intelligence Unit “ if you can’t figure that out, then I suggest to write to the BBC expressing your outrage over the matter. And in future shun all BBC News articles relying instead on the journalistic skills of the Daily Express.

The section I’ve quoted at the top of this page stands alone Ernie. It starts “one analyst” and ends “he said”. It is not refered to before or after and includes no information on the person being quoted.

Getting back to the OP’s question. No we are not close to a uniquely European disaster. If a disaster there is it will be a worldwide disaster and the UK is no better placed to deal with it than the Euro zone. The BBCs bigging up of the UK banks is misleading in that the British government has already propped up British financial institutions which are no safer than the vast majority of Euroland banks. The Euroland banks at risk are small and saving them significantly less onerous than the saving already done by the British government.

The main question is whether the Euro zone countries will be as willling to print money and hand it over as the British government. Germany is reluctant, France willing and a compromise has to be found. It’s a question of management that can be managed.

It is not refered to before or after and includes no information on the person being quoted.

In that case, where does ernie get:

The BBC makes it clear that the analyst is “analyst Jason Karaian of the Economist Intelligence Unit “

and why can’t you?

Given that the source IS quoted by the BBC, this would seem to invalidate your argument to the point of making you look foolish. Or a bit dim, “Edukator”…

One analyst told the BBC that, while some people would find the results reassuring, others would see them as evidence that the tests were not credible.

He said that demands from the financial authorities that banks began immediately to bolster their core capital “is an acknowledgement that there is a risk of sovereign default”.

The failed banks would have to find an estimated 2.5bn euros in new funding by the end of the year, he said.

German bank Helaba disputes the way the authorities carried out its assessment
But analyst Jason Karaian of the Economist Intelligence Unit said that the total extra funding needed by banks would be far higher in the long run.

you are letting your view of the BBC affect your view of this article IMHO.
There is bias here but I think it is yours rather than the BBCs’s.
It would have been better to name him first but they clearly name “the analyst”

More insult, Woppit. I’ll answer with sound analysis of the English. The BBC introduces Mr Karaian’s wisdom with the word “But” at the start of the paragraph. The word “but” indicates a contrast with the paragraphs that went before. Not only is one left guessing who the “one analyst” might be but that Karaian holds a different view.

I salute your clutching of straws- it is among the very finest.

And your anti-Edukator bias shows up as usual, Junkyard.

It would have been better to name him first but they clearly name “the analyst”

It’s ambiguous, one could read it as naming “an analyst” who is different from the “one analyst” mentioned earlier.
Why use “one” if you’re not going to talk about a second?
And what Edukator said about “but” giving the idea if introducing a contradictory idea.

And your anti-Edukator bias shows up as usual, Junkyard

you are paranoid. I have nothing against you it is your argument/view I am disagreeing with. You would have been better served defending that than suggesting I have an agenda against you. I disagree with you on one issue. I generally find your contribution to the forum to be positive and informative. I admire the way you walk the walk for your own viewpoint as well and make sacrifices to live life the way you think it should be. This is worthy of respect and admiration.
DS yes it is not great I agree.

Paranoid maybe but I don’t feel I make sacrifices to live the way I live. On the contrary, I consider it a privilege.

FFS you cant even take a compliment without complaining 😉

Isn’t that what being paranoid is all about?

😆