The BBC at it again with it's Unionist bias

[Casual Bystander]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28739399

Carrying the headline "Why Paris doesn't want a Scottish Yes" you would think that there was some sort of in depth analysis of the political debate in France. Perhaps some quotes from those in power about the up coming referendum. Maybe the French president, Francois Hollande, has commented on the subject? Perhaps their Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, has briefed the BBC on the matter? Do we have the doyen of the right, Marine Le Pen has been outspoken on the subject? Nope, none of them. No a single official or unofficial comment attributed to any senior politician in France.

So why can it run the headline "Why Paris doesn't want a Scottish Yes", just where is the actual proof of this? Where is the source of this assertion? Well the simple fact is there isn't one. The only politician quoted, the Deputy Mayor of says, "Emotionally I would say most people in Aubigny are for it. But it is a complicated subject, and there are many factors to take into account. So we don't feel in a position to pronounce. It is up to the Scottish to decide." Does that justify the headline? What's more how can it justify the use of the line, "Certainly, in Paris - though no-one in government would presume to say it openly - there is no enthusiasm for Scottish independence", when there is not a single shred of evidence to back up this claim.

The bottom line here is that the BBC is guilty of gross misrepresentation and, well, to bring it to the base level, lying purely to support it's Unionist agenda.

[Broken Algorithms]

My old flatmate is from Paris and thinks that Scotland would struggle independently and that a currency union would probably struggle. Then again, he's off the opinion that adding Britain to the Euro would benefit everyone. He also prefers rugby to football, so has a track record for getting things horrendously wrong.

[Casual Bystander]

Thing is I have not big issue with the article. It's a fairly benign look at a small town some 150 miles from Paris. However to say, "Certainly, in Paris - though no-one in government would presume to say it openly - there is no enthusiasm for Scottish independence", and to use the title, "Why Paris doesn't want a Scottish Yes", is just misrepresentation at the highest level. It's not as if Mr Schofield isn't experienced in foreign reporting, quite the opposite so there is no suggestion this is just a rookie journalist making the classic media mistake of assumption over fact. So with that in mind, why would Mr Schofield so blatantly mislead his readers? Why indeed.

[Thumper]

The headline won't have been written by the author of the piece. It'll have been tacked on by his editor.

[Casual Bystander]

The headline won't have been written by the author of the piece. It'll have been tacked on by his editor.

That might or might not be the case. The BBC website doesn't operate in the same manner as a paper where you get an editor or sub editor deciding on headlines. I know several BBC journalists who report for the website (they use a BBC specific uploader page to get it onto the site) and part of that is to provide the headline.

However playing Devil's Advocate, perhaps the author is not responsible for the headline, it doesn't make it any less false, and lets not forget the line, "Certainly, in Paris - though no-one in government would presume to say it openly - there is no enthusiasm for Scottish independence", which is definitely their words.

If the piece had carried quotes from senior officials or an opinion poll to back up the claim I wouldn't be complaining. However no such supporting evidence has been provided - possibly because they simply don't exist? Sure it's an editorial piece so in a sense doesn't need to adhere to the "facts" and can come down on the side of opinion however what it should never do is try to portray assumption as truth.

[Thumper]

From reading his other pieces he does seem to be one of these types that lives in Paris primarily so that he can remark upon how much better the UK is, but who knows. It's hardly uncommon for the national broadcaster to be blatantly pro-union, whether in its news coverage or in its opinion pieces.

[Casual Bystander]

From reading his other pieces he does seem to be one of these types that lives in Paris primarily so that he can remark upon how much better the UK is, but who knows. It's hardly uncommon for the national broadcaster to be blatantly pro-union, whether in its news coverage or in its opinion pieces.

Schofield is a very experienced journalist which, if anything, highlights the glaring lack of any supporting evidence in his claims.

Lets flip this around, if I was to start a thread with the title, "Why Oslo wants a Scottish Yes" and it contained the line, "Certainly, in Oslo - though no-one in government would presume to say it openly - there is great enthusiasm for Scottish independence", and refused to support that claim how long do you think the thread would go without someone saying, "Prove it"? And rightly so, putting forward such implicit and over arching claims for an entire country without any evidence is shoddy commentary to say the least.

[ayrmad]

I don't understand why NO doesn't speak out about this shite, every time anything like this hits the MSM voters drift to YES, I said it while I was a NO voter and they're still carrying on regardless, Scots have a big fcuk you chunk in our dna, we don't like folk slagging us off, too late now right enough, pleasing.

[Casual Bystander]

Just for the lulz I have put in an official complaint to the BBC highlighting the title and the unsupported quote. Let's see what that brings us. I've never complained to the BBC before so I have no idea of their process - the cynic in me suggests they will adjudicate on the matter on the 19th of Sep - but I do believe that there is a justifiable case for the title and that offending line to be altered or removed altogether.

[H_B]

Just for the lulz I have put in an official complaint to the BBC highlighting the title and the unsupported quote. Let's see what that brings us. I've never complained to the BBC before so I have no idea of their process

I have. I complained about them taking the piss out of Pastafarianism, openly ridiculing those who follow that religion.

I asked if they would be so openly dismissive of Islam or Christianity, which are of course just as ludicrous in their belief structures. I did get a reply, albeit not a very good one.

[ayrmad]

Just for the lulz I have put in an official complaint to the BBC highlighting the title and the unsupported quote. Let's see what that brings us. I've never complained to the BBC before so I have no idea of their process - the cynic in me suggests they will adjudicate on the matter on the 19th of Sep - but I do believe that there is a justifiable case for the title and that offending line to be altered or removed altogether.

Your door will be coming in forthwith.

[Niseach]

However playing Devil's Advocate, perhaps the author is not responsible for the headline, it doesn't make it any less false, and lets not forget the line, "Certainly, in Paris - though no-one in government would presume to say it openly - there is no enthusiasm for Scottish independence", which is definitely their words.

If the piece had carried quotes from senior officials or an opinion poll to back up the claim I wouldn't be complaining. However no such supporting evidence has been provided - possibly because they simply don't exist? Sure it's an editorial piece so in a sense doesn't need to adhere to the "facts" and can come down on the side of opinion however what it should never do is try to portray assumption as truth.

Surely, by using the word 'enthusiasm', he negates the need for any hard evidence. He's just saying that there isn't any 'Yes' flags off the Eiffel Tower. That there is very little active support for the Yes campaign...in France. Not sure if anyone would expect to find any.

Or at least he can claim that's all he's saying.

[Casual Bystander]

Surely, by using the word 'enthusiasm', he negates the need for any hard evidence. He's just saying that there isn't any 'Yes' flags off the Eiffel Tower. That there is very little active support for the Yes campaign...in France. Not sure if anyone would expect to find any.

Or at least he can claim that's all he's saying.

So provide evidence for that claim. If you were to say, "there is not much enthusiasm for being shot in the head", that would be fair comment as it's only logical that most if not everyone would be against the idea of being shot in the head. However with such a contentious issue that clearly has support both for and against, such implicit statements without evidence is just not valid commentary.

[Niseach]

So provide evidence for that claim. If you were to say, "there is not much enthusiasm for being shot in the head", that would be fair comment as it's only logical that most if not everyone would be against the idea of being shot in the head. However with such a contentious issue that clearly has support both for and against, such implicit statements without evidence is just not valid commentary.

Except it's France. Scotland's independence would have next to no impact on the day to day lives of the people there (Unlike being shot in the head), so I can only presume how little the subject is talked about in the queue for the morning baguette, how few newspaper articles there are in French papers, the little, if any, time it gets on the 6 heures news. All of these point to a lack of 'enthusiasm'.

Really i'm only really nit-picking here. Not sure how much of a point you have with this article. But I am with you on the general stance of the BBC. Although yesterday (possibly Saturday) there was an article on the BBC News about Cornwall wanting more powers for themselves on the back of a Yes vote. Getting this kind of wild pro-independence out of the BBC should be celebrated high and low.

[Casual Bystander]

Not sure how much of a point you have with this article.

I think you'll find the point being a title of, "Why Paris doesn't want a Scottish Yes", yet it doesn't in any way support that assumption. If it had said, "Nobody in Paris gives a f**k", then it might be closer to the truth, but it doesn't. It's implicit.

Also, note that this headline is the one used throughout the website. Anyone viewing the website without actually reading the story could easily be misled.

[Niseach]

I humbly concede.

Notice it is up at No.2 of the most read on the BBC. Funnily enough, also behind what at first glance, is another 'let's scare the little people' headline (How safe is eating meat?) to get the masses quacking in their boots.

[Alert Mongoose]

I humbly concede.

Notice it is up at No.2 of the most read on the BBC. Funnily enough, also behind what at first glance, is another 'let's scare the little people' headline (How safe is eating meat?) to get the masses quacking in their boots.

Indeed. A scared populace is nice and 'pliable'. I wish some people would see things for what they are and stop acting like sheep.

[Thumper]

Notice it is up at No.2 of the most read on the BBC.

That's actually somewhat problematic for the BBC. The purpose of the story was to allow for the headline to appear in the sidebar. People who read it will discover that in fact nobody in France has a problem with Scottish independence barring one historian with some sort of Machiavellian rivalry with Germany.

[choirbairn]

Just for the lulz I have put in an official complaint to the BBC highlighting the title and the unsupported quote. Let's see what that brings us. I've never complained to the BBC before so I have no idea of their process - the cynic in me suggests they will adjudicate on the matter on the 19th of Sep - but I do believe that there is a justifiable case for the title and that offending line to be altered or removed altogether.

I hope they reply ASAP and tell you to go feck yourself.

The headline is justified further down the story, in a bit that you - surprise, surprise - left out of your post to suit your own agenda.

Here it is in full.

His [the deputy mayor of Augigny's] reserve on the issue is tacit acknowledgement that full-blown independence for Scotland may not tally with France's modern-day convictions and priorities.

Certainly, in Paris - though no-one ingovernment would presume to say it openly - there is no enthusiasm for Scottish independence.

One factor is the regional example. France believes in the nation state, and would look askance at regions like Corsica or Brittany getting too strong ideas about hiving themselves off.

However, according to political scientist Dominique Moisi, that is not the real reason for French lack of support on independence.

"France is not Spain, where the precedent Scotland might set for Catalonia is very real. Here the regions make a lot of noise, but there is no risk of separation.

"No, for France the argument against Scottish independence is our dream of a strong United Kingdom, fully engaged in Europe, whose purpose is to counter-balance a Germany that gets more powerful every year.

"Anything that detracts from that strong United Kingdom - as Scottish independence would do - goes against French ambitions in Europe."

Those last four paragraphs explain exactly why the headline is acceptable.

Your horribly skewed version of the story sits very well with the rest of the Yes campaign.

It's no surprise that nobody in the French government would be willing to be quoted on the subject, but if Moisi is correct and Schofield is as experienced as you say, he is more than likely to have spoken to someone in government off the record on the subject.

The bottom line here is that the BBC is guilty of gross misrepresentation and, well, to bring it to the base level, lying purely to support it's Unionist agenda.

Pot, kettle, black.

It's not as if Mr Schofield isn't experienced in foreign reporting, quite the opposite so there is no suggestion this is just a rookie journalist making the classic media mistake of assumption over fact.

The headline won't have been written by the author of the piece. It'll have been tacked on by his editor.

That might or might not be the case.

Looks like you fell into that classic trap of portraying assumption as fact. I hope somebody at the BBC sends you an email to complain about it.

It's also depressingly ironic that you are going on about portraying assumption as fact as being a bad thing when the whole Yes campaign has - shamefully - been built on that lack of principle.

[choirbairn]

If the piece had carried quotes from senior officials or an opinion poll to back up the claim I wouldn't be complaining. However no such supporting evidence has been provided - possibly because they simply don't exist? Sure it's an editorial piece so in a sense doesn't need to adhere to the "facts" and can come down on the side of opinion.

The fact is, the opinion has come down on the side of a No vote and you just don't like it.

As I've pointed out above, and as you probably already knew but chose to ignore in order to suit your own agenda, the quotes came from a political scientist (and it's far from unusual for any news outlet to speak to commentators on all sorts of subjects).

He explains in two paragraphs exactly why the French don't want an independent Scotland.

Here they are again.

"No, for France the argument against Scottish independence is our dream of a strong United Kingdom, fully engaged in Europe, whose purpose is to counter-balance a Germany that gets more powerful every year.

"Anything that detracts from that strong United Kingdom - as Scottish independence would do - goes against French ambitions in Europe."

I'm no fan of the BBC, but in this case they are in the right.

However if anybody wants to send them an email complaining about the sports bulletin on the 10 o'clock news last night, give them one from me.

Whoever decided the running order should be 'England win the women's rugby world cup, then England's cricketers beat India, then the teams who finished first and second in England last season got their Premier League campaign under way today, and then finally Team GB set new record medal haul in the European Athletics Championships' should be shot.