BBC bias

[Dons_1988]

f**k me, here we are again this morning with the BBC back doing yet another vox pop in Stoke.

Is there any chance we might ever hear from a Remain-voting constituency ?

They’re going round the country ahead of a GE and they’ve specifically said they’re focusing on Stoke all week. It’s not some conspiracy.

[ICTJohnboy]

7 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

f**k me, here we are again this morning with the BBC back doing yet another vox pop in Stoke.

Is there any chance we might ever hear from a Remain-voting constituency ?

 

They might, just might, find a load of punters who've changed their minds on how they might vote if given another referendum - but I doubt if they will.

It's not so long ago that Nagger terminated an interview with Ian Blackford because he described Boris as a madman. Would she do that again after last night's debacle?

[Fullerene]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

f**k me, here we are again this morning with the BBC back doing yet another vox pop in Stoke.

Is there any chance we might ever hear from a Remain-voting constituency ?

It could backfire. They only need to find one leave voter in Gibraltar and suddenly it is "looks like opinion is now swinging behind the prime minister".

[George Parr]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

They’re going round the country ahead of a GE and they’ve specifically said they’re focusing on Stoke all week. It’s not some conspiracy.

 

A full week in Stoke?  Fucking hell. 

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

f**k me, here we are again this morning with the BBC back doing yet another vox pop in Stoke.

Is there any chance we might ever hear from a Remain-voting constituency ?

I have said it before and will say it again, vox pops are low tabloid journalism aimed at the least well informed of the viewers.

Selecting a random handful of people and suggesting that they somehow speak for a community is disingenuous and misleading.

However it gives the impression that news organisations are interested in the views of ‘ordinary people’.

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

On 22/09/2019 at 17:34, NotThePars said:

I think it's pretty apparent that the BBC probably had a Remain bias or is instinctually Remain but the vote shocked them as much as it did the rest of the establishment and in their rush to try and understand why have given credence to any old w****r who claims to speak on behalf of 17 million people.

Or Boris Johnson, as he's better known.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

The only thing that should be focused on Stoke is the target of a 1 megaton nuke.

 

[Dundee Hibernian]

It grates on me when news programmes give time over to interview members of the public on any matters. Simply, that's not news.

 

It also leads some viewers to surmise the  producers of the news programmes are attempting to introduce a bias to their contents. And of course it may well influence those who have difficulty forming their own views.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

They’re going round the country ahead of a GE and they’ve specifically said they’re focusing on Stoke all week. It’s not some conspiracy.

I'm well aware of that, but lo and behold, here is the 6 o'clock BBC News visiting 'Leave-voting Walsall'. But they may have done the nation a favour; if I was a Brexiteer the assortment of bampots they've featured here may give me pause for serious thought.

[Scary Bear]

On 29/08/2019 at 08:47, ICTJohnboy said:

That ghastly Nagger Munchetty (or something) on BBC Breakfast just taken exception to Ian Blackford describing Boris as a madman.

Don't see wtf is wrong with that? She's such an ugly cow too.

I did a quick word search for Naga Munchetty and this thread came up. Not many fans on here.

However, I just heard a BBC spokesman tying himself in knots over Naga calling out Trump for telling “women of colour” to go back to where they came from. Now first, the whole of polite society tie themselves in knots trying to come up with a term for non-white people, but that’s by the by.

Due to impartiality of the BBC, Naga has been found against. She’s okay to say that telling...i’ll go with people of colour...to go back to where they came from is a bit racist. From what I can gather she’s not allowed to say that Trump is racist for saying that. Is that right?

I wonder how true to life W1A actually is.

[Dons_1988]

I did a quick word search for Naga Munchetty and this thread came up. Not many fans on here.
However, I just heard a BBC spokesman tying himself in knots over Naga calling out Trump for telling “women of colour” to go back to where they came from. Now first, the whole of polite society tie themselves in knots trying to come up with a term for non-white people, but that’s by the by.
Due to impartiality of the BBC, Naga has been found against. She’s okay to say that telling...i’ll go with people of colour...to go back to where they came from is a bit racist. From what I can gather she’s not allowed to say that Trump is racist for saying that. Is that right?
I wonder how true to life W1A actually is.

Worth noting she’s facing no disciplinary action or reprimand.

She opined that she was furious and implied political motive behind trumps comments. She has gone against the rules of her job. The bbc didn’t have much choice but to uphold the complaint, even if it was from a raging trump supporter.

[Baxter Parp]

Worth noting she’s facing no disciplinary action or reprimand.

She opined that she was furious and implied political motive behind trumps comments. She has gone against the rules of her job. The bbc didn’t have much choice but to uphold the complaint, even if it was from a raging trump supporter.

She was asked a question and answered it honestly. I can see how that would not go down well at the BBC. If you agree that racist language is inherently wrong then she's done nothing but state a fact.

[Dons_1988]

50 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

Worth noting she’s facing no disciplinary action or reprimand.

She opined that she was furious and implied political motive behind trumps comments. She has gone against the rules of her job. The bbc didn’t have much choice but to uphold the complaint, even if it was from a raging trump supporter.

She was asked a question and answered it honestly. I can see how that would not go down well at the BBC. If you agree that racist language is inherently wrong then she's done nothing but state a fact.

The rules are that she is not allowed to express an opinion. She did, however correct she may be.

Someone has made a complaint and by the rules they have no choice but to uphold it. They clearly aren't that bothered though as no action is being taken against her.

[Detournement]

She's not meant to editorialise (Only Andrew Neil and John Humphrey were allowed to do that)

If Trump says something racist they have to get a guest on to say so.

[Savage Henry]

She's not meant to editorialise (Only Andrew Neil and John Humphrey were allowed to do that)
If Trump says something racist they have to get a guest on to say so.

Yeah. I think the issue is not what she said, but that she offered her opinion at all. Of course, were this the USA, nobody would blink an eyelid.

I rather suspect the reaction would be different if she had supported Trump’s poison. B

[Detournement]

It's not just about Trump.

If she's allowed to say this then how can they tell another presenter they can't call Corbyn an anti semite racist or say that Swinson has blood on her hands due to austerity? I'd quite happily see the BBC shutdown but it clearly requires at least a pretence of impartiality if it is to exist at all.

[Baxter Parp]

The rules are that she is not allowed to express an opinion. She did, however correct she may be.
Someone has made a complaint and by the rules they have no choice but to uphold it. They clearly aren't that bothered though as no action is being taken against her.

BBC journalists express opinions on social media all the time, how do you square that circle? Jeremy Marr expressed the opinion that Scotland would find it "very difficult" to join the EU in an interview with Alex Salmond with no blowback whatsoever, is it only racism you can't express an opinion about? When she was asked her opinion, should she have said "I'm not allowed to say"? Should the bloke who asked her opinion be reprimanded (as she was) for breaching BBC rules? The whole thing is a shitshow brought on by the BBC's craven deference to the right wing.

[Dons_1988]

9 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

The rules are that she is not allowed to express an opinion. She did, however correct she may be.
Someone has made a complaint and by the rules they have no choice but to uphold it. They clearly aren't that bothered though as no action is being taken against her.

BBC journalists express opinions on social media all the time, how do you square that circle? Jeremy Marr expressed the opinion that Scotland would find it "very difficult" to join the EU in an interview with Alex Salmond with no blowback whatsoever, is it only racism you can't express an opinion about? When she was asked her opinion, should she have said "I'm not allowed to say"? Should the bloke who asked her opinion be reprimanded (as she was) for breaching BBC rules? The whole thing is a shitshow brought on by the BBC's craven deference to the right wing.

David Jordan, the BBC's head of editorial standards, said Munchetty was not found in breach for "calling out racist comments, which is perfectly acceptable where things are clearly framed in racist language".

The problem was "not her responding to that clearly racist comment, or responding personally to what it's like as a person of colour to have a remark of that nature directed against yourself", he explained.

He said the issue arose "when she went on further to discuss President Trump himself, what his motivations were for that, and that breached our impartiality requirements".

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Earlier today I made a rare contribution to a ‘Have Your Say’ segment of a BBC News website thread.  The subject matter was a report entitled ‘SNP Hints At Backing Short-term Corbyn Government’.

(Depending on your political viewpoint) there was nothing particularly inflammatory or even novel in the article but it had obviously hit a raw nerve with quite a number of contributors.  No-one should have any problem with trenchant views, but a worrying percentage of posts had in my opinion crossed the lines marked ‘respect’ and ‘decency’.  In short, far too many were rabid, sexist and on occasion racist.  So I posted this:-

Reading many of these posts makes me wonder just what it takes to break the House Rules on this thread.  Ignorance and partisanship I can understand but the levels of aggression and noticeable anti-Scottish and anti-left wing invective are often beyond what I would consider acceptable.

If people cannot use reasoned argument then the moderators should act.

At 16.01 this afternoon I was informed by Email by the Central Communities Team that my post had broken the following House Rule:

‘We reserve the right to fail comments which are considered to be off-topic for the discussion’.

I’ve never bought into the conspiracy theories about the BBC but on today’s evidence their webmasters seem to have a warped sense of editorial judgement.

But I’ll live.

[welshbairn]

17 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Earlier today I made a rare contribution to a ‘Have Your Say’ segment of a BBC News website thread.  The subject matter was a report entitled ‘SNP Hints At Backing Short-term Corbyn Government’.

(Depending on your political viewpoint) there was nothing particularly inflammatory or even novel in the article but it had obviously hit a raw nerve with quite a number of contributors.  No-one should have any problem with trenchant views, but a worrying percentage of posts had in my opinion crossed the lines marked ‘respect’ and ‘decency’.  In short, far too many were rabid, sexist and on occasion racist.  So I posted this:-

Reading many of these posts makes me wonder just what it takes to break the House Rules on this thread.  Ignorance and partisanship I can understand but the levels of aggression and noticeable anti-Scottish and anti-left wing invective are often beyond what I would consider acceptable.

If people cannot use reasoned argument then the moderators should act.

At 16.01 this afternoon I was informed by Email by the Central Communities Team that my post had broken the following House Rule:

‘We reserve the right to fail comments which are considered to be off-topic for the discussion’.

I’ve never bought into the conspiracy theories about the BBC but on today’s evidence their webmasters seem to have a warped sense of editorial judgement.

But I’ll live.

They're incredibly defensive and protective. Remember getting short thrift when I asked how removing all the stats from the website results service could possibly be "delivering the user an enhanced experience". If you left the moderators out of it you might have got away with it.

Edited September 27, 2019 by welshbairn