|
Post by JohnV on Aug 4, 2021 12:48:02 GMT
this raises a relevant issue. Should the BBC give fair airtime (“oxygen”) to nutters like Trump, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, preppers, religious extremists, the gun lobby, anti 5G etc? Of which there seem to be an increasing number these days. And the number is increasing because these views are more readily accessible. Or should the BBC take the view that “these people / views etc are insane and dangerous and should not be given airtime”. It is a kind of censorship, and the BBC are deciding what is insane and what is reasonable. Which could be seen as quite arrogant. But I for one am glad they do it. It's a fair point. However, given that the BBC sided with Black Lives Matter, a dangerous organisation if there ever were one, without a proper critique of its political aims, it would quite wrong to dismiss a U.S. president, democratically elected, portraying him as a lunatic, without some balance as to his political aims. Still, that's what the BBC did. That is almost exactly the reply I was going to make to Nick.
The important point being, whatever you think of him, his politics, attitudes, honesty ...... he was still at that time the President of the United states and as such in a world of even handed reporting, Whatever you thought of him his actions and policies needed reporting even handedly ..... If they wished to make editorial comment then that was fine but the news should be given fully, openly and not hidden or ignored.
Watching the BBC there was no attempt at explaining why he got elected, why so many normal Americans voted for him, it seemed it was portrayed that the only people who voted Trump. were gun toting, racists, supported by un-educated red necks.
Now that does not sound to me like a fair demographic of the majority of American voters who put him in office. I wanted to know why and how someone like that got elected but that was not possible if the BBC was your only source.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 4, 2021 15:16:29 GMT
It's a fair point. However, given that the BBC sided with Black Lives Matter, a dangerous organisation if there ever were one, without a proper critique of its political aims, it would quite wrong to dismiss a U.S. president, democratically elected, portraying him as a lunatic, without some balance as to his political aims. Still, that's what the BBC did. That is almost exactly the reply I was going to make to Nick.
The important point being, whatever you think of him, his politics, attitudes, honesty ...... he was still at that time the President of the United states and as such in a world of even handed reporting, Whatever you thought of him his actions and policies needed reporting even handedly ..... If they wished to make editorial comment then that was fine but the news should be given fully, openly and not hidden or ignored.
Watching the BBC there was no attempt at explaining why he got elected, why so many normal Americans voted for him, it seemed it was portrayed that the only people who voted Trump. were gun toting, racists, supported by un-educated red necks.
Now that does not sound to me like a fair demographic of the majority of American voters who put him in office. I wanted to know why and how someone like that got elected but that was not possible if the BBC was your only source.
But why just pick on him. What about Saddam Hussein’s view on how and why he came to power and why his country needed him. Ditto for Litvinenko, gadaffi, al-Assad, even Hitler, or any other nut job who achieves power. Trump was popular because he was a nationalist, America first etc. That is a policy popular with the masses (look at the SNP) but not a good one for world peace etc. His public face was based on his Twitter utterings and apparently if things were going a bit wrong he would tweet something totally outrageous as a smokescreen. Not too surprising in this day and age that the Beeb’s opinion of him was mostly based on what he intentionally put into the public domain, rather than what was going on in the background.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 4, 2021 15:56:03 GMT
That is almost exactly the reply I was going to make to Nick.
The important point being, whatever you think of him, his politics, attitudes, honesty ...... he was still at that time the President of the United states and as such in a world of even handed reporting, Whatever you thought of him his actions and policies needed reporting even handedly ..... If they wished to make editorial comment then that was fine but the news should be given fully, openly and not hidden or ignored.
Watching the BBC there was no attempt at explaining why he got elected, why so many normal Americans voted for him, it seemed it was portrayed that the only people who voted Trump. were gun toting, racists, supported by un-educated red necks.
Now that does not sound to me like a fair demographic of the majority of American voters who put him in office. I wanted to know why and how someone like that got elected but that was not possible if the BBC was your only source.
But why just pick on him. What about Saddam Hussein’s view on how and why he came to power and why his country needed him. Ditto for Litvinenko, gadaffi, al-Assad, even Hitler, or any other nut job who achieves power. Trump was popular because he was a nationalist, America first etc. That is a policy popular with the masses (look at the SNP) but not a good one for world peace etc. His public face was based on his Twitter utterings and apparently if things were going a bit wrong he would tweet something totally outrageous as a smokescreen. Not too surprising in this day and age that the Beeb’s opinion of him was mostly based on what he intentionally put into the public domain, rather than what was going on in the background. The BBC are supposed to be an impartial, independent public broadcaster. Unlike Fox news, CNN etc. they are not owned by individuals. If a broadcaster is owned by private individuals they are free to be politically biased. The BBC on the other hand, is effectively owned by the licence payers. As such, the BBC has no right to broadcast biased news. If it requires them to grit their teeth while broadcasting a balance of items related to Trump, grit their teeth they must. One of the mottos of the BBC, one all its staff agreed to subscribe to before being employed there is 'we leave our opinions on our coat pegs' Comparing the theory of that to the reality of their balance of news and other reporting is quite laughable. A damning statistic emerged during the clip: Over 96% of 'experts' interviewed by the BBC before and after the Brexit referendum were in favour of remain. There's no need for precise maths as regards how many supported leave. You should set aside 45 minutes and watch it Nick. Bigots abound on internet forums, but you don't strike me as one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 4, 2021 17:17:37 GMT
But why just pick on him. What about Saddam Hussein’s view on how and why he came to power and why his country needed him. Ditto for Litvinenko, gadaffi, al-Assad, even Hitler, or any other nut job who achieves power. Trump was popular because he was a nationalist, America first etc. That is a policy popular with the masses (look at the SNP) but not a good one for world peace etc. His public face was based on his Twitter utterings and apparently if things were going a bit wrong he would tweet something totally outrageous as a smokescreen. Not too surprising in this day and age that the Beeb’s opinion of him was mostly based on what he intentionally put into the public domain, rather than what was going on in the background. The BBC are supposed to be an impartial, independent public broadcaster. Unlike Fox news, CNN etc. they are not owned by individuals. If a broadcaster is owned by private individuals they are free to be politically biased. The BBC on the other hand, is effectively owned by the licence payers. As such, the BBC has no right to broadcast biased news. If it requires them to grit their teeth while broadcasting a balance of items related to Trump, grit their teeth they must. One of the mottos of the BBC, one all its staff agreed to subscribe to before being employed there is 'we leave our opinions on our coat pegs' Comparing the theory of that to the reality of their balance of news and other reporting is quite laughable. A damning statistic emerged during the clip: Over 96% of 'experts' interviewed by the BBC before and after the Brexit referendum were in favour of remain. There's no need for precise maths as regards how many supported leave. You should set aside 45 minutes and watch it Nick. Bigots abound on internet forums, but you don't strike me as one of them. But as I explained earlier, being impartial doesn’t stretch to giving every (nutter) Tom dick and Harry equal airtime. The BBC decides which news stories to broadcast about whom, and which not to. Maybe that offends your sense of fair play but IMO thank god they do that. Should they for instance spend equal time broadcasting stuff about how wonderful Bashir Al-Assad is as per his supporters, and equal time showing how he has killed a good percentage of his own citizens and ruined his country just to stay in power. I think not. IMO the Beeb has to be impartial when it comes to U.K. politics. It doesn’t have to be impartial regarding the leaders of other countries some of whom are despots. As to your Brexit experts, perhaps this bias was because in general intelligent well educated people voted remain, whilst thick ill-educated people with no idea of the consequences but with a strong nationalistic and xenophobic streak, voted leave. You can’t really be an expert if you are thick and ill-educated.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 4, 2021 18:35:56 GMT
The BBC are supposed to be an impartial, independent public broadcaster. Unlike Fox news, CNN etc. they are not owned by individuals. If a broadcaster is owned by private individuals they are free to be politically biased. The BBC on the other hand, is effectively owned by the licence payers. As such, the BBC has no right to broadcast biased news. If it requires them to grit their teeth while broadcasting a balance of items related to Trump, grit their teeth they must. One of the mottos of the BBC, one all its staff agreed to subscribe to before being employed there is 'we leave our opinions on our coat pegs' Comparing the theory of that to the reality of their balance of news and other reporting is quite laughable. A damning statistic emerged during the clip: Over 96% of 'experts' interviewed by the BBC before and after the Brexit referendum were in favour of remain. There's no need for precise maths as regards how many supported leave. You should set aside 45 minutes and watch it Nick. Bigots abound on internet forums, but you don't strike me as one of them. But as I explained earlier, being impartial doesn’t stretch to giving every (nutter) Tom dick and Harry equal airtime. The BBC decides which news stories to broadcast about whom, and which not to. Maybe that offends your sense of fair play but IMO thank god they do that. Should they for instance spend equal time broadcasting stuff about how wonderful Bashir Al-Assad is as per his supporters, and equal time showing how he has killed a good percentage of his own citizens and ruined his country just to stay in power. I think not. IMO the Beeb has to be impartial when it comes to U.K. politics. It doesn’t have to be impartial regarding the leaders of other countries some of whom are despots. As to your Brexit experts, perhaps this bias was because in general intelligent well educated people voted remain, whilst thick ill-educated people with no idea of the consequences but with a strong nationalistic and xenophobic streak, voted leave. You can’t really be an expert if you are thick and ill-educated. If it's as you suggest, that 52% of the population are thick, ill educated etc. etc., then the BBC must cater for these people by giving balance to its broadcasts. These people are licence fee payers, just as much as anyone else. To not do so was a breach of its charter. The BBC is there to report politics, not to convince the people of BBC politics, which shouldn't exist. Again, why not view the clip? It's a tough call, arguing against something, when you haven't even seen it.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 4, 2021 19:32:46 GMT
But as I explained earlier, being impartial doesn’t stretch to giving every (nutter) Tom dick and Harry equal airtime. The BBC decides which news stories to broadcast about whom, and which not to. Maybe that offends your sense of fair play but IMO thank god they do that. Should they for instance spend equal time broadcasting stuff about how wonderful Bashir Al-Assad is as per his supporters, and equal time showing how he has killed a good percentage of his own citizens and ruined his country just to stay in power. I think not. IMO the Beeb has to be impartial when it comes to U.K. politics. It doesn’t have to be impartial regarding the leaders of other countries some of whom are despots. As to your Brexit experts, perhaps this bias was because in general intelligent well educated people voted remain, whilst thick ill-educated people with no idea of the consequences but with a strong nationalistic and xenophobic streak, voted leave. You can’t really be an expert if you are thick and ill-educated. If it's as you suggest, that 52% of the population are thick, ill educated etc. etc., then the BBC must cater for these people by giving balance to its broadcasts. These people are licence fee payers, just as much as anyone else. To not do so was a breach of its charter. The BBC is there to report politics, not to convince the people of BBC politics, which shouldn't exist. Again, why not view the clip? It's a tough call, arguing against something, when you haven't even seen it. Obviously I was being a little tongue in cheek. I don’t recall any imbalance in reporting Brexit, but then I didn’t have an axe to grind, I could see the arguments on both sides and my view was somewhere in the middle. In the end I voted leave but only to sway the scotland vs England statistics. My abiding memory of the campaign was the Boris Bus and the £350 million a week, so there must have been reasonably equal reporting. I’m sure that as mentioned earlier, both sides felt that the BBC were biased against them which probably means they were doing it right. I might watch someone else’s view on this topic if I have the time, but I am really more interested in my own view that has been accumulated over decades of observation, rather than 45 mins of sensationalism.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 4, 2021 19:47:49 GMT
If it's as you suggest, that 52% of the population are thick, ill educated etc. etc., then the BBC must cater for these people by giving balance to its broadcasts. These people are licence fee payers, just as much as anyone else. To not do so was a breach of its charter. The BBC is there to report politics, not to convince the people of BBC politics, which shouldn't exist. Again, why not view the clip? It's a tough call, arguing against something, when you haven't even seen it. Obviously I was being a little tongue in cheek. I don’t recall any imbalance in reporting Brexit, but then I didn’t have an axe to grind, I could see the arguments on both sides and my view was somewhere in the middle. In the end I voted leave but only to sway the scotland vs England statistics. My abiding memory of the campaign was the Boris Bus and the £350 million a week, so there must have been reasonably equal reporting. I’m sure that as mentioned earlier, both sides felt that the BBC were biased against them which probably means they were doing it right. I might watch someone else’s view on this topic if I have the time, but I am really more interested in my own view that has been accumulated over decades of observation, rather than 45 mins of sensationalism. Up to you of course but if you do decide to watch it you'll see that it's considered, rather than sensationalist.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 4, 2021 20:46:17 GMT
I watched the first 7 minutes. I’m not going to bother with any more. This has fake news written all over it. Half truths mixed in with opinion given as if it were fact. One example, the guy on question time complaining about the number of leavers vs remainders on the programme. But this was AFTER the referendum, so so what! Lots of people dressed in suits to make themselves look important. Do people really get sucked in by this sort of rubbish? Depressing!
Yes of course the BBC failed to properly expose the Martin Bashir thing and no doubt it’s true that they consider upholding their reputation as one of their highest priorities. But that causes bias only in the very rare cases where the BBC themselves are the news story.
Conflating general political bias with an over eager desire to maintain reputation just goes to show that the programme is irrational and sensationalist. I worry for the future when people can’t see this staring them in the face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 21:11:40 GMT
I didn't watch any of it but I was like "yeah yeah yeah" anyway.
Isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 4, 2021 21:19:02 GMT
I watched the first 7 minutes. I’m not going to bother with any more. This has fake news written all over it. Half truths mixed in with opinion given as if it were fact. One example, the guy on question time complaining about the number of leavers vs remainders on the programme. But this was AFTER the referendum, so so what! Lots of people dressed in suits to make themselves look important. Do people really get sucked in by this sort of rubbish? Depressing! Yes of course the BBC failed to properly expose the Martin Bashir thing and no doubt it’s true that they consider upholding their reputation as one of their highest priorities. But that causes bias only in the very rare cases where the BBC themselves are the news story. Conflating general political bias with an over eager desire to maintain reputation just goes to show that the programme is irrational and sensationalist. I worry for the future when people can’t see this staring them in the face. "the guy on question time" you presumably are talking about Lord Moore, editor of the Telegraph and the Spectator ........"fake news written all over it"
Yes I can see how you would think (after 7 minutes of a 45 minute program) that with people like that and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the Former Bishop of Rochester, Rod Liddle (ex director of the BBC Today program etc. etc.
well I would suggest that some of them probably went to a proper school ...... possibly a better one than you
Lord Pearson went to Eton but more importantly he was the author of Reeds Skippers Handbook
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 21:29:43 GMT
Going to a good school has no bearing on anyone's validity when it comes to
Damhikt !
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 4, 2021 21:32:08 GMT
Going to a good school has no bearing on anyone's validity when it comes to Damhikt ! just popped an edit in
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2021 21:37:41 GMT
Ok so the reeds thing I can deal with.
Eton no thanks. I went to Halliford school which while appearing to be a quiet stockbroker belt paid for private school jobbie was actually a jewel in the crown of high class deeply amazingly impressive quality education which would bring tears to the eyes of the unfortunates who sent their kids to Eton.
The fact I told the headmaster to fuck off in polite terms and left before my qualifications were completed just makes the Eton bots even more annoyed !
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 4, 2021 21:54:33 GMT
I watched the first 7 minutes. I’m not going to bother with any more. This has fake news written all over it. Half truths mixed in with opinion given as if it were fact. One example, the guy on question time complaining about the number of leavers vs remainders on the programme. But this was AFTER the referendum, so so what! Lots of people dressed in suits to make themselves look important. Do people really get sucked in by this sort of rubbish? Depressing! Yes of course the BBC failed to properly expose the Martin Bashir thing and no doubt it’s true that they consider upholding their reputation as one of their highest priorities. But that causes bias only in the very rare cases where the BBC themselves are the news story. Conflating general political bias with an over eager desire to maintain reputation just goes to show that the programme is irrational and sensationalist. I worry for the future when people can’t see this staring them in the face. Respect! for having a look. Next time, look a bit longer, and try to start looking with an open mind, rather than one that's already been made up.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 4, 2021 22:44:46 GMT
Posted something but it didn’t work, really can’t be bothered to rewrite it!
|
|