Emily Maitlis censored

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 mondite 27 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

and in other news.

Kuenssberg immediately acting as a mouthpiece for Cummings is fine.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-backs-laura-kuenssberg-after-complaints-...

4
 Danm79 27 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

It does make you wonder, what is an impartial broadcaster supposed to do when a government lies? 

6
 squarepeg 27 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Not invent their own lies/slant?

30
 kaiser 27 May 2020
In reply to Danm79:

What they're not meant to do is give us their opinion.

If lies have been told then the BBC's job is report the facts around how - and by whom - that has been alleged and/or proven or disproven

It was the 'blind loyalty' phrase that Maitlis has been disciplined for.  Regardless of one's own opinion (and I know we're all lovin' her eyesight gag) I think it's clear that she expressed her opinion there. 

Post edited at 21:57
 Robert Durran 27 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> and in other news.

> Kuenssberg immediately acting as a mouthpiece for Cummings is fine.

How is reporting what her source said wrong? 

5
 Yanis Nayu 27 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

At least she’s got her self-respect. 

2
 mondite 27 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> How is reporting what her source said wrong?

Because sources should be for leaks and other information dissemination where if the source is named they might lose their job.

It shouldnt be used for the press office or possibly Cummings himself to get out their story without actually being held accountable for it.

Peter Oborne sums up the problem with using these mysterious sources a lot better than I can.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-b...

If she was reporting what the tory press office had told her then fine since that would then allow them to be held accountable for the changing story. As it is though she just acts as a mouthpiece for them to push their narrative out without having to take responsibility.

Compare and contrast to Ferguson where it was "hell of a story" which also just happened to match the tory party line.

 KriszLukash 27 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> How is reporting what her source said wrong? 

Repeating what the powers at be are saying without analysis, fact checking, or critical assessment isn’t journalism, it’s lazy propaganda.

2
 HansStuttgart 27 May 2020
In reply to Danm79:

> It does make you wonder, what is an impartial broadcaster supposed to do when a government lies? 

wait until a judge rules that it is indeed a lie?

7
 Robert Durran 27 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> Repeating what the powers at be are saying without analysis, fact checking, or critical assessment isn’t journalism, it’s lazy propaganda.

Though I saw that she later reported another source (I think official one) pointing out that it contradicted the earlier one, which I felt was damning of No. 10.

 wintertree 27 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> How is reporting what her source said wrong?

A "source" is generally taken as someone releasing information that they probably shouldn't.

This "source" is giving opinion not releasing information.  Interpretation.  Spin.  This isn't a "source" this is propaganda.  Of bloody course the source says DC did no wrong - the succession of similarly worded tweets from a bunch of MPs including cabinet members make it pretty clear what's going on.

2
 Robert Durran 27 May 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> This "source" is giving opinion not releasing information.  

So every time a journalist quotes a "source", are they actually breaking any rules, written or otherwise, or are they effectively just saying that "this is an opinion". If the latter is understood, then I don't necessarily see it as a problem - in fact it might be quite illuminating.

5
 mondite 28 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

>  If the latter is understood, then I don't necessarily see it as a problem - in fact it might be quite illuminating.

Aside from the obvious fact its not just an opinion. A source give information. This might be their opinion eg MP thinks this is wrong or it might be a claimed fact eg "we will be aiming to pass this law".

If it is an anonymous source then the journalist should be able to justify why they are anonymous. Normally this would be because of the threat to their job/career/life.  Anonymous sources are important but they are also dangerous since its allowing claims to be pushed without accountability.

With LK she has made a habit of allowing the government to test out stories or push rebuttals out without actually having to defend them.

To take this case. Within half an hour of the original tweet she had a quote from a source close to Cummins. Since it is anonymous though despite it being used to try and get the counter narrative out there the person who provided it cant be challenged and asked why it doesnt add up.

This is far from the first time where she has quoted anonymous No10 sources early in a news cycle which turn out to be wrong.

All she is doing is providing a mouthpiece for No10 allowing them to push their claims without any critical analysis applied to it. Simply getting the story out handily anonymous so there is no ability to ask why the story changes.

2
 Trevers 28 May 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> wait until a judge rules that it is indeed a lie?

I can judge for myself that the emperor has no clothes and bears shit in the woods, because I'm a functional human.

1
 Trevers 28 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> This is far from the first time where she has quoted anonymous No10 sources early in a news cycle which turn out to be wrong.

The aide being punched in the face outside the Leeds General Infirmary...

Laura is a disgrace, and a huge part of what's gone wrong in this country over the last few years.

4

In reply to

Laura vs Emily, now there is a fight I would love to watch. 

No holds barred, winner decides the fate of DC. 

1
In reply to Danm79:

> It does make you wonder, what is an impartial broadcaster supposed to do when a government lies? 

It does make you wonder if a broadcaster which is completely dependent on the government for its income and whose board are selected by government will ever be impartial.

There was always bias but the Tories are using their power over the BBC far more overtly than previous governments.

7
 Tringa 28 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Although I agree with Emily Maitlis she was giving her opinion and I can understand the action taken.

I can't understand how Laura Kuenssberg is being biased.

Her tweet is clear it is reporting what a source has said about Dominic Cummings. She is not saying she thinks his trip was within the guidelines. It is no different to reporting, as LK and others have done, a number of ministers have said, privately, they want Dominic Cummings to go.

I would like to see all news media agree to refuse to report in any way on any anonymous statement.

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen so I think the onus is on us to critically read news items.

Dave

1
 Danm79 28 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It does make you wonder if a broadcaster which is completely dependent on the government for its income and whose board are selected by government will ever be impartial.

> There was always bias but the Tories are using their power over the BBC far more overtly than previous governments.

Very much so. This isn’t the worst example - you’ll remember immediately after the election they were threatening the BBC, using Trump-esque cry baby tactics over their “biased” coverage and announcing that people will not be pursued for the TV licence fee.

An impartial news service is a bad thing for a dishonest government. Looks to me like the plan is to weaken the BBC as far as possible and get cosied up with a Fox “News” type mouthpiece - presumably Sky once they’ve offered enough to satisfy Rupert Murdoch.

1
 mondite 28 May 2020
In reply to Tringa:

> Her tweet is clear it is reporting what a source has said about Dominic Cummings. She is not saying she thinks his trip was within the guidelines. It is no different to reporting, as LK and others have done, a number of ministers have said, privately, they want Dominic Cummings to go.

Yes it is. One is a valid, although sad, case of when to use an anonymous source. The other is allowing Cummings or one of his team to muddy the waters without being held accountable for doing so. If she had refused this "source" the luxury of being anonymous then they could be asked why the story changed.

The speed of her response is startling. Bearing in mind that for Ferguson it was "hell of a story" you would have thought a similar reaction would be true for Cummings.

She has repeatedly pushed inaccurate stories fed to her by "anonymous" sources. She is either incompetent or biased.

2
In reply to Tringa:

> I would like to see all news media agree to refuse to report in any way on any anonymous statement.

> Dave

So Watergate wouldn't have been reported on this basis?

 Robert Durran 28 May 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> Laura is a disgrace, and a huge part of what's gone wrong in this country over the last few years.

That just seems a laughably absurd statement to me. I can see that she needs to be less hasty in using her "sources" but I don't think I can recall any of her reporting ever coming across as deliberate bias. She always seems straight down the line to me. If those left if centre see her as disgracefully representing the right, then God knows what those right of centre must think of Maitlis - presumably that she is the devil incarnate. I think Maitlis is fantastic, but she certainly treads a fine line at times.

Post edited at 08:41
2
 Robert Durran 28 May 2020
In reply to Danm79:

> Very much so. This isn’t the worst example - you’ll remember immediately after the election they were threatening the BBC, using Trump-esque cry baby tactics over their “biased” coverage.

I am I no way defending this; in fact I deplore it. But you do realise that this is because the right really do think that the BBC is left of centre and anti-Brexit? Just like many left of centre think the reverse. 

1
 mondite 28 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I am I no way defending this; in fact I deplore it. But you do realise that this is because the right really do think that the BBC is left of centre and anti-Brexit?

So you arent defending it but you go on to provide a credulous support for it. While some of the credulous supporters might believe this do you really think the tory leadership actually think the BBC is biased against them or instead are using it as an excuse both to dodge questions (something aided and abetted by Kuenssbergs willingness to provide an anonymous mouthpiece) and also to pressure the BBC into self censorship and avoiding challenging them.

Do you think them dodging Andrew Neil was because of his well known left wing tendancies.

5
 Dave Garnett 28 May 2020
In reply to kaiser:

> It was the 'blind loyalty' phrase that Maitlis has been disciplined for.  Regardless of one's own opinion (and I know we're all lovin' her eyesight gag) I think it's clear that she expressed her opinion there. 

I agree.  It struck me that she'd overstepped the mark as she said it.  The programme did, indeed, go on to present damning evidence and a convincing argument for the prosecution, but it was still a case of interpretation of the rules and she overstepped the mark by presenting her opinion as though it were a legal fact.

She's quite right, but it's not her job to say so.   It might be OK to get annoyed in the heat of a frustrating interview but she was opening the programme.

Edit: I didn't see the programme last night but I see that she asked for the night off, which shows that at least someone still has some integrity.

Post edited at 09:42
 Robert Durran 28 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> So you arent defending it but you go on to provide a credulous support for it.

No I don't.

> While some of the credulous supporters might believe this do you really think the tory leadership actually think the BBC is biased against them or instead are using it as an excuse both to dodge questions.

Both.

> Do you think them dodging Andrew Neil was because of his well known left wing tendancies.

No, I think it is because they knew he would tear Johnson to shreds.

Domonic's coming 28 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Don't like Emily. She's going to be last pick in our playground teams from now on. I like Laura, she's coming to my house for tea next week.

 Trevers 28 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> That just seems a laughably absurd statement to me. I can see that she needs to be less hasty in using her "sources" but I don't think I can recall any of her reporting ever coming across as deliberate bias. She always seems straight down the line to me. If those left if centre see her as disgracefully representing the right, then God knows what those right of centre must think of Maitlis - presumably that she is the devil incarnate. I think Maitlis is fantastic, but she certainly treads a fine line at times.

Remember that doctored interview of Corbyn asked about a "shoot to kill" policy? Regardless of your position on Corbyn, she shouldn't have been able to continue in her job after such a clear display of bias.

Since then, there have been a huge number of 'mistakes', of which the LGI incident is the most obvious. Kuenssberg is one of the worst offenders for resorting to anonymous government sources, which as Oborne has pointed out, turns her into a mouthpiece for government propaganda without the excuse of protecting someone. It would be bad enough for a tabloid hack, but for the BBC political editor is completely unacceptable.

Reporting hearsay/opinion from a number of sides is not balance.

Post edited at 12:22
 Robert Durran 28 May 2020
In reply to Trevers:

> Since then, there have been a huge number of 'mistakes'

But is she willfully biased rather than maybe just not very good at her job?

I just find her writing and televised reporting a bit bland and lacking in anything particularly incisive, almost as if she is trying a bit too hard to play it safe.

1
 Trevers 28 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But is she willfully biased rather than maybe just not very good at her job?

> I just find her writing and televised reporting a bit bland and lacking in anything particularly incisive, almost as if she is trying a bit too hard to play it safe.

Either way, she should go.

1
 Dave Garnett 28 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

BTW, did you mean censored, or perhaps censured?  I'm not sure either has formally happened has it?

 The New NickB 28 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

It strikes me that Maitlis' Newnight intro was an attempt convey the public mood and also trail segments of the programme, which would deal with pretty damning evidence against Cummings and Johnsons unconditional support. I understand that part of the ruling from the BBC, has that the intro didn't sufficiently make the link with the more evidential later segments. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I can understand it.

Kuenssberg has a habit of using "sources" inappropriately. It's bad journalism and when the sources often portray a narrative that is both beneficial to one side and often later shown to be inaccurate, you have to question either the impartiality or the competence of the journalist.

 The New NickB 28 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> How is reporting what her source said wrong? 

In this case, it is clear that the source is either Cummings or someone working on his behalf.

"my source says Cummings did nothing wrong" reads very differently to "Cummings says he did nothing wrong".

 Robert Durran 28 May 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> In this case, it is clear that the source is either Cummings or someone working on his behalf.

If it is that clear, is it such a problem? 

3
 mondite 28 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If it is that clear, is it such a problem? 

Yes because its not attributable.

So the original ludricious excuse was the parents were helping with childcare. They realised this didnt fly so went with plan b later.

If it had been someones name on it then they could be asked why the discrepancy between the two stories.

Can you not see a problem with her allowing Cummings or his associates to be able to put their side of their story forward in a way which, when they realise it doesnt work, they dont have to own?

1
 TobyA 28 May 2020
In reply to KriszLukash:

> Repeating what the powers at be are saying without analysis, fact checking, or critical assessment isn’t journalism, it’s lazy propaganda.

It is alright for her to report what Labour or SNP sources are saying?

In reply to TobyA:

If they are of a similar nature to those that are clearly from an equivalent to Cummings, then, no.

As above, 'sources' should only be used when the source is vulnerable as a result of revealing information, not simply as a means to pass unattributable public statements.

 The New NickB 28 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If it is that clear, is it such a problem? 

That was a clear example, it isn't always clear. More importantly, because it isn't attributable, it is deniable. The alleged assault of one of Hancock's team by a Labour activist is a good example, it was complete rubbish used to deflect a story, if it had been attributable, the person making the claim would have been shown to be a liar.

 TobyA 28 May 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

That might be nice in a perfect world, but it's not the way that journalism works. It's strange that people feel so strongly about this because off the record or not for attribution are hardly new ideas. Hearing Keunssberg on Newscast everyday has definitely left me with an impression of much more disquiet over this from even within the cabinet, let alone the wider party than you get from statements and coordinated tweet drops. That's because people talk to her (and other lobby correspondents) knowing their position will be expressed but their name not shared. Hancock's complete unwillingness to say that he thought Cummings was right this morning on the 8.10 interview on Today was all the more interesting against that briefing that goes on to the lobby - he didn't condemn Cummings but he absolutely was not going to back him either.

2
In reply to TobyA:

> It is alright for her to report what Labour or SNP sources are saying?

Kuenssberg never said anything positive about the SNP or Scottish Independence in her life. 

She's a Tory like most of the BBC journalists these days.   

The way journalists get taken off air and cops decide not to prosecute an offence which was admitted on TV shows the degree to which the current crop of Brexiteer Tories are using their power to manipulate organs of the state which are supposed to be impartial.

7
 wintertree 28 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The way journalists get taken off air and cops decide not to prosecute an offence which was admitted on TV shows the degree to which the current crop of Brexiteer Tories are using their power to manipulate organs of the state which are supposed to be impartial.

Yeah but at least the attorney general has remained stolidly impartial.  Oh no, actually she betrayed the law -  youtube.com/watch?v=2aaubVlhNK4&

 mondite 28 May 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> That might be nice in a perfect world, but it's not the way that journalism works. It's strange that people feel so strongly about this because off the record or not for attribution are hardly new ideas.

Yes but not in the way it is being used here. Its the tories using Kuenssberg as a mouthpiece to try out ideas and/or push a narrative without then having to be accountable for it. 

Off the record for a cabinet minister about their happiness is one thing but off the record with the same minister so they can test whether their plan to execute all first borns will fly or not is another.

One is journalism the other is PR work.

2
In reply to Tringa:

> Her tweet is clear it is reporting what a source has said about Dominic Cummings.

'A source says' is like 'allegedly'  you put it before whatever sh*t you want to write so you can't get done for it.  If anyone asks who the source was you say it is confidential.

You can see whose side the BBC is on most clearly in the weeks before the election.   That's when it is important enough to blow their cover e.g. Kuenssberg with the postal vote story.   She's getting fed stories by Downing Street and they have her back via the Tory appointments on the BBC board.

5
 Robert Durran 28 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Kuenssberg never said anything positive about the SNP or Scottish Independence in her life. 

Maybe she is just showing the professional impartiality expected of BBC journalists.

> She's a Tory like most of the BBC journalists these days.   

I've no idea, but as long as they remain impartial I don't really care who they vote for.

2
 Jon Stewart 28 May 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> wait until a judge rules that it is indeed a lie?

Can you not see that that's a really really bad idea? When someone in power tells blatant lies with the gravity of those told by Cummings and Johnson, they must be called out straight away: we don't believe you, don't treat us like fools, lying to the public is unacceptable.

Post edited at 22:08
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:

No to mention: when was the last time a politician had to face a judge...?

 Jon Stewart 28 May 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I agree.  It struck me that she'd overstepped the mark as she said it.

Damn79 hit the nail on the head:

It does make you wonder, what is an impartial broadcaster supposed to do when a government lies? 

> She's quite right, but it's not her job to say so. 

I'm not convinced. When the government lies, the job of the impartial journalist is to call it out and report on the facts. Given all of the facts, especially the public reaction to the scandal, I don't see how Johnson's position can be described, impartially, as anything other than "blind loyalty". "Risible, retarded loyalty" might arguably have been overstepping the mark, but only on the grounds that "retarded" is not politically correct.

Post edited at 22:21
1
 HansStuttgart 28 May 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Can you not see that that's a really really bad idea? When someone in power tells blatant lies with the gravity of those told by Cummings and Johnson, they must be called out straight away: we don't believe you, don't treat us like fools, lying to the public is unacceptable.

To me it is the same as a journalist describing a murderer as a murderer as opposed to a person suspected of murder before the trial.

Lying is a serious offence for a politician (or at least, it should be). I'd be ok with a journalist saying "politician said that, most people consider this a lie." (as long as it is backed up with data, as it is in this case.) So in this case "Cummings undertook a trip to the Castle. A majority of the people think this broke the rules."

2
 Jon Stewart 28 May 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

I think that reporters stating facts - like DC breaking the rules - is not a problem we should be worrying about. 

1
 HansStuttgart 28 May 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I think that reporters stating facts - like DC breaking the rules - is not a problem we should be worrying about. 

Agreed, that one I don't mind. My original comment was about the example of a journalist deciding that a politician is lying.

Post edited at 22:41
 Timmd 29 May 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

If Emily Maitlis had said something along the lines of  'Dominic Cummings said he hadn't driven to the castle, while a member of the public said he'd seen him there. I'm sure the truth will come out in the wash.' I guess that could have been impartial while alluding to him lying? I might have been tempted to.

Post edited at 09:16
 TobyA 29 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Kuenssberg never said anything positive about the SNP or Scottish Independence in her life. 

 That's not what I said, she reports what sources tell her from pretty much all the parties.

> She's a Tory like most of the BBC journalists these days.   

I'm impressed with your certainty on that. Has Laura told you this herself?

1
 TobyA 29 May 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> the job of the impartial journalist is to call it out and report on the facts. 

'Calling it out' is the job of the editorial writer arguably.

I was listening to David Milliband being interviewed on Amicus yesterday, an American legal podcast from Slate. He said something really interesting, that in the US they simply don't have any news that even tries to be impartial - I don't know if not even aiming for impartiality is necessarily better than trying and sometimes failing.

1
 Robert Durran 29 May 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> He said something really interesting, that in the US they simply don't have any news that even tries to be impartial - I don't know if not even aiming for impartiality is necessarily better than trying and sometimes failing.

Yes, this is what really terrifies me about the vitriolic partisan attacks on the BBC from both left and right and why I tend to defend it to the hilt. Of course the BBC and its journalists aren't perfect, but the very fact that they are supposed to be allows us to legitimately scrutinise their impartiality. If the BBC (or at least its duty to strive for impartiality) goes, where does it leave us? Yes, like the US, with nowhere even approximating impartiality to turn to.

2
 Dave Garnett 29 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> She's a Tory like most of the BBC journalists these days.   

You sound like you miss the good old days when they were all Labour voting.

All nonsense, of course.  All I know is that whenever anyone would rather the BBC didn't keep going on about something inconvenient they start whining about its obvious political bias.  

1
 Timmd 29 May 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

It 'depends', like there can be lying by omission, there can be bias by omission too, but it takes a lot of analysis to figure out when something like the BBC is being so, in going through it's coverage over say six months and looking into what was said about different party leaders, the number of negative bits of coverage and positive ones.

It takes going to a specific website/organisation in the end, which is possibly not infallible but a pretty decent pointer still.

Post edited at 11:15
 mondite 29 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, this is what really terrifies me about the vitriolic partisan attacks on the BBC from both left and right and why I tend to defend it to the hilt.

I assume you are centrist and so the BBC default bias suits you nicely although surely even you have noticed that its default position is shifting in response to the threats from the tories about funding their response seems to become more and more craven to the party in power (I have no doubt if a hard left party took over they would rapidly shift to suit them).

At some point they stop being a useful resource since the one thing worse than having no impartial sources is having partial ones pretending to be impartial.

2
 Robert Durran 29 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I assume you are centrist and so the BBC default bias suits you nicely.

Yes, I'm pretty centrist (I'd be very happy with a Labour government under Keir Starmer and I'd probably vote LibDem if we had PR). But I'd like to think that even if my politics did move in either direction that I'd want the BBC to continue striving for impartiality. 

>........although surely even you have noticed that its default position is shifting in response to the threats from the tories about funding.

I must admit I havn't with respect to their politics journalism.

> At some point they stop being a useful resource since the one thing worse than having no impartial sources is having partial ones pretending to be impartial.

Yes, but I'd rather have a slightly partial one which we are able to hold accountable for straying from impartiality than a US style free for all.

 Dave Garnett 29 May 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> I was listening to David Milliband being interviewed on Amicus yesterday, an American legal podcast from Slate. He said something really interesting, that in the US they simply don't have any news that even tries to be impartial - I don't know if not even aiming for impartiality is necessarily better than trying and sometimes failing.

It's true.  Everyone knows about Fox on the right (and when I say right I mean off the scale swivel-eyed raving sometimes) but on the left I think MSNBC, for instance, is almost as worrying in a subtler way.  On the radio too, apparently sensible, dull even, PBS like my favourite KPBS in San Diego will introduce a discussion on All Things Considered (the closest they have to Today on R4) with comments that carry an obvious bias to my ears.  Admittedly, it's often a story about the most recent Trump insanity where it's difficult not to sound incredulous, but it's the norm for presenters to let their own opinions show at least as clearly as Emily Maitlis did, exceptionally, the other night.

I don't think I've ever seen a balanced political discussion with a representative of both camps debating and answering incisive questions, it's just not a format they have outside of the formal electoral debates.  I love Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, for instance, but after a while the fact that she only ever interviews sympathetic Democrats bothers me.  Perhaps no Republican would go on, I don't know, but the polarisation has become pathological.  They have discussions on Fox but there the protagonists range from moderates on the far right to radicals on the far extreme right. 

I don't watch enough to be sure, but perhaps the channel that comes closest to being neutral is CNN.  Then again, a lot of that is so shallow and headlines-based that there's not much room for bias (except in the selection of what they choose to cover, and that's hard to gauge).  It seems pretty middle of the road but clearly Trump doesn't think so.

I really think we don't appreciate how unusual, unique perhaps, the BBC is in its attempts to be impartial.  They don't always get it right, but the rare instances of bias aren't all the same way.  They've accepted the criticism that a lot of their comedy was from the left, for instance (although I don't recall the Labour government getting an easy ride on the News Quiz), and made a real effort to get some more right wing comics on.  I don't have to agree with the politics of Simon Evans or Geoff Norcott to find them funny, and sometimes they have a good political point to make. 

The fact that neutrality is written into the BBC charter is crucial and the overt intention of this government to destroy it is the most blatant and ambitious attempt at political interference I can recall.  The Blair government (Alastair Campbell actually) was pretty heavy-handed over the accusations of sexing up the WMD justification for the invasion of Iraq, but at least that was about a particular issue, it wasn't an attempt to destroy the whole organisation.   

Post edited at 13:13
1
 The New NickB 29 May 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

One thing that worries me is the proliferation of activist / think tank / commentator types being used in "balanced" discussions, they don't come on for discussion, they come on to dish a very specific agenda. I was listening to the radio the other day (R4 or 5Live, can't remember) and they had Darren Grimes on to discuss Dominic Cummings. Obviously Grimes wrote it all off as a leftist conspiracy, but it wasn't explained that Grimes is in Cummings pocket and carried out a massive electoral fraud on behalf of Cummings and Vote Leave.

 mondite 29 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But I'd like to think that even if my politics did move in either direction that I'd want the BBC to continue striving for impartiality. 

You are missing the point really. That the BBC will have a bias towards your position which might explain why you miss when they fail to maintain impartiality.

I am not sure how anyone could see the recent election campaign as being covered impartially by the BBC.

Peter Oborne, who is no left winger, is good on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/03/election-coverage-bbc...

The problem is the BBC seems completely cowed after the WMD investigation and are becoming ever more craven towards the government of the days demands.

As such they are rapidly reaching the stage where they lose all claim at impartiality.

Its rather odd how all these errors seem to be in favour of one side. At some stage there has to be a nagging suspicion it is bias rather than incompetence.

Especially when if a journalist goes the other way there is instant apologies.

1
 Robert Durran 29 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> You are missing the point really. That the BBC will have a bias towards your position which might explain why you miss when they fail to maintain impartiality.

The bias you and others on here are claiming certainly isn't towards my position!

> I am not sure how anyone could see the recent election campaign as being covered impartially by the BBC.

> Peter Oborne, who is no left winger, is good on it.

Ok, even if I accept that, there remains the fact that many on the right still think they are biased to the left - which suggests things havn't gone too far wrong so far. Whatever the situation is, I think the crucial point is that they still have a duty of impartiality and can be held to account if they stray. That article recognises just how valuable the BBC is - if we lost the BBC, it would be  national disaster.

> As such they are rapidly reaching the stage where they lose all claim at impartiality.

I think that is something of an exaggeration.

1
 Dave Garnett 29 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> As such they are rapidly reaching the stage where they lose all claim at impartiality.

That's ridiculous.  You need to watch some US TV if you want to know what losing all claim to impartiality looks like.

1
 Timmd 29 May 2020
In reply to The New NickB: That's concerning. 

 TobyA 29 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> That the BBC will have a bias towards your position which might explain why you miss when they fail to maintain impartiality.

That sounds a lot like special pleading - basically they aren't partial towards your worldview, therefore they aren't "impartial" and are biased towards someone you disagree with. Impartiality is social context as much as anything else - it can only exist with in the mainstream socio-politico-economic situation that is modern Britain. The BBC isn't impartial to racists, or homophobes or Marxist-Leninists. At best they stick to some centre ground between the major political groupings within the UK.

Interestingly I'm just listening to last night's Coronavirus Newscast and Kuenssberg is, I think it would be fair to say, pouring petrol onto the Cummings fire explaining how four cabinet ministers - not just ministers mind, but cabinet ministers, have contacted her to say Cummings should go, one she said could hardly speak because he was so angry (I wonder if it was Hancock after taking a kicking on Today? He quite clearly would NOT say Cummings has acted acceptably). She says there is a "fracture" between the No.10 team, and many others in the Cabinet and then the parliamentary Tory party more wisely. Would it be better if those ministers just came out and resigned? Absolutely, they should have the balls, but that's not the way if works. We wouldn't know that without the lobby getting off the record briefings.

They're now replaying the bit where Johnson stopped the scientists from answering Kuenssberg's question at yesterday's briefing - with Adam Flemming's comments seeming to be like he's just found a small bottle of petrol and wants to join in the burn-y fun. They've said a number of times this week that the old rule of thumb is if a scandal keeps going a week and gets in the Sunday papers after a week, the person at the centre has to go. Far be it for me to suggest they a partial to making sure this story keeps running!

Post edited at 23:36
 Robert Durran 30 May 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Interestingly I'm just listening to last night's Coronavirus Newscast and Kuenssberg is, I think it would be fair to say, pouring petrol onto the Cummings fire.

Also interesting that the 5 Live presenter said that people had been phoning in complaining that the BBC had an agenda to keep the Cummings story running.

In reply to TobyA:

> Interestingly I'm just listening to last night's Coronavirus Newscast and Kuenssberg is, I think it would be fair to say, pouring petrol onto the Cummings fire

To be fair to LK, I saw the Newscast on Thursday, after Johnson's "matter is closed" standup. She asked very good questions, and was clearly pissed off to be shut down and have her question to the advisors deflected by Johnson.

 wintertree 30 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Also interesting that the 5 Live presenter said that people had been phoning in complaining that the BBC had an agenda to keep the Cummings story running.

Although it’s getting far less coverage on the BBC than on many newspapers.

1
 Pefa 30 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

The BBC are the voice of the establishment, the ruling class and that is why I won't give them a penny ever again.Up in Scotland they are the voice of unionism and a cringing embarrassing devotion to one football team. They are the voice of British imperialism to although occasionally a lone voice has broke through to make the odd program that highlights our past crimes but that is very rare in the bbc's history. Nah I won't watch any of their Tory nonsense and lies and I certainly won't fund it bar their Stewart Lee dvds.

9
 Dave Garnett 30 May 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> The BBC are the voice of the establishment, the ruling class and that is why I won't give them a penny ever again.

I think, in its broadest sense, maybe it is the nearest thing we have to the voice of the establishment but that's very different to being the voice of government, let alone 'the ruling class' (what do you think that means?).  The voice of reason, perhaps?

> They are the voice of British imperialism

I'm not sure would that would even sound like in 2020, but a lot like Nigel Farage probably. 

> I certainly won't fund it bar their Stewart Lee dvds.

Stewart Lee, that privately schooled, Oxford graduate pillar of the establishment?  You're going soft! 

 Pefa 30 May 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I think, in its broadest sense, maybe it is the nearest thing we have to the voice of the establishment but that's very different to being the voice of government, let alone 'the ruling class' (what do you think that means?).  The voice of reason, perhaps?

The Ruling Class doesn't change whereas the government does and the only reason behind their voice is their own self interest and privilege above others. 

> I'm not sure would that would even sound like in 2020, but a lot like Nigel Farage probably. 

It sounds like spreading constant lies when reporting our and our allies destabilisation attack programs (imperialism) in other countries say for example Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Yemen, HK, Venezuela etc and our imperialistic propaganda assaults on target countries who counter our attacks on these nations, for example Russia and China.The BBC are a big part in softening up the British electorate by spreading the manufactured lies about the leaders and forces of countries we target for regime change. 

This is pretty basic stuff when you have seen it played out once it is easy to spot although the creativity intelligence forces employ in each individual target country is fascinating yet very predictable. I suppose the most fascinating matter is how easy it is to con the British people, it's ridiculously easy. Just tell them what they want to here, which is that we are always the good guys with good intentions and then you can get away with anything from genocide to looting of countries and the BBC will keep quiet about it. 

> Stewart Lee, that privately schooled, Oxford graduate pillar of the establishment?  You're going soft! 

Don't get me wrong he's no communist but he is the most intelligent comedian by far and he has a kindness about him which is rare in that field these days,although he can be scathing to. To be fair Frankie Boyle's better politically. 

2
 AllanMac 30 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

The systematic gagging of media criticism by government would seem to be part of an insidious agenda of forcing though unpalatable policy and behaviours of the figureheads who are supposedly representing us. Cummings represents no-one, yet he has been anointed as someone more representative of policy than the prime minister. 

Fintan O'Toole, a journalist who commands the greatest of respect, sees this as 'pre-fascism'... "Put something outrageous out there, pull it back, adjust, go again". Each time it goes again, it gets legitimised as 'fact' by certain sectors of the right wing media. "If done enough times, people get used to something that they may have initially recoiled from'" - who then go on to accept further refinement and calibration of 'alternative facts'. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-ar...

O'Toole further writes: "fascism does not require a majority – it typically comes to power with about 40 per cent support and then uses control and intimidation to consolidate that power. So it doesn’t matter if most people hate you, as long as your 40 per cent is fanatically committed". 

Look at what Trump is attempting to do with Twitter. Then look at what is happening with the BBC, who painstakingly cover their tracks with the old 'impartiality' line. Emily Maitlis spoke truth to power and got her fingers burnt. Why? Is there something else going on with the BBC, other than just the maintenance of what is now loosely termed as 'impartiality' - but more like a licence to gag any dissent from the party line? 

 Robert Durran 30 May 2020
In reply to AllanMac:

> Is there something else going on with the BBC, other than just the maintenance of what is now loosely termed as 'impartiality' - but more like a licence to gag any dissent from the party line? 

If so, I imagine Kuensberg will need to be gagged for the stuff she said and revealed on the Newscast referred to just up the thread.

Post edited at 12:23
 ClimberEd 30 May 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Yes because its not attributable.

>

> Can you not see a problem with her allowing Cummings or his associates to be able to put their side of their story forward in a way which, when they realise it doesnt work, they dont have to own?

It's known as a test ballon and is used by organisations and political parties the world over. You send a 'tit bit' out to see what the reaction is and then decide whether to continue with the 'tit bit plan' or another one.

 jkarran 30 May 2020
In reply to Tringa:

> I can't understand how Laura Kuenssberg is being biased.

> Her tweet is clear it is reporting what a source has said about Dominic Cummings. She is not saying she thinks his trip was within the guidelines. It is no different to reporting, as LK and others have done, a number of ministers have said, privately, they want Dominic Cummings to go.

The problem is the source if not Cummings is a Cummings sock puppet playing us like a fish.

Kunesberg isn't daft, it's the price of access. 

Jk

Post edited at 14:25
 Robert Durran 30 May 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Kunesberg isn't daft, it's the price of access. 

Of course. And if she can also report a cabinet minister saying that they are privately incensed by Cummings, it is probably a price worth paying in the public interest.

1
 Pefa 30 May 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Of course. And if she can also report a cabinet minister saying that they are privately incensed by Cummings, it is probably a price worth paying in the public interest.

I disagree since she is part of the clique she tries to bury the initial story to help them then when it is apparent to all that can never happen as he has been caught red handed then she has nothing to lose by throwing in some news about some Tory or other being annoyed. It's hardly groundbreaking news or risqué when there are over 60 of them is it? 

 Robert Durran 30 May 2020
In reply to Pefa:

>  It's hardly groundbreaking news or risqué when there are over 60 of them is it? 

60 cabinet ministers?

 Myfyr Tomos 30 May 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

Aah, right. Somewhat disappointed after reading the thread title. Thought it might be some previously unpublished photos of La belle Emily.

 nufkin 30 May 2020
In reply to Pefa:

>  I won't watch any of their Tory nonsense and lies and I certainly won't fund it bar their Stewart Lee dvds.

Where ought we stand vis a vis Gardener's World?

 >  occasionally a lone voice has broke through to make the odd program that highlights our past crimes but that is very rare in the bbc's history

Have a watch of W1A - I think the whole run's on iPlayer at the moment

Post edited at 16:41

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...