"And still they gazed and still the wonder grew. That one small head could carry all he knew.
And that small head knew that Impaire Et Passe would win the Champion Hurdle."
Slim (28th May 2020)
A shout out to those who were claiming the BBC were fair and impartial - scrutiny on both sides horseshite - during the UK general election and even Brexit before that. Anyone on here still believe it?
moehat (28th May 2020)
A Cummings is now a golfing term. It's a really long drive that goes way out of bounds but incurs no penalty.
The older I get the better I was.
Don't think I'd heard of Cummings before as politics bores me - but he's given me a right laugh with this and the fact that he's got away with it, so I quite like this strange looking guy now
Must see if I can get a Cummings mask, then I could drive wherever I like and stay overnight with impunity.
Last edited by Wolf; 28th May 2020 at 5:06 PM.
As far as news/current affairs programmes are concerned I feel they are just right wing puppets. However, when it comes to dramas [eg Years and Years] and a lot of the history programmes/documentaries on BBC4 they are the complete opposite. Which is probably why the government seem to want to get rid of BBC4.
The right wing or left wing perceived bias thing is to do with politics not always being portrayed in a technically clear way that actually suits or acknowledges left wing or right wing agendas.
In other words, the public accept the narrative, but just disagree on what chapter of the book we are actually reading from.
I will try and explain further. If it was clearly to the left, 90 + percent of people would be able to identify it as such, or vice versa. It seems half the public feel its biased one way and half feel its biased the other way.
So again, I will try and expand and explain why this is the case and what this means.
E.G. Look at newspapers. They have always had a difference in styles of writing, detail and what they deem a story or not, etc.
The words used, the imagery, even the people who write the articles and the (typically upper middle class) backgrounds they come from, can imply a technical political bias due to the way news output is constructed or 'put together'.
My point is, the same technical issues are also prevelent on television, and why wouldn't they be?
In the old days you had people like David Frost or Jeremy Paxman. They were world reknowned BBC journalists.
The trend nowadays seems to be that if you are a political editor, you do a year as political editor at the BBC, then move to poltical editor of ITV a year later, then Channel 4 while finishing your career off at Sky News.
In other words, the journalists, have almost become itemised like an individual brand that hovers about from one channel to another!
How many LBC presenters do you see all over the BBC or ITV each day. Now ask yourself how many BBC journalists have slots on LBC. None!
I know we are all friends and stuff, so I am sure the head of BBC goes to dinner with their counterpart at ITV each night, but the reality is that there has never been so much competetion amongst terrestrial and media broadcasters, right?
Something doesn't quite add up.
E.G a DJ plays rap music on radio 1, another DJ plays pop on another station. A third DJ plays rock and roll on another station.
Then one day, the powers that be decide to send DJ (A) to station 3, DJ (B) to station 1 and DJ (C) to station 2.
The output is going to be different as they all play a different tunes!
The channels also gain a completely different demographic and the cause-and-affect is the old status quo of channels that did have a clear positive political bias, (in the same way the Daily Mirror is clearly biased to the left)...well...they all become more intertwined into a perceived 'middle ground,' which of course doesn't actually exist!
Check out Faisel Islam. He started off at Channel 4, then moved on the political editor of Sky, then ITV but now does the same role at the BBC.
In summation, what this all means is that the BBC mandate and modus operandi, (in a political output sense), overall is to really monitor other media and mirror them, in the same way a heavyweight boxer mirrors his opponent.
I reckon there is a correlation between the more to the right the newspapers go, (most of them as we know, are to the right,) and the further perceived bias of the BBC.
I worry there is no way back from this journalistic disorder.
This is what the powers that be wanted for this countries political journalism.
Poliitcal bias has never been so unclear and clear to so many people at the same time.
It really can't be both of the above.
Unless we have entered into a kind 'all things to all people' form of journalistic discourse, which as I said ends up appealing to a centre ground of no 'apparant bias' which obviously doesn't actually exist!
Last edited by Marb; 29th May 2020 at 1:21 AM.
The hys was there because the BBC printed another article about Cummings - after the Tory press had given up on the subject.
The comments were along the lines that the BBC was trying a hatchet job on him because of the success of Brexit.
I don't believe that the comments were part of some grand conspiracy.
Cummings breaks the rules and lies.
His wife supports his lies.
M P`s and senior ministers flood the media and lie.
The Prime Minister blatantly repeats the lies ….all of them treating the public as fools.
Maitlis factually reports this....and is reprimanded.
Colin Phillips (29th May 2020), Desert Orchid (29th May 2020)
I think you should look at the coordinated talking points repeated by accounts of Tory ministers and amplified by bots throughout the internet's various social media platforms. It would be very interesting to see where that thread leads if followed. Anyone who threatens to do so is subjected to a huge amount of abuse. In other news, where is that Russian report again?
Re a BBC esteemed reporter generally considered to be on the left:
John Humphrys has lifted the lid on the BBC's "institutional liberal bias" and accused the corporation of being out of touch with the nation in his memoir.
The veteran broadcaster, who retired from Radio 4's Today show two days ago, says bosses "badly failed" to read the public's mood on Brexit and "simply could not grasp" why anybody voted Leave.
Opening para from an article in the Daily Telegraph 21st September 2019. I don't see how any balanced, fair-minded person can believe the BBC were not anti-Brexit.
Daily Telegraph reporting a liberal bias in the BBC. Fair enough then.
I don't hold any opinion on Humphreys. Nor do I particularly care about Brexit. But certainly if the elected Green Party members were as prominent or well known as unelected Farage, Bloom, Hamilton, Widdicombe etc it would give an idea of just how much media has to play in amplified the 'far right' position and feeding the populism/racism. However, the flip side is how every instance of a liberal bias is highlighted and amplified. It is critical to the narrative of victimhood, especially using trigger words like 'out of touch with the people' or 'its a matter for free speech'. If I worked for a week at the BBC and posted on Facebook how I came across all these "remoaners" in the canteen, there is a 50/50 shot it would be published in the Telegraph or Daily Mail. It needs to be amplified. Its ultimately what allows for Cummings and Johnson to lie with no consequence. If Emily Matliss points it out, she gets reprimanded.
That would mirror my thoughts on the BBC's coverage of the Brexit referendum.
I would add that subsequent to the vote, they quickly adopted a "this is the will of the people" attitude and from that point got right behind it. Prior to the vote they were very much stay oriented.
Last edited by simmo; 29th May 2020 at 11:56 AM.
https://twitter.com/Sujayanth/status...13710441766912
Its coming for ye lads. A couple of years, hopefully, down the track but all part of the same stable of leaders and campaigning. There is some percentage out there that are welcoming the rapture. #mediascum