National News The BBC

You quote someone when you are putting distance between you and them as you are unsure if what they are saying is true. This is a fact. Also, if that is so why do later news reports not include the quotation marks?

Maybe they corrected an error quickly.

Come on QR, you are very quick to compliment the EU when they quickly correct a mistake or reverse a decision, why not the BBC ? 😉
 
Anyway one example isn't proof either way. I started this thread as a place to drop examples either way.
You can do. But you also put quotation marks around phrases when you are simply quoting them, hence their name! It's a bit odd to presume that the BBC are doing the former, without seeming to consider that they are using them in the more normal way!
Why did they remove them later?
 
Example two.

On Friday, the day of the ruling, this was not mentioned on the 10 o'clock news until 22:15. The top story was the non -story/at least six months old story that Harry and Megan were leaving the Royal family (ffs!).

Why was the unlawful actions of the Secretary of State for Health and SC put so low down the schedule?
 
Are you telling me you didn't know about this until Friday?
No, I'm telling you that people are always more interested in royal news.

You are saying it is 'bias' because it was second on the running list. I'd call it 'bias' if it wasn't reported at all.

What did they say in the report? Or is your entire case the fact it wasn't the lead story?
 
No, I'm telling you that people are always more interested in royal news.

You are saying it is 'bias' because it was second on the running list. I'd call it 'bias' if it wasn't reported at all.

What did they say in the report? Or is your entire case the fact it wasn't the lead story?
It was third on after the Mars landing.

Via this thread I was hoping we might build a body of evidence that might answer the question either way seeing as some think it has a left leaning political bias. Hence the title to the thread.
 
...because more people are interested (rightly or wrongly) about that story.

So 2 that aren't bias so far.
So exactly what would the BBC news look like if reports were ordered by what people are general interested in? Hello magazine I would suggest.
 
So exactly what would the BBC news look like if reports were ordered by what people are general interested in? Hello magazine I would suggest.
If running order is your entire case, then I would suggest you have a very flimsy one.

As I asked, what in the actual story can you point to that shows bias? Or is it simply the fact it wasn't leading the programme?
 
If running order is your entire case, then I would suggest you have a very flimsy one.

As I asked, what in the actual story can you point to that shows bias? Or is it simply the fact it wasn't leading the programme?
I'm not saying under playing the importance of Hancock's unlawful action by putting it behind an 'old news' report about Harry and Megan, al la Daily Mail, is conclusive evidence, I simply putting it forward and one example of where the BBC could be said to be showing right wing bias.

I am told it wasn't even included in the 6 o'clock bulletin but didn't see it myself so can't offer it as evidence.
 
I don't know if it's left wing bias or right wing bias but here's another headline with some spooky inverted commas. BBC BNP far-right illuminati confirmed? You decide.

Sorry, but following a murder conviction how often have you read the headline x convicted of "murder". I'd hazard a guess...... never.
 
Example two.

On Friday, the day of the ruling, this was not mentioned on the 10 o'clock news until 22:15. The top story was the non -story/at least six months old story that Harry and Megan were leaving the Royal family (ffs!).

Why was the unlawful actions of the Secretary of State for Health and SC put so low down the schedule?
Just realised it's Meghan not Megan. (My bad. I should step up my royal watching. Ah, but they are not royal anymore. This is fun. Why isn't this on the news? Why isn't it the top bloody story?)
 
Sorry, but following a murder conviction how often have you read the headline x convicted of "murder". I'd hazard a guess...... never.
He wasn't convicted of a crime and didn't commit murder so the comparison is not really applicable.

What he did was unlawful. It wasn't criminal.
 
He wasn't convicted of a crime and didn't commit murder so the comparison is not really applicable.

What he did was unlawful. It wasn't criminal.
Are you for real? The offence isn't the relevant factor, the decision of the court is. 🤦‍♂️
 
Are you for real? The offence isn't the relevant factor, the decision of the court is. 🤦‍♂️
You're asking if I'm for real?? First you get called out for inventing (or at best misreading) conservative bias in a news article. Then you make a completely irrelevant comparison to a murder conviction which doesn't serve to assist your original point. And then you question what I'm doing!

You're actually right - the decision of the court is a relevant factor. They didn't convict him... They found that his action was unlawful. Perhaps the BBC had to specifically quote "unlawful" to stop people like you from thinking he had been criminally charged?

What kind of bias did my headline show? Same format, same inverted commas, same subject. Was that left or right leaning?
 
Are you for real? The offence isn't the relevant factor, the decision of the court is. 🤦‍♂️

You need to look up the difference........ I did that for you to help further your knowledge.

Illegal - means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed, like murder.

Unlawful- means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed, like missing a paperwork deadline.

:)
 
You need to look up the difference........ I did that for you to help further your knowledge.

Illegal - means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed, like murder.

Unlawful- means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed, like missing a paperwork deadline.
Classic Gaslighting!

Last time... This is about how a decision, any decision, of a court is reported. Not the decision itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom