National News The BBC

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 ? ๐Ÿ˜‰
I agree they did but unlike the EU they haven't recognised their mistake. ๐Ÿ˜‰
 
Not invented or misread. The tweet is still there.

Did you read what I said?

I said "inventing (or misreading) conservative bias". Bold font added for emphasis. I'm not saying you invented the headline. I'm saying you invented the allegation of bias.

Come on QR you're quite sharp on the Brexit thread - you've lost your head on this one but you'll be back I'm sure.
 
Did you read what I said?

I said "inventing (or misreading) conservative bias". Bold font added for emphasis. I'm not saying you invented the headline. I'm saying you invented the allegation of bias.

Come on QR you're quite sharp on the Brexit thread - you've lost your head on this one but you'll be back I'm sure.
You've missed the context of the thread.
 
To start again...

Elsewhere on the political threads the issue of BBC bias has been raised. Some say it has a right wing bias, some a left, some think it's got it about right.

I was firmly in the 'got out about right' camp up until a year or so ago. I now think the BBC, at times, goes easy on the government and it has coincided with the government's criticism and boycotts (e.g. Newsnight) of the BBC and its threats to its funding.

To explore this I started this thread. Just to make it clear the BBC isn't Fox news so any bias, perceived or otherwise, will be subtle and nuanced.
 
Last edited:
Classic Gaslighting!

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

That your new favourite phrase from Twatter?

Get told the reality - it`s "gaslighting".

There is little hope.

The BBC gave it the gravity a missed paperwork deadline deserved.................... not a lot.
 
Those good old EU OJEU "rules"..........

"The opportunity was not advertised, because for example only one supplier is capable of delivering the requirement, or due to extreme urgency brought about by unforeseen events."

Hurrah for the EU...... :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
or the contract is awarded without proper scrutiny to one of his mates (sorry his ex-neighbour who apparently isn't his friend...but he put the contract through on the ministerial priority channel for), and that mate's company is now under investigation because of safety concerns in the equipment supplied (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ntract-matt-hancock-alex-bourne-b1805330.html) likely linked to the fact they have never made medical grade equipment before.
 
I think this all proves the BBC is doing fine, as right leaning people are claiming left bias and left leaning people are claiming right bias.
I don't think they are doing fine, but I also don't think they are inherently biased one way or the other. Their problem is being a political football for politicians who have forced them into such a corner they are afraid of anything not being "balanced" not matter how outrageous the 'balancing' view may be. Giving opinion the same weight as fact in the name of 'balance' is a very rocky bit of ground to be on.
 
As has been said, when nearly everybody thinks youโ€™re not impartial itโ€™s generally a pretty good sign that you largely are. However, Iโ€™m not sure that being impartial is a good thing if it gets to the point that giving facts and evidence, and presenting the truth based on these things, is classed as having an opinion or agenda.

I remember James Oโ€™Brien (shield your eyes, Brexiteers!) saying that he stopped doing presenting gigs on the BBC after the lead up to the referendum. He headed up a โ€˜conversationโ€™ between Andrea Leadsom and Pascal Lamy, the former director general of the WTO. Due to the BBC having to remain impartial he had to sporadically back up Leadsom when she told Lamy that the WTO didnโ€™t work the way he said it did, so as not to be seen as being โ€˜on his sideโ€™. Despite the fact Lamy used to run the organisation they were arguing about. I guess that made him an expert, and we had enough of those long ago. Well, until what the experts say is what we want them to say, and then theyโ€™re allowed again.

Thatโ€™s where perceived impartiality is dangerous - someone with absolutely no clue what they were on about had to be given equal billing with somebody who knows the subject matter inside out. The BBC is hamstrung and has been flipped on its head by a tribal world, one which deems facts to be opinions and evidence to be some sort of stitch up, which is partially its own doing because of situations like the above. Then throw in the fact that the government appoints the people who run it because itโ€™s state funded and youโ€™re left with an incredible mess, especially once the idea of government no longer respecting the boundaries of โ€˜fair playโ€™ becomes commonplace. As soon as the attitude from No10 changes from, โ€œWe donโ€™t touch that even if itโ€™s telling people weโ€™ve been naughtyโ€ and moves on to being one of, โ€œWe control it so letโ€™s put it in its placeโ€, it falls down pretty fast.

All that aside, I still find it more than a little ridiculous seeing certain sections of society angrily demanding its defunding. โ€œWe want 100% of media and all sources of information privately owned by billionaires! This is evil!โ€ Mind you, given the amount of times Britain has been talked into slashing its own wrists in the last half a decade, itโ€™s probably only a matter of time. I guess this is what happens when something essentially set up and run using the honour system meets the age of dishonesty. It becomes incompatible, and when something is incompatible itโ€™s eventually demonised on its way to the gallows.

Not that I care. My only source of news is Korean Central Broadcasting. All truth, all the time.

Death to the west.
 
As has been said, when nearly everybody thinks youโ€™re not impartial itโ€™s generally a pretty good sign that you largely are. However, Iโ€™m not sure that being impartial is a good thing if it gets to the point that giving facts and evidence, and presenting the truth based on these things, is classed as having an opinion or agenda.

I remember James Oโ€™Brien (shield your eyes, Brexiteers!) saying that he stopped doing presenting gigs on the BBC after the lead up to the referendum. He headed up a โ€˜conversationโ€™ between Andrea Leadsom and Pascal Lamy, the former director general of the WTO. Due to the BBC having to remain impartial he had to sporadically back up Leadsom when she told Lamy that the WTO didnโ€™t work the way he said it did, so as not to be seen as being โ€˜on his sideโ€™. Despite the fact Lamy used to run the organisation they were arguing about. I guess that made him an expert, and we had enough of those long ago. Well, until what the experts say is what we want them to say, and then theyโ€™re allowed again.

Thatโ€™s where perceived impartiality is dangerous - someone with absolutely no clue what they were on about had to be given equal billing with somebody who knows the subject matter inside out. The BBC is hamstrung and has been flipped on its head by a tribal world, one which deems facts to be opinions and evidence to be some sort of stitch up, which is partially its own doing because of situations like the above. Then throw in the fact that the government appoints the people who run it because itโ€™s state funded and youโ€™re left with an incredible mess, especially once the idea of government no longer respecting the boundaries of โ€˜fair playโ€™ becomes commonplace. As soon as the attitude from No10 changes from, โ€œWe donโ€™t touch that even if itโ€™s telling people weโ€™ve been naughtyโ€ and moves on to being one of, โ€œWe control it so letโ€™s put it in its placeโ€, it falls down pretty fast.

All that aside, I still find it more than a little ridiculous seeing certain sections of society angrily demanding its defunding. โ€œWe want 100% of media and all sources of information privately owned by billionaires! This is evil!โ€ Mind you, given the amount of times Britain has been talked into slashing its own wrists in the last half a decade, itโ€™s probably only a matter of time. I guess this is what happens when something essentially set up and run using the honour system meets the age of dishonesty. It becomes incompatible, and when something is incompatible itโ€™s eventually demonised on its way to the gallows.

Not that I care. My only source of news is Korean Central Broadcasting. All truth, all the time.

Death to the west.
only a TRUE fan would know that ^^
 
I don't think they are doing fine, but I also don't think they are inherently biased one way or the other. Their problem is being a political football for politicians who have forced them into such a corner they are afraid of anything not being "balanced" not matter how outrageous the 'balancing' view may be. Giving opinion the same weight as fact in the name of 'balance' is a very rocky bit of ground to be on.

Anti-vaxxers anyone?
 
or the contract is awarded without proper scrutiny to one of his mates (sorry his ex-neighbour who apparently isn't his friend...but he put the contract through on the ministerial priority channel for), and that mate's company is now under investigation because of safety concerns in the equipment supplied (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ntract-matt-hancock-alex-bourne-b1805330.html) likely linked to the fact they have never made medical grade equipment before.

That is a failure of the tendering process that should have required MHRA approval for equipment.
By the time it lands on the senior folks desk they would have thought the basics had been done.
The amount of folk who seem to think Cabinet ministers are running round populating portals for tenders and signing them off is amusing for anyone who knows how the system works.
 
That is a failure of the tendering process that should have required MHRA approval for equipment.
By the time it lands on the senior folks desk they would have thought the basics had been done.
The amount of folk who seem to think Cabinet ministers are running round populating portals for tenders and signing them off is amusing for anyone who knows how the system works.
That bloody useful if the buck doesn't stop with the person in charge. ๐Ÿ˜‰
 
I used to think the BBC was a reliable source of information until my ex-girlfriend (she was from another country) said she couldn't believe some of the stuff the posted on the BBC website about her country, the people and political situation. She said it was completely inaccurate compared to the views of the majority of the people she knew and that it seemed they had their own agenda. Since then i have changed my opinion on the news and media and what we are fed on a daily basis. There are some decent recipes on there (BBC food) though. The classic carbonara is a winner.
 
I used to think the BBC was a reliable source of information until my ex-girlfriend (she was from another country) said she couldn't believe some of the stuff the posted on the BBC website about her country, the people and political situation. She said it was completely inaccurate compared to the views of the majority of the people she knew and that it seemed they had their own agenda. Since then i have changed my opinion on the news and media and what we are fed on a daily basis. There are some decent recipes on there (BBC food) though. The classic carbonara is a winner.
You say that but it's not like my mamma used to make.
 
That is a failure of the tendering process that should have required MHRA approval for equipment.
By the time it lands on the senior folks desk they would have thought the basics had been done.
The amount of folk who seem to think Cabinet ministers are running round populating portals for tenders and signing them off is amusing for anyone who knows how the system works.
But that is the issue. That process has been over-ridden by the emergency process implemented by the government. The evidence of this process was disclosed in a recent court case (despite previous public denials) and shows that ministerial approval overrode process.
 
That is a failure of the tendering process that should have required MHRA approval for equipment.
By the time it lands on the senior folks desk they would have thought the basics had been done.
The amount of folk who seem to think Cabinet ministers are running round populating portals for tenders and signing them off is amusing for anyone who knows how the system works.

What tendering process?

This would have been done under the emergency legislation where they don't need to follow tendering rules. All it required would be a phonecall and a bit of a nudge-nudge from his mate.
 
What tendering process?

This would have been done under the emergency legislation where they don't need to follow tendering rules. All it required would be a phonecall and a bit of a nudge-nudge from his mate.
funny handshake , or old school tie ... or both... more like
 
So long as the government followed their own procurement guidelines on due diligences I donโ€™t see that there is a problem here. Letโ€™s hope that they have all of their documents insurances and legal obligations in place.
 
Back
Top Bottom