Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chenks]

But the point is, it is irrelevant what we all think,  in the context of the fact that BBC have Investigated and effectively admitted that Maitlis was biassed on at least two occasions... over Cummings and Brexit.

but not biased in all other instances whilst working for the BBC - which seems to never get mentioned.

but if it's irrelevant what we think then why even start a thread titled "BBC Bias"?

[digbey]

But the point is, it is irrelevant what we all think,  in the context of the fact that BBC have Investigated and effectively admitted that Maitlis was biassed on at least two occasions... over Cummings and Brexit.

But as it's your opinion that the BBC are biased, therefore the BBC finding must also be biased.

[sevenlayermuddle]

But as it's your opinion that the BBC are biased, therefore the BBC finding must also be biased.

Hmm, I think you have a point, that I should not trust the bosses' decisions to reprimand, as I do not trust the BBC? 

I see that argument.   But thinking it through, I am reasoning that there are two possibilities here.  The bosses who reprimanded Maitlis may have been biassed, or they may not.

Now, if the bosses are not biassed then their finding should be trusted, so Maitlis must be biassed.  And since Maitlis is allowed to speak for the BBC, I think it is fair to regard the BBC as biassed.

Conversely if the bosses themselves are biassed then Maitlis may be innocent, but since the bosses "are" the BBC, the BBC is biassed.

So either train of thought remains suggestive of BBC bias, does it not?

[4candles]

Can any news source ever hope to be truly unbiased in the eyes of most observers for most of the time? I don't believe so.
Seems to me that the BBC , for most of the time, make a better stab at it than most.

[chenks]

Can any news source ever hope to be truly unbiased in the eyes of most observers for most of the time? I don't believe so.
Seems to me that the BBC , for most of the time, make a better stab at it than most.

as i said (this'll be the third time now), for those so inclinded, they will find bias in anything if they want to, even if it isn't there.

reporting the news should be impartial (which is actually what we're talking about here, not specifically bias) and should never include opinion, it should include only fact backed up by evidence, however emily maitlis doesn't report the news, the hosts a program that discusses the news of the day and as such opinion should be allowed, providing the opposite side of that opinion has the opportunity to respond. i see nothing wrong with that, however the BBC bashers will use any opportunity to claim bias on whatever side is the opposite of the BBC.

personally i couldn't give a toss about what cummings does or hasn't done (past or present). but if he is in the news then he is open game to opinion based broadcasting.

[sevenlayermuddle]

We need to remember, Maitlis’ assault on Cummings wasn’t just an accidental venting of opinion.  It was a full on assault, carefully scripted by (almost certainly) herself, with potential to seriously impact a person’s reputation and career, yet not based on actual fact.   It came across to me more as an expression of personal hatred, rather than an expression of opinion.

I do ‘get’ that most people in this thread strongly dislike Cummings and agreed with her sentiment, so they didn’t mind Maitlis beating him up, in fact they quite liked it.   But for a state-sponsored broadcaster, that acceptance is  dangerous territory... what if, next week, Maitlis sinks their teeth into somebody we do all like?  The precedent’s been set, we’ve told her it’s ok, so why not?

And emphasise again, Maitlis’ alleged transgression is not based on the opinion of anybody here.   Regardless of whether we share that opinion, it is based on the opinion of her own bosses.  And I do still believe, at the top level, BBC is still directed by some decent minded individuals.

[j0hn]

And emphasise again, Maitlis’ alleged transgression is not based on the opinion of anybody here.   Regardless of whether we share that opinion, it is based on the opinion of her own bosses.

I don't think the BBC bosses came to the same conclusion as you.

We need to remember, Maitlis’ assault on Cummings wasn’t just an accidental venting of opinion.  It was a full on assault, carefully scripted by (almost certainly) herself, with potential to seriously impact a person’s reputation and career, yet not based on actual fact.   It came across to me more as an expression of personal hatred, rather than an expression of opinion.

You'll need to point me to the report where BBC bosses called it a full on assault.
You're grossly exaggerating their findings.

What they actually said was

"While we believe the programme contained fair, reasonable and rigorous journalism, we feel that we should have done more to make clear the introduction was a summary of the questions we would examine, with all the accompanying evidence, in the rest of the programme," it continued.

"As it was, we believe the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality."

A million miles from your summary.

[sevenlayermuddle]

Thanks for that John.

I don’t agree with your analysis, but good to get the discussion back on the available facts, rather than a division of those who dislike the BBC, and those who don’t.  Or even just those who dislike Cummings, and those who do.

In particular...

You'll need to point me to the report where BBC bosses called it a full on assault.

Hands up, you’re  right, that was merely my own conclusion and I should have accompanied it with an ‘imho’.   I’d never have made a good journalist as I freely admit to having too many ‘ho’s.  To be fair, I did include the words “it came across to me” later in the same paragraph, but I should have been more explicit, that it was based on just my own interpretation.

Thanks especially though for digging up the BBC statement, that people seem to have forgotten.