Print

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

[sevenlayermuddle]

It’s a fair way down the headlines but sounds like BBC have finally been forced to fess up to anti-government bias, specifically in their ongoing ‘get Cummings’ campaign.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52824508

Hopefully now,  Maitlis and the other newsreaders and editorial teams will now be expected to resign, with no excuses accepted, as that is what they themselves demand of their victims?

[jelv]

What planet are you on? The amount of news that is adverse to this awful government that the BBC doesn't cover is scandalous. The BBC is constantly scared of being honestly balanced because they fear that the vindictive b......ds like Cummings will start dismantling them.

[jelv]

Here's 850,000 people that think Cummings broke the rules and should be sacked: https://www.change.org/p/dominic-cummings-must-be-sacked

I think Emily summed up what the majority of people think pretty accurately. There will be deaths because of his refusal to acknowledge what he did was wrong because of the huge numbers of people who will think that because it was OK for him to break the rules, all rules can be disregarded.

[jelv]

And don't overlook that 39 CONSERVATIVE MPs have demanded his resignation.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/public-opinion-hardens-against-dominic-cummings-fjz8jrxph

[sevenlayermuddle]

Did you actually follow the link?  In the BBC’s own words, headline reads...

Newsnight 'breached BBC impartiality guidelines' with Cummings remarks

I’m just guessing here, that their own lawyers may have intervened and told them they overstepped the mark, and best way forwards was to own up. 

Many newsworthy things happened in the past week, from drug & vaccine developments to a A320 passenger jet crashing, but you had to be pretty attentive to hear any of it from the BBC, always overshadowed by their ranting and raving about the government.

[j0hn]

What planet are you on? The amount of news that is adverse to this awful government that the BBC doesn't cover is scandalous. The BBC is constantly scared of being honestly balanced because they fear that the vindictive b......ds like Cummings will start dismantling them.

This.

[sevenlayermuddle]

Ok you have aroused my curiosity, what are these adverse stories that the BBC have not mentioned?

Being fair, they’ve not latched onto anti-government  5G conspiracies, I suppose.   Time yet, mind you.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Ok you have aroused my curiosity, what are these adverse stories that the BBC have not mentioned?

Being fair, they’ve not latched onto anti-government  5G conspiracies, I suppose.   Time yet, mind you.

I haven't been following recently, but what really bothered me was how much air time they were willing to give to unfounded extremist BS about Corbyn during the election.

The problem seems to be that if there are lots of proven true stories about the Tories, but only lots of rumours and hearsay about Labour, they will cover both equally so they can claim to be impartial.

Its no longer the case that only proven fact checked evidence is news, anything goes.  But all that did was reinforce the notion that "they're all as bad as each other" and left us with an utter garbage government.

I'm absolutely not saying Labour are perfect, I'd much prefer REAL proportional representation for a truly democratic government,  But what can be excused as "news" today is far too varied and a serious lack of fact checking going on.

There is absolutely no valid argument that what Cummings did wasn't against his own guidance.  There is something seriously wrong if they aren't allowed to say as such.  Being impartial shouldn't mean that you can't state facts because it might look bad for one side.

[sevenlayermuddle]

No harm at all in reporting the Cummings story.  But turning it into an obsessive stream of venom dominating the news for days on end, was that measured?

I see Maitlis was unexpectedly off-air last night.

[Alex Atkin UK]

No harm at all in reporting the Cummings story.  But turning it into an obsessive stream of venom dominating the news for days on end, was that measured?

I see Maitlis was unexpectedly off-air last night.

I'm in two minds, because I absolutely do not think this should be dropped until there are consequences for what he did.  He DID break the rules and put people at risk DIRECTLY of infection from his family.  That should not be excused.

As I've said in other places, his excuse that it was to protect his kid is utter BS.  Hundreds maybe thousands of people have been in the position he was in and still looked after their kid while ill.  He actually put his kid at a greater risk by potentially infecting his parents so the kid would then have NO safety net at all.  The more details we find out from what has happened, the more appalling it comes across - would we have gotten all those details had it been reported once then dropped?  I don't know.

[chenks]

strange how some people think the BBC is pro-goverment and others think the BBC is anti-government.
all it does is show their own personal agenda rather than what the BBCs is or isn't.

as for Cummings, i couldn't care less what he has done or hasn't done.
i can guarantee that some those that are "baying for blood" have breached the lockdown rules at some point. but because no-one knows or cares about them it goes under the radar.

[jelv]

As I've said in other places, his excuse that it was to protect his kid is utter BS.  Hundreds maybe thousands of people have been in the position he was in and still looked after their kid while ill.  He actually put his kid at a greater risk by potentially infecting his parents so the kid would then have NO safety net at all.

It's actually far, far worse than that. How sick people get with the virus can be dependant on the size of the initial virus load. A small initial virus load gives the body time to develop the antibodies etc. to fight the infection, a large initial load and the defences can be quickly overloaded. That's why early on so many doctors and nurses in ICU became so ill before full PPE procedures were in place. So what better way to make sure that their son was subjected to a large initial load than coop them up in the back of a car with someone already ill with COVID?

[sevenlayermuddle]

Emphasise again, it is not my judgement that the BBC is biassed, it is their own confession of bias and their own reprimand of Newsnight,  that is the subject of this thread.    Here again is the link.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52824508

Just google for Emily Maitlis Impartiality, it’s all over the news, all accepting the fact the BBC was not impartial.

None of above is based on my opinion, it is all accepted as fact, by BBC and others.   What is my opinion is that the best way forwards, to restore any credibility to BBC news, and as a reminder to other news staff not to follow private vendettas/agendas, is for Maitlis and her team to resign or be sacked.  Early signs are that may be happening as she was unexpectedly absent the following night...

[chenks]

the whole "BBC must be impartial" thing is a total nonsense in my opinion.
if a host of a program that is discussing the news (not reporting the news) - which is what newsnight is can't give their opinion then something is wrong.
those reporting the news should report it and not give opinion, but a program that is solely there to discuss the news of the day should be able to give opinion.

it's gone that far that if the BBC have someone on a program saying that 5G isn't a health risk then they MUST have some crack-pot on as well to give their alternate view. all in the name of impartiality.

[sevenlayermuddle]

The problem is that Newsnight presented an opinion in a way that would be confused with statement of facts.   With the public trust of BBC impartiality, that carries a real risk that the viewing public will be misinformed.

The question as to whether the BBC should be impartial is a different one.   There are all sorts of crackpot news publications, from editorials in politicised daily papers to radical student newsletters.    We just ignore the ones we don’t like as long as they don’t break any laws, we accept that they do not need to be impartial, and I have no problem with that.

I do, personally, think that impartiality remains important for BBC.  To best of my knowledge, it remains law that the BBC must be impartial.