Here's a list/summary of the latest stand-alone Reality Check articles on the BBC News website (back to the start of November).
Each entry details the person/organisation who is in the BBC Reality Check 'dock' and gives their position towards the question and a general overview of where they stand/where their latest comments stand. And below that is the BBC's verdict, which I've summarised into a one-word answer, wherever possible.
(You can, of course, check them all for yourselves as links are provided to each piece).
Source of statement to be judged: Michael Gove, Conservative/Change Britain (arguing 'yes', pro-'hard Brexit')
The BBC's verdict?: False.
Source of statement to be judged: John Healey, Labour (arguing 'no', anti-government)
The BBC's verdict?: True.
22 Dec 16: Do England and Wales lock up more people?
Source of statement to be judged: Nick Clegg, Lib Dem (arguing 'yes', anti-prison)
The BBC's verdict?: True.
21 Dec 16: Do men earn less for part-time work?
Source of statement to be judged: Philip Davies, Conservative (arguing 'yes', pro-men)
The BBC's verdict?: False.
13 Dec 16: Are train stations getting less safe?
Source of statement to be judged: Mick Whelan, Aslef (arguing 'yes', anti-train companies)
The BBC's verdict?: False.
Source of statement to be judged: Peter Lilley, Conservative (arguing 'yes', anti-EU membership)
The BBC's verdict?: False
12 Dec 16: Is social care getting more money?
Source of statement to be judged: Jeremy Hunt, Conservative (arguing 'yes', pro-government)
The BBC's verdict?: False
6 Dec 16: Is Christmas dinner going up or down?
Source of statement to be judged: The BBC News website (arguing 'yes' and 'no' in two different articles)
The BBC's verdict?: Neither true nor false, looking at different things.
5 Dec 16: Are official GDP forecasts too gloomy?
Source of statement to be judged: Iain Duncan Smith, Conservative (arguing 'yes', anti-OBR)
The BBC's verdict?: False
Source of statement to be judged: Sir Michael Wilshaw, England's chief inspector of school (arguing 'yes', anti-North/South divide)
The BBC's verdict?: True.
1 Dec 16: Could cryopreservation work?
Source of statement to be judged: A teenager who wants to be her cryopreserved (arguing 'yes', pro-cryopreservation)
The BBC's verdict?: Impossible to know at this stage.
1 Dec 16: Is US system a 'disaster for democracy'?
Source of statement to be judged: Donald Trump in 2012 (arguing 'yes', anti-Obama in 2012)
The BBC's verdict?: False.
1 Dec 16: Is migration at record levels?
Source of statement to be judged: Newspaper headlines (arguing 'yes' to a sharp rise in immigration, anti-mass immigration)
The BBC's verdict?: False.
25 Nov 16: Will there be a £32bn Brexit dividend?
Source of statement to be judged: Change Britain campaign (arguing 'yes', pro-Brexit),
The BBC's verdict?: False.
25 Nov 16: How much will Brexit cost?
Source of statement to be judged: Robert Chote, OBR (arguing 'yes' to 'Brexit is costing us', anti-Brexit),
The BBC's verdict?: True.
18 Nov 16: Will we send money to Brussels after Brexit?
Source of statement to be judged: Wolfgang Schaeuble, German finance minister (arguing 'yes', pro-EU),
The BBC's verdict?: True.
4 Nov 16: Did a million people use food banks?
Source of statement to be judged: Jeremy Corbyn, Labour (arguing 'yes', anti-government),
The BBC's verdict?: False.
Source of statement to be judged: Dominic Raab, Conservative (arguing 'yes', pro-Brexit),
The BBC's verdict?: False.
From that can be drawn the following list of 'winners and losers':
Those debunked by the BBC: Michael Gove, Philip Davies, Mick Whelan, Peter Lilley, Jeremy Hunt, Iain Duncan Smith, Donald Trump, Change Britain, Jeremy Corbyn, Dominic Raab
Those supported by the BBC: John Healey, Nick Clegg, Sir Michael Wilshaw, Robert Chote of the OBR, Wolfgang Schaeuble
The list of 'the Debunked' essentially consists of the political Right and the hard-Left, whereas the list of 'the Supported' (to put it crudely) consists of more centrist, 'Establishment' figures.
Also striking is the number of articles debunking the claims of those who want us to leave the EU (or backing the claims of those who want us to stay in), which may be summarised as follows:
Reality Checks debunking Remain (or supporting Leave) talking points: 0
Reality Checks debunking Leave (or supporting Remain) talking points: 7
Of course, 'pro-Remain, left-liberal, mainstream, Establishment, Twitter-using types' will doubtless be keen to proudly proclaim (as they so often do in such cases): "All that proves is that reality has a liberal bias".
On the other hand it could simply 'prove' that the BBC has a liberal bias on everything from the EU and immigration to prison reform, the far-Left and 'men's rights'.
An excellent post and analysis.
ReplyDelete"Reality Check" is one of the most insiduous developments of recent years. We knew that the BBC was structurally biased towards a left-liberal view of the world because nearly all its senior staff are PC multiculturalist Guardian readers who will appoint beneath them only people made in their own image.
ReplyDeleteHowever Reality Check is a step beyond into the realm of ideological Eastonism where there can only be one social reality - the one approved of by the BBC and according with progressive globalist PC Multiculturalism.
It's a worrying development. No coincidence that the BBC decided to run with it so strongly during the Brexit campaign.
The ideological rigidity is bad enough but its implementation has been cack-handed. The Reality Checks are full of ambiguous terms, missing crucial data and logical non sequitirs. Lots of them set up useful straw man queries that are easy to knock down and reinforce the liberal-left consensus.
To take one example from the above - 1st December 2016 - is migration at record levels?
Astonishingly, the article fails to mention that the ONS was forced to issue an explanatory note after such luminaries as Jonathan Portes queried the rising discrepancy between NI Nos issued and the official figures.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/noteonthedifferencebetweennationalinsurancenumberregistrationsandtheestimateoflongterminternationalmigration/2016#annex-1-international-passenger-survey-long-term-and-short-term-international-immigration-assumptions
This note makes clear that the
The article claims "It [the ONS] is 95% confident that the actual number of people migrating to the UK was within plus or minus 34,000 of that figure." That is a misuse of the statistical concept of confidence levels. All confidence levels do is tell you how likely a sample is to be within a certain range. If the ONS itself were 95% confident (assuming that really meant something - what does that mean?). The ONS never claims to be confident about the IPS figures. It merely says they are the best way of estimating numbers. But if the IPS has flaws, then the 95% confidence level which sounds good only applies to the flawed survey stats. It's like saying I have 95% confidence that a pre-Referendum poll result is correct within a range of the main figure only to find the next day the actual result shows the poll was underestimating the Leave vote by 4%, even allowing for teh confidence level range.
But the ONS note itself makes clear (as the useless Reality Check does not)that there are serious doubts about the validity of the IPS survey e.g. over visitor switchers (those who originally intended to stay for under a year but later change their plans and stay for over one year).
I think the ONS are aware there is a serious problem with the stats. The claim that the IPS is the "best" way of estimating migrant flows is highly dubious but is just accepted by the BBC.
According the The Guardian:
ReplyDelete“The BBC’s Reality Check team will focus on content that is clearly fabricated and attempting to mislead the public into thinking it has been produced by a reputable news organisation.”
That doesn’t exactly match up with the kind of statements which this article has reported as being the subject of RealityCheck’s investigations.
RealityCheck is just one more example of the left-liberal establishment wanting to shut down anybody or organisation which has a view different from theirs. (As an example, see the French Parliament’s recent decision to ban websites which promote the pro-life cause.) In the case of the BBC, it’s: “We can’t stop you saying what you say but we’ll do everything in our power to stop people believing what you say.”