...and any other matters that take our fancy
I'm a bit late getting to this, but last night I caught up with the latest Question Time. Panel rigged against Hammond's foolish NI tax rise. Fraser Nelson was brought in for that, not for his support of creating a means-tested health service. I'd say the producers tried to rig the audience against Hammond's policy as well, but they probably didn't need to bother.Speaking of the audience, it was remarkable, and I mean that in a good way. Even the people with whom I didn't agree were mostly coherent and thoughtful, not the usual wound up activists or brain-dead students. Fraser Nelson was generally kept on a leash after fulfilling his usefulness as a high-profile Conservative journalist attacking Hammond.The panel in general was stacked 3 against 1.5 (Karen Bradley hardly met the standard of being a useful participant), except I guess with Scottish FREEDOM it was 4:1. But I suspect somebody is regretting that they didn't try to rig the audience.
BBC News tonight - "some" in parliament are fighting for insertion of "safeguards" into the Brexit bill. Safeguards is one of those nice words and thus betrays the BBC bias. The neutral word would be amendments and then the reporter can explain how both sides of the argument view or present those amendments.
More absurd extreme feminism on Today today...Someone called Miriam Gonzalez, a leading international trade lawyer was on the Radio to discuss Brexit. Not a single mention of the fact that she is also Mrs Nick Clegg, rather relevant to the issue under discussion: Brexit. Why no questions along the lines of:"But your husband saw the merits of a simple in-out referendum back in 2010. We voted out - surely that is the point."Or - "Your family benefits from EU pensions and other EU connections such as lucrative speech making - shoudln't you be declaring an interest before you give us the benefit of your professional views.""Can you assure us your comments aren't part of a plot to destabilise the Brexit process and ultimately derail it?"Anyone not aware of the connection, would remain completely unaware.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tantalising to wonder what might have been.
Since you're so intrigued, it contained the same as the post below but with a typo. Didn't see an option to edit. I hope this satisfies your curiosity.
So long as you are no longer unsure.
Thanks for the insightful commentary. Amen.
Brexit won't be derailed, it's just a question of time. The BBC's powers to derail it are surely not a source of worry given their inability to prevent it in the first place?I'm not sure where the "extreme feminism" is incidentally?
The BBC's efforts didn't have the desired effect on the public, no, but the public isn't involved any longer. The BBC certainly can have an effect on the politicians who will be making the decisions on what happens next.The latest angle of pressure is that there will definitely be another Scottish referendum, and this time FREEDOM will win, they swear. Another issue is the upcoming elections in some EU countries. Surely Parliament must wait to see how that gets sorted out before voting on any deal, etc. Theresa May and most of her cabinet don't want Brexit, and will surely look for any excuse to have the burden removed.
The extreme feminism comes from censoring all mention of Ms Gonzalez's significant connection in order to maintain the fiction that women's professional roles are always separate from their husband's. There are plenty of contexts in which spousal status may be irrelevant but this wasn't one of them.
I agree re: the significant connection and its relevancy, I don't agree re: "extreme feminism".
Thanks for the insightful commentary. OAO.
It's a singular point Peter and doesn't require an essay. Failure to mention the identity of Ms Gonzalez's spouse does not equate to an act of "extreme feminism". Perhaps you'd care to illustrate otherwise?Either way, I thank you for following me around the board.
You are most welcome. Had to miss you really as you now seem a 'feature'. Also can't match your following every post on every thread to chip in more on the poster than the post, or the impressive timeliness of responses throughout the day, but when time permits here it passes the time entertainingly to chip in on your chipping in.
'Hard'. Though the typo could have been left.
Struggling to understand where I'm chipping in here "more on the poster than the post". I couldn't determine an "extreme feminist" angle but otherwise agree with the views expressed. So I asked the question of what I was missing. Not likely to be featuring on future episodes of Crimewatch.Peter, I don't believe I've had a pop at any poster but you are most certainly doing that. That you've appointed yourself defender of the persecuted speaks volumes. If you wish to continue to make assumptions about me, probably best to keep them to yourself. If you find online spats pass "the time entertainingly" then you have Twitter for that.
Radio 4 tonight...Front Row was used by Samira Ahmed to push several lib-left memes on Brexit/Trump. Amongst other things, we had the annoying Brian Cox on informing us that "opinions are not facts" and that we didn't have the right to have our opinions broadcast (what does that mean - does he want full on internet censorship then?). This was ironic given Cox is expert in cosmology, a field of human inquiry in which a 100 theories contend (they can't all be right and some are little better than guesses, such as multiple universes, around which mathematical scaffolding is built). Cox referenced vaccines stating that they were not harmful (despite the PM answering a question on vaccines last week in Parliament which fully accepted many individuals were harmed by vaccines). Cox's referencing of the smallpox vaccine was pathetic as what we now face is Big Pharma determined to push vaccines on the NHS to make huge profits, even if the health gains are miniscule or possibly even negative (remember, lots of children die from asthma and some medical experts theorise that asthma arises in part at least from failure to exercise the immune system in childhood). This is an arts show by the way...but these political statements went unchallenged by Ahmed who was lapping it all up. Then there was a trailer from the Long View - in which Guardian journo Jonathan Freedland burbled on about fake news...don't expect any balance from that quarter.On to a programme Helena Kennedy warbling on about "consent" as though she was offering us stunning insights we'd never considered before. But of course it was really all just a case for a bit of Brexotrump bashing. All in a day's work at BBC Fake News Central.
Here's the BBC pushing the NY Times and fake news narrative that the late Michael Brown, the unarmed man shot and killed while attacking a cop in Ferguson, was not robbing a store and has had his reputation tarnished. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39238309Turns out it was a drug deal gone bad or something along those lines. The BBC leaves it with the supporter's statement of Brown's newly rehabilitated reputation. What the BBC doesn't mention is that this has nothing to do with what happened next.None of this new interpretation of the footage changes the fact that he handed the cigars to someone so he could attack a cop, and none of this changes the fact that the 'don't shoot' narrative is a lie. The BBC doesn't want to point that out because they have a different agenda to push when reporting on this story. There is no valid reason to leave out key information and let the new alleged background information wipe that out.
"What the BBC doesn't mention is that this has nothing to do with what happened next."They quote the prosecuting attorney "that it was neither relevant nor material to anything that happened that day"."The BBC leaves it with the supporter's statement of Brown's newly rehabilitated reputation."The final paragraph is based around the convenience store's lawyer claiming "they would release more footage to prove it was a robbery"?
The prosecutions comment is technically opinion, not fact. The final paragraph is also opinion. The BBC's report exists only because an editor believes this changes things. It must be important because it's "unreported". Describing the footage as "unreported" is accurate, and is also a loaded term. I hope we're not going to pretend there are no other connotations. If, as the police and prosecutor say, this is not new footage, and is irrelevant to what happened next - well, they would, wouldn't they? - why report it at all?Oh, wait, I know. The BBC is not special or original or independent-minded. They simply follow what everyone else is doing, and if other media outlets report non-stories, the BBC must do it as well.
David, I wouldn't dispute that there's an angle there. Whether that's because of an "agenda" or simply because controversy brings the traffic and keeps a news story alive is, however, something I'm less sure of.Regardless, reading the article beyond the headline I find it difficult to draw the conclusion it supports a "rehabilitated reputation" narrative and the story certainly does not "leave it" at that point. Re: your last para, I am not arguing that the BBC should follow the herd and nor have I - I'm simply stating that is, to some extent, exactly what they're doing.
I will retract my comment that the BBC left it with the idea that Brown's reputation has been rehabilitated, then. Nevertheless, one side of the story was presented as noteworthy and possibly game-changing, while the other side was just quotes without the same weight.
Not the BBC but its more outlandish cousin, Channel 4 and indicative of the low standards of UK jornalism. Being interviewed (aka harangued) by Jon Snow, Teresa Villiers noted that the Lords amendment did not use the word "meaningful". Jon Snow contradicted her. I checked it out...no reference to "meaningful":https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0152/hcb152.1-2.html
Meanwhile on BBC, as predicted, they are falling on Sturgeon's referendum announcement like starved dogs fed a rabbit. This is their last great hope, that even if all else failes they can declare Brexit a disaster because it led to the break up of the UK (never once blaming devolution which is a more fundamental reason, because of course the BBC enthusiastically promoted devolution).
Will this be the next big interview - Laura K and Nicola S? Who'll get to wear the shocking pink? Which other bright colour are politically neutral? Questions questions! Will they clash? That's over colours, by the way, not political issues.
Caught a little bit of BBC News 24 on this very subject and the commentary was embarrassing. Apparently it's going to be "very interesting" to know what "Trump's White House" will make of it. Not sure who for. Still, the bigger problem that our great "democracy" is again a one-party plaything in what is always a narrow field of choice seems to be of no major concern to anyone in the MSM. Or even on here.
Personally I have always favoured a strong element of proportional representation in our elections to Parliament - a 50-50 split between geographic constituencies and PR lists would be best. So you are just stereotyping as usual. This blog is focussed on BBC Bias not PR.
Plenty of stereotyping and off-topic commentary on this site. I'm not "stereotyping" anybody, simply pointing out there exists greater concerns than BBC bias.
If you say so. And whilst not arguing with your last (except in the mixed plural), you do seem to keep an 'off topic' pot bubbling all on your own. Awaiting use of 'you lot' for the complete set.
Here's the BBC telling only half the story about Trump and tax reform. No surprise they leave out the half so that he looks bad.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39275838As everyone probably knows by now, somebody at the IRS illegally leaked Trump's tax returns from 2005. The BBC doesn't mention that it is illegal to publish these, and simply quote Rachel Maddow's explanation that the documents magically turned up a journalist's email the other day, and he sent it to her, no problem there.The BBC describes the journalist as a "Trump biographer", which is dishonestly anodyne. He is in fact a critic, and his partisanship should have been mentioned.https://davidcayjohnston.com/The BBC makes sure to point out that Trump paid less than the top minimum rate most super-rich pay to set up the next bit:AMT was set up nearly 50 years ago to stop the wealthiest people from using deductions and loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Mr Trump has called for it to be abolished.Indeed he does. What the BBC doesn't want you to know is that he has an alternative tax plan that will streamline the tax brackets.http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/318088-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trump-gop-tax-planIf all goes through, it will also reduce some or many of the loopholes.http://time.com/4052216/donald-trump-tax-plan-republican/Of course, the BBC doesn't want you to know that, and instead presents it as Trump being evil and wanting to help himself and his fellow evil rich get away with more tax avoidance than ever. It is quite dishonest.Then we get more "Oooh, he's so mysterious, we don't know enough about his murky dealings," with a follow-up from none other than Anthony Zurcher. He supports the narrative that Trump is a real problem here. Don't trust the BBC on US issues.