Thursday 26 October 2017

Managing expectations

I clicked into the main broadcast news websites this afternoon and found three takes on the same news story. I took screengrabs.

ITV had:

Sky had:

And the BBC had:

As you can see, both ITV and Sky presented the stark predictions of immigration growth. The BBC, in contrast, found an angle to downplay the figures - making the point that that 70 million point might be realised slightly later than first predicted (because of "lower migration") into the main point of the story. 

That's very 'BBC' as far as reporting immigration is concerned.


On a related point, tonight's main ITV news bulletin led with the news: 
Good evening. By the end of the next decade, the UK's population will stand at 70 million. Also claimed in official projections today, a doubling in the number of people aged over 85 by 2030. That will place even more pressure on families, the NHS and social services. The UK's population is growing faster than any other EU country and, with migration driving most of it, that poses even more questions for government. 
Channel 4 News made it their second story, and Sky News have been covering it hourly too. 

BBC One's main early every news bulletin didn't cover the story at all. 


  1. Good spot and delineation of the BBC's reporting of mass immigration to UK. Firstly try to ignore it, secondly downplay it and thirdly try to find positives. I only heard the report on R4 News at 6 pm, which wheeled out Mark Easton to provide the narrative, all in line with the website article above.

    The effects of mass immigration on the UK have been, are and will be enormous. The BBC the dominating national broadcaster does not provide any insight to these effects. This is an example of area where I believe our Governments are content with BBC.

    1. Another annoyance is the way the BBC and other MSM blithely accept the ONS's assertion that only 54% of poulation growth will be due to mass immigration. This sleight of hand is only possible if you ignore births to the children of previous (female) migrants or the descendants of migrants. Of course there's an issue of how far back you go. But if you took as a cut off point as say 1970, then I think you will find all the evidence points to it being the case that the UK's population would have fallen substantially by now had it not been for mass immigration. You can argue over whether that is a good or bad thing but you can't deny it is the reality - all our net growth in population since then has been due to mass immigration.

  2. Meanwhile, Sajid Javid wants to borrow massive amounts of money on the public purse to build 300,000 houses A YEAR. And all those soggy left-leaners who like to sprout their green credentials don't say a word.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.