Quite right Anon. I’ve suffered dreadfully over the last few nights – haunted by visions of Emily willy waving. I’ve thought about suing Craig for the mental trauma.
We are told (by BBC and ITV)not to indulge in conspiracy theories...but what to say when both ITV's News at Ten and BBC's Newsnight lead (yes, lead) on bogus "female in jeopardy" stories, focussed on whingeing whining female Labour/Remainer MPs?
Let's look at the facts:
1. Anyone who says boo to a goose or a female Labour/Remainer MP is looking at a long a stretch in prison. Everyone across the country knows that. You can say anything you like about Boris or the Conservatives, however hateful (Jess Phillips accused him today of not caring about his children) but you can't say Boo to a Remainer. So I am highly sceptical about these very vague news reports tonight about MPs being forced out of politics by hate messages. I really don't believe it.
2. Heidi Allen (this also goes for Anna Soubry) lied to her electorate at the 2017 election, stating clearly on video that she would implement the Brexit vote and that she detested the idea of a second referendum. Now if you lie in such gross terms as an MP you have got to accept a fair amount of invective coming your way. Sorry - that's just a natural reaction. Nothing to do with you being a woman or being "principled" - it's simply because you told huge lies to your electorate (which is presumably why you've ducked out of testing their support this time).
It hasn't taken long to see where the BBC News outlets have positioned themselves in coverage of the forthcoming General Election. It is clear that they will support Jeremy Corbyn along the lines that he is standing up against a general foe: The far-right racists misogynists who dared to vote Leave. Add to that the general odious wealth-creating businesses who dare to have the confidence that they can survive and prosper in a global market away from the EU. Corbyn has allowed himself to be sufficiently pliable that even though his plans for nationalisation couldn't be contemplated unless the UK left the EU, no matter, he can be reinvented to become a mouthpiece for the BBC's image for the UK.
Craig and Sue, we need your experienced eyes to keep watch for us as the BBC endeavour to sway public opinion in favour of Corbyn and more importantly - remain.
The photo of Corbyn shown on the BBC News website this morning says it all. Gone is the harsh red of traditional Labour. In its place is a subtle rose-coloured background. Yes, we are expected to see Corbyn through rose-tinted spectacles.
The last sentence of your first paragraph nails it down very well. Even if the BBC aren't consciously aware of it, the rejection of various 'evils' will define the default position.
Nick Robinson interviewing Douglas Murray and Kehinde Andrews Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University (the latter barely comprehensible over the radio thanks to his non-RP accent and his lazy sentence construction). It was a classic BBC ambush, described in the article below - Robinson taking a few words out of context to paint Murray as a disseminator of religious hatred.
Robinson should resign. His out of context ambush shows he is incapable of being a responsible journalist paid for by us, the licence fee holders.
Why didn't he "ambush" Andrews. Here are some things Andrews has said:
"Racial harassment... is so commonplace in UK universities that for black staff members such as myself, it feels like something we just have to get used to."
He claims the appointment of people like Sajid Javid is not on merit but a cynical bit of racial tokenism.
He claims that "racially offensive" language is "part of the norm of British political life".
Why didn't Nasty Nick have a go at Andrews' inflammatory prose?
Interestingly, the BBC News website Politics page has been renamed Election 2019, and in the BBC's inimitable manner it contains four stories involving photos of Jeremy Corbyn, three images of John Bercow, and just one (towards the end of the page) of Boris Johnson.
Furthermore, images of Corbyn show him as smiling and confident amongst friends and supporters - against the Labour backdrop, but show Boris alone as an isolated figure - somewhere away from London.
4 positive photos of Corbyn v 1 not v positive one of Johnson is what is known as "BBC Balance" or as Nick Robinson might say "objective reporting" or as Jon Sopel might say "being impartial, free and fair".
If Jo Johnson or Rachel Johnson were to come out and say equally controversial stuff, it would feature on the 10 o'clock news on BBC, ITV and Sky. But Jeremy has no reason to worry that the MSM will focus on what his brother Piers says about Extinction Rebellion:
I think this election is very much in the balance.
Only a fool would underestimate the influence of biased framing in the media. Sky, ITV, and BBC are all peddling Labour talking points: supposed issue of hate-abuse (used by the liberal-left as a method of discourse control); Corbyn the cuddly campaigner; Trump interference (an own goal, thanks Nige); prominent "Vote Labour" in the frame over and over again on ITV News (yes, going to be plenty of camera tricks in this campaign); NHS not for sale... etc
Will the BBC News put forward the Conservative manifesto without clouding or colouring the content? I very much doubt it. That they are bigging up Corbyn - showing him as the wise elder statesman is dangerous.But, he has fliiped over to Remain, so that's the narrative they want to hear.
You're right Arthur. If he was a Leave supporting Labour Leader he would be trashed by the BBC. Labour claims are not being subjected to serious scrutiny. Does Boris Johnson seriously intend to "sell off the NHS"? We've heard these claims before at previous elections from Labour. They aren't credible. But the MSM simply report them on without comment. Very different from how Conservative claims are treated.
Heard Adrian Chiles on Radio 5 Live today (think it was about 10.30am) having a go at Andrew Neil for his "bullying interview" of Jo Swinson. That's a quite remarkable attack for one Beeboid to launch on another...don't remember Chiles complaining about Emily's bullying of Rod...but for some reason Chilesy seems quite protective of Ms Swinson...even mentioned the fact she was a woman (how gallant, Ade -you noticed!).
Seems like the Night or Day or the Long Knives as we also have Isabel Hardman putting the knife into Rod Liddle for an article in the Spectator suggesting that it would be good to find a day on which to vote which was so holy to a certain religious group that they wouldn't vote on that day...not his best joke perhaps and maybe not a joke.
Both Hardman and Robinson think it's bad form to complain about the influence of Islam in our polity but they never say just how influence they think it should have? If not zero, or minimal influence...then significant influence? great influence? or maybe they'd prefer overwhelming influence? They are moral cowards who won't address one of the most important issues of our time. By failing to give an answer, they give an answer: they are prepared to see one religion totally transform the content of our culture and our politics.
John Simpson getting money off a government that refuses to investigate the murder of a journalist with anything like the determination of a democratic institution. Any surprise? Not really. He lost credibility a long time ago.
So Chris Morris is going to put his mucky paws all over our General Election, claiming he's undertaking Reality Checks? The branding is a thin disguise for anti-Conservative opinion pieces. Let's see his latest:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50222315
In this he examines the Conservative Party slogan: Get Brexit Done. Have they analysed "For The Many Not The Few" on Reality Check one wonders... Well it seems to me this is exactly the sort of thing the BBC should NOT be doing - second guessing political slogans. Chris doesn't waste time. In the first para he is already concluding that the Conservatives have got it wrong and "it's not that simple".
He then misleadingly claims that "Brexit has been pushed back to 31 January 2020" before immediately contradicting himself by conceding it could take place before then.
He claims that Brexit will be "loved and hated in equal measure". No evidence given for this assertion. At the Referendum a million more people loved than hated the idea. But for Chris 52-48 has become 50-50.
Morris uses Remainer language throughout, referring to the WA as setting out the "divorce" agreement. This suggests a union of two parties, but that was never the case: we joined a club. A better analogy would be settling the bar bill.
At the end of the opinion piece he states: "Whatever happens in the next few months, the fallout from the Brexit referendum will remain with us for years to come."
The dictionary definition of "fallout" is "the adverse results of a situation or action". That is a very biased word to use in context.
There are some here who keep up with U.S politics and are aware of the gulf of truth between the BBC / Guardian take on the impeachment process and the actual course of events over the last 3 years.
I don't like Mr Trump, and I don't trust him, but he is selling anti-war tickets and that's good enough for me. The reporting on what is taking place in the U.S is beyond a joke.
Unless people know who Lisa Page and Peter Strzok are, it's pointless discussing Trump with anybody.
In recent months, aware voices from the left (Jimmy Dore (the American George Galloway), Tim Pool etc) have been blurring the left / right dividing line of commentary which is fascinating to me, and echoes my own perception of modern times.
Compare and contrast the two articles I've provided links to (and a few of the more recent articles featured on Moon Of Alabama). Notice the details - like actual names and sources - as opposed to the vague narrative of The Guardian / BBC.
The wierdest aspect is that the BBC keeps backing itself into corners from which it can't escape. It provides narratives or omits facts that it can't return to without highlighting its own initial failings.
Its Syrian war coverage, the Saving Syria's Children documentary, its coverage of Israel, Hungary, Turkey, France, The Netherlands, the US, black on black violence in the UK, the ongoing migrant crisis and the Tommy Take Down Panodrama are really lacking because those subjects weaken the narrative they wish to promote.
Just a thought. When the BBC are discussing the upcoming election, in order to inform the population, is it right for them to keep talking about a party whose name will never appear on a ballot paper?
Whilst it might still be acceptable in general conversation, in recent decades in terms of political debate it has lost all its romantic connotations and now just summons up images of hate filled faces on demos with placards decrying these "effing Tories". The Conservative Party should have made clear they will not tolerate the word on media programmes they are involved in.
The BBC have never referred to Labour as "socialists" or "the Reds". The "Labour" tag still recalls its noble origins and aspirations and is a brilliant piece of branding which has made its capture very valuable for Marxist ideologues, extreme feminists, race activists, Islamists and others.
I have complained to the BBC several times regarding the use of the Tory label for the Conservatives. This is my last one dated 121/07/2018:
...YOUR COMPLAINT:
Complaint Summary: Use of the name Tory party for Conservative party
Full Complaint: I find it necessary to repeat my complaint about the use of the name Tory Party by Laura Kuenssberg when she is referring to the Conservative party. On politics page of the BBC News website today, Laura Kuenssberg uses the name 'the Tory Party' instead of 'the Conservative Party'. There is no such thing as the Tory Party other than as a nickname for the Conservative Party. This nickname carries biased connotations which date back to a name used a long time ago. LK would not refer to the Labour Party as 'the Socialist Party' so why is she free from editorial control when speaking about the Conservative Party? Reporting is all about accuracy. The use of this term is inaccurate, and judging by your previous reply, inaccuracy is acceptable to the BBC!...
And predictably, here is the BBC reply dated 27th July 2018:
... Thank you for contacting getting back in touch with us about Daily Politics, broadcast 11 July.
As per our previous correspondence, a fundamental part of Laura Kuenssberg’s role is to give our audience an informed and impartial analysis of key political events. Many members of the Conservative party, up to and including Conservative Prime Ministers, accept that the word applies to them and many self-identify with it.
We've noted your points but do not consider they have suggested a possible breach of the BBC's standards to justify further investigation or a more detailed reply....
You may as well save your breath to cool your porridge. The BBC are arrogant. There have been occasions when LK has not used the word Conservative at all in her reports - despite any earlier assurance I received from the BBC Complaints Dept this on 7/07/2018:
.... Thank you for contacting us regarding the BBC News Website article 'Brexit: Theresa May seeks to sell plan to Tory sceptics' published on 7 July.
I understand you are unhappy with Laura Kuenssberg's use of the term 'Tory' or 'Tories' to refer to the Conservative party. I note your view that Laura's choice of words displays bias against the governing party.
We would explain that the BBC News style guide specifies that within the body of a report 'Conservatives' must be used in the first instance. However, for later references, 'the Tories' is acceptable. As such, Laura's report is entirely consistent with our guidelines.
As the BBC’s political editor, a fundamental part of Laura Kuenssberg’s role is to give our audience an informed and impartial analysis of key political events, using her experience and judgement. Indeed, all staff working for BBC News, though clearly entitled to hold personal opinions and beliefs, are acutely aware that their views should never in any way influence their work for the BBC, nor should they be apparent to our audience.
The question of what term to use when referring to the Conservative party is something the BBC has looked at in more detail in the following News Website article, which may be of interest to you ...
That bit about ...'We would explain that the BBC News style guide specifies that within the body of a report 'Conservatives' must be used in the first instance.' ... has clearly been abandoned.
The three unwise monkeys are on: Nick Watt (ex Guardian), "Dr." Deborah Cohen (ex Guardian)and Ben Chu (ex Guardian). Hear Tory Evil, See Tory Evil, Speak Tory Evil. All giving Labour a big push and the "Tories" well aimed kicks in the testicles.
On to the political panel...and they have on (a) the Labour candidate standing against Boris in his own constituency of Uxbridge...a complete unknown getting a nice helping hand from the BBC and (b) Stephen Crabbe...a nice reminder of Tory Scandals - doubt they'll be having Keith Vaz on.
It's interesting how little distance they put between their own views and those of Labour.
Maitlis allows (an odd sounding - what accent is that?) Ali Milani to make a tub thumping speech addressed to the electors of Uxbridge. Outrageous.
Then it's on to a favourite theme - Brexit Means Break Up of Union...this time Wales. Presented by the ever-reliable Elizabeth "40,000 Dead Sheep" Glinka.
So far, Newsnight has done a good impression of being the Guardian televised live.
Looked up Mr Milani - apparently he was born in Tehran. Very strong on promoting the Labour Muslim Network (numerous retweets on his Twitter feed). Clearly, one of those people who works to divide society while shedding crocodile tears over divisions in society - here he is in one of his tweets: "In 2017 young & black and ethnic minority people showed the Tories what we're made of."
I thought his name was familiar - and checked him out on Guido Fawkes. He's popped up several times but this was one of his worst outings - clearly anti-semitic comments from him:
Sorry - meant to add that Maitlis didn't seem to challenge him on any of his comments as recorded by Guido Fawkes. Can you imagine her giving a free ride to a Conservative in such circumstances. Why didn't Crabbe immediately launch into him? Newsnight seem to specialise in having pathetic panellists on from the Conservative Party.
Let's see what's missing from this BBC in depth look at the NHS - a key battleground we are told in the forthcoming GE:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50290033
... 'Ten charts on why the NHS matters in this election.' ...
1. We spend more on the NHS than ever before... 2. ...but spending has slowed 3. Waiting times are getting worse 4. The population is ageing 5. Care for older people costs much more 6. The UK spends a lower proportion on health than some other EU countries 7. The number of vacancies is high... 8. ...and building works are falling behind 9. Not many older people get free care 10. Satisfaction remains high
Surely, a chart showing the number of consultations/appointments increasing year on year should be at the top of the list. This, IMO, is the equivalent of a set of annual accounts being published without the top line (turnover) being declared. It is impossible to make any judgement about the efficiency and value for money without first knowing the scale of the business.
11. Our migrant populations are far more likely to suffer from diabetes - one of the huge drains on NHS funds. The repeated cousin marriage tradition in certain migrant groups results in a huge increase in serious abnormalities. There are numerous specialist FGM clinics throughout the NHS that cost tens of millions to run. Health tourism accounts for losses in the hundreds of millions.
I must admit that originally I thought Jacob Rees-Mogg was a liability to the Conservatives...then I began to think he was an asset...now I am back to thinking of him as a liability.
Surely, as soon as any Cabinet Member hears the word "Grenfell" they must know they have to be on extreme guard, as this is a sensitive touchstone issue.
That a Cabinet Member should come out with crap about it being "common sense" to ignore the clear advice of the Fire Service to "stay put", especially when corridors are already filled with dense smoke, is beyond me. Anyone who has looked into the matter knows that it was the Fire Service chiefly to blame for the deaths by (a) not being flexible about the "stay put" advice and (b) not risking the lives of their personnel to get the residents out.
I think perhaps he ought to resign. Boris needs to make clear, with absolute assurance, that his words were not acceptable. Otherwise I think we are going to see Labour using this quote over and over to support their "born to rule, callous Tories" narrative.
I should add, I've seen JRM's apology. If one accepts what he says, it's still not good. JRM is a Cabinet Minister and has been a broadcaster himself. The issue was Grenfell - he should have chosen his words much more carefully. It's a bit like if someone asks a question about Remembrance Day - be on your guard, say nothing ambiguous. Come out with platitudes that are not capable of misinterpretation. JRM should not have created this hostage to fortune.
Agreed MB. Very very silly comment. The BBC have seized on this and it is now lead story with Lucy Manning putting the boot in. Totally self inflicted.
Yes, I switched over into the middle of Lucy Manning's report and thought she was a Labour spokesperson such was the palpable bile being directed at JRM and the "uncaring" Torees. Very unprofessional.. or maybe totally professional if your profession is getting Steptoe into No. 10.
Maitlis and Watts were piling in on Newsnight...with a bit of encouragement from alleged Conservative and May's Avenger, Gavin (now Lord) Barwell. Barwell even managed to mention Hillsborough...just to bring it all back to Boris (with his Liverpool remarks). Thanks Gavin!
JRM has really effed up. I'd definitely be looking for his resignation were it not for the fact that it's difficult to know whether that would just put the skids under the Conservative campaign entirely. Time for some real leadership from Boris. Tricky...
Boris needs to come out all guns blazing. He needs to remind the British public about McDonnell and Corbyn's pro IRA pro assassination leanings, about the many anti-semitic remarks from Labour candidates, about their hypocrisy, about their underhand dealings with the EU...
Going back to Newsnight the only light moment was when Maitlis sneeringly referred to the "Tories' claim to competence"...but misread her autocue and said "incompetence"...showing that she was, well, a bit incompetent herself.
Zarah Sultana, Labour candidate for Coventry saying she is anti-racism and pro Palestinian is here wanting to celebrate the death of Bush, Blair and Netanyahu.
She was presumably just following John McDonnell's lead, as he celebrated the attempted assassination of Mrs Thatcher (to the extent that he wanted to travel back in time to finish off the job) and also looked forward to Esther McVey's demise.
President Duterte of the Philippines used to be regularly reviled by the BBC as a populist monster who would drag his country into violent chaos...haven't heard much about him recently, but just noticed Philippines scored a rise of 6.2% in GDP in 2018. Most Filipinos believe his war on drug addiction has been successful.
Does Emily sound credible when she feigns ignorance of what Piers means by "liberal" or cannot confirm his observation that he's never come across a Conservative BBC person (by which I think he means, from the context, someone who has some significant role in delivering news and current affairs content at the BBC)? We should regard that as astonishing as more than a third of the population support Conservatives at elections.
Interesting to note as well that (as Piers rather cleverly lets slip) of course they are all inviting each other to their dinner parties...it's one great big bubble!
I saw the Ian Austin interview with Kay Burley. This was a very powerful interview. The only time I've heard anyone in this campaign lay down the real choice before the UK electorate and explain why a Corbyn led government would be a disaster for our country. Conservative spokespeople so far have been less than forceful in getting this across.
The BBC and MSM are already trying to minimise the impact of Austin's attack. Firstly, they are doing so by suggesting the attack was based on the Labour Party's failure to tackle anti-semitism. It was more than that. Austin also berated Corbyn for aligning himself with this country's enemies and stated that Corbyn himself had made anti-semitic statements. Secondly they are doing by omitting or relegating two key elements: Austin's contention that Corbyn is unfit to PM and that as the country faces in reality a choice between Corbyn as PM and Boris Johnson as PM, long term Labour voters should switch to voting Conservative.
They are also diminishing the attack by not stating prominently that Ian Austin is an ex Government Minister and, until recently, lifelong Labour supporter.
In other words, I think they are trying to minimise the traction this gets.
I've noticed the main Radio 4 News for the last couple of mornings starting with an 'item' (arguably not news as it hasn't happened yet: rather... JC / Labour will give a speech and will say...) - about Labour, with the Conservatives mentioned second, coming in like an afterthought. Also-rans eh? Is this becoming a pattern? Is it the BBC's Today or News unthinking pre-set default?
And I noticed Robinson this morning jabbering away about Labour and the 'Tories', without using 'Conservatives' first, as required by Guidelines - explained earlier by Arthur. Of course, if he'd used it earlier in the programme, what then? He'd probably say it was within guidelines, if he could even be bothered to say anything at all about listeners' concerns.
... Boris Johnson: 'Only my party Scottish Conservatives can prevent another referendum' ... Now to me this looks like a direct quote of Boris's words.
But look again at the Election 2019 page, and we see the same story with a different headline:
... 'only Scots Tories can prevent indyref2'. ...
Both quotes have single inverted commas - the first as a direct quote of Boris's words, the second, also with single inverted commas, uses the word Tories as if it were the word from Boris's quote. See how easily the BBC News website slides into their habit of bias.
Just to add, it's clear from various news programmes that even a lot of Labour sympathisers accept this was a v. powerful intervention by Ian Austin...and yet Newsnight could go the first ten minutes not mentioning it! Extraordinary!!
Andrew Neil. Nick Robinson might vote Conservative if it was Kenneth Clarke or Dominic Grieve in his constituency...
All the rest are 80% Labour 10% Lib Dems 5% Greens and 5% SNP/PC/SWP or other left minorities. Not a single Brexit Party or UKIP voter, on that you can be sure.
Add to the stack of questions that won't be asked by the BBC: Jeremy Corbyn's and the Labour Party's reaction to the proposed Royal Mail strike called by the CWU over the run-up to Christmas and the GE. Do they support this proposed industrial action?
Q2. What happens if postal votes aren't delivered?
While Boris's "letterbox/Burka" comment is constantly referred to by BBC presenters, Corbyn's reference to Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends" never is. Likewise McDonnell praise of "brave" IRA fighters is never ever referred to.
I think the BBC community are more pretend revolutionaries than real ones. They like Marxism in theory, but in practice they want to inherit large sums from their parents and send their children to good schools - if necessary private schools. If they have some troublesome ailment, they want it treated it privately if a wait for NHS treatment is going to inconvenience them. Also, they are as much interested in being "on trend" than being right from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism.
BBC staff are definitely on the left - probably 99% but the number of dedicated Marxist ideologues is probably still quite small. Of course Jeremy, John, Sean and Paul intend to change that - Momentum will be "moving in" to the BBC if Labour win. Some of the more intelligent Beeboids probably realise that, and fear for their jobs and influence - which tends to make them more sympathetic to Labour "moderates" (Starmer, Cooper et al), Lib Dems, Greens and SNP as the mood takes them. Of course, even they must realise by now that the game is up within the Labour Party - that it has been captured by hardline Marxists and they will never willingly let go of it again.
David Mitchell is thinking of voting Lib Dem or Green...not that he said that...but that's why the BBC had him on to pontificate at length and incoherently about his political views.
One odd thing he proposed was that MPs would be condemned to work only as MPs while MPs and not at all on retirement from the Commons. He wants them well paid (I agree) and to receive good pensions. He mumbled something about them not working for businesses...does that mean they can work for trade unions, charities, co-operatives, theatre companies, magazines? does it mean they can be self-employed working as "consultants" maybe? It's pretty clear that like most light entertainment folk, Mitchell can really think beyond the end of his nose. He sees no difficulties with his proposals.
We have had frequent cause here to mention the BBC's appalling "Reality Check" opinion pieces.
Knowing they might feel a bit of heat during the election campaign, they have clearly decided to depart from their normal practice of focussing exclusively on Conservative claims and are now looking at the claims of other parties.
So here they look at SNP claims...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50348521
But this particular Reality Check is interesting because it looks at the entire speech of a party leader, not a particular claim. This allows them to produce a very unfocussed analysis.
OK so far so good, but where they find fault in the SNP's claims do they sternly warn that the SNP are being "misleading", "inaccurate" or similar, as they do when they find fault with Conservative claims? Er - no...
They conclude: "...the £1,600 per person figure is unhelpful."
Unhelpful!!! lol Indeed, unhelpful to the BBC's overall objective of producing a win for the "Progressive Alliance".
Are you trying to be edgy, or are you just a prick ? What's the little black sambo nonsense ? Why is it that some people feel that freedom of speech has to be polluted by the lowest common denominator ? Argue your points and learn how to spell apologise.
I agree with LBS. JRM was making a response 'on the hoof', not carefully constructing a 'politically correct', offend no-body, say nothing, mean nothing response. The use of 'z' or 's' has been a feature of English English for a very long time, the 'z' variants being preferred by the UK Civil Service when they bothered about writing style, (a battle long lost). I can't say that I'm bothered about LBS as a user name either, it brings happy memories of little boys creating 'tiger butter' to me. Best not to assume bad motives when responding to people that you don't know.
Yes, the use of z is proper English even though it's not the preferred current usage. Modern journalism went over to the s in about the 1970s and the Civil Service followed suit. I'm not sure why it happened. Something to do with the keyboard perhaps.
You don't have to be a seer or a sage to know that the whole of the Left-Liberal MSM, and the BBC in particular, will be up in arms about the Brexit Party's sensible decision not to stand against the Conservative Party. It's even more important than it seems as it will give some Labour voters a push to vote Conservative, who otherwise would have voted TBP or stayed at home.
All we need now is someone to set up a website to show which non-Conservative constituencies are more vulnerable to the TBP and which to Conservatives, so that both parties can engage in a little judicious soft-pedalling in those constituencies where their opponents have a very good chance of winning.
TBP's unilateral non-aggression pact is according to Emily "astonishing". Of course, she found nothing "astonishing" in a nationalist party (Plaid Cymru) entering a pact with two unionist parties (Lib Dems and Greens), so depriving Welsh people in many parts of Wales from having any chance of voting for independence.
Cahootism is the new word! James Clayton raising the possibility of TBP and Conservatives being "in cahoots".
The other meme message is "backfire"...this will backfire.
It's astonishing, they're all in cahoots, it's all choreographed, it's going to help Boris,it's not going to work but it's all going to backfire.
This is a good case study in how the BBC communicate "Good" and "Bad".
For the Remainer Alliance (Lib Dems/Greens/PC): no suggestion that anyone is "in cahoots" or that discussions on the fringes are illegitimate. Tone of voice is positive with a note of delighted surprise. No suggestion that the ultimate objective of the alliance (Revoke) might be dangerous or illegitimate.
For the TBP unilateral withdrawal (not even a Pact!): Suggestion that people are "in cahoots" and discussion on the fringes of parties shows bad faith and underhand dealing. Tone of voice is negative, full of concern and anxiety. The suggestion is that the ultimate objective is dangerous or illegitimate (a "hard" Brexit).
Did I hear Emily right? I think she say that "made up numbers" about Labour funding commitments appeared in the Press over the weekend.
Made up? Is Emily now a Momentumista?
It's perfectly legitimate to convert Labour Conference approved policies and Shadow Minister statements into financial realities - they shouldn't publish such policies and statements if they don't want them to be costed.
And more than that, there is a strong argument for saying that Labour's costs are underestimated in the sense that economic collapse will follow very soon after their election, requiring the government to impose taxes that will impact on family budgets.
A final thought: Manifestoes, in theory at least, set out what parties intend and pledge to do. A Manifesto is NOT an exhaustive list of everything that a Government might do. So it is perfectly legitimate to say "What else might a party do?" if the potential Governing Party has made specific policy commitments.
Notice that clause: "Despite the intrinsic absurdity of the allegation and all the evidence that it was untrue..."
Well, quite Rob, but the "intrinsic absurdity and lack of evidence" doesn't stop the BBC from majoring on:
1. We are all going to die from eating chlorinated chicken despite the fact we get more chlorine from a 30 min swim in the local pool compared with eating chlorinated chicken for a year.
2. Greta Thunberg's demands that we achieve zero carbon emissions within six years are perfectly rational and will not lead to (a) socioeconomic collapse (b) deaths of millions (c) total destruction of the NHS as we know it.
Regarding chlorinated chicken,always mentioned by those who hate America, they simply ignore the fact that most bagged salad leaves sold in this country are cleaned in a chlorine wash to remove bacteria. Anne G.
BBC still reporting on the front page of it's website that 'Raheem Sterling to miss England qualifier' creating the impression that he is injured or unavailable for selection. The real truth is that their new self styled role model attacked another England team mate, Liverpool player Joe Gomez, throttling him and abusing him at dinner. Most other news outlets are reporting that Gareth Southgate has dropped Sterling for his appalling behaviour yet the BBC continues to play down the incident as Sterling is their golden boy and tireless campaigner against racism.
The BBC News website on the Election 2019 page continue to ignore its own guidelines this morning by using in headlines the term 'Tory' or 'Tories' eight times without using the word 'Conservatives' once.
AS the BBC Complaints Dept is no doubt very busy at the moment, I wrote my own reply to the complaint I couldn't be bothered to make:
Dear Mr T,
Thank you very much for taking the time to write to us with regard to your complaint over the use of the word "Tory' or 'Tories' when referring to the Conservatives. We have taken note of your complaint, and it will be presented at tomorrow's editorial meeting so that our team of content managers are aware of your complaint.
With regard to your reference to our editorial guidelines, I can confirm that these were changed a while ago, and therefore, we have not as you suggest ignored them. In the fast-moving environment of our busy newsroom, headlines need to be concise. Recent research shows that the terms 'Tories' and 'Conservatives' are interchangeable and the term 'Tory' does not carry the negative connotation that you suggest.
Thank you once again for taking the the time to contact us. We shall not be taking your complaint any further as, in this case, we got things about right.
Well done Arthur! If there are no negative connotations why do Labour politicians and media folk nearly always use it in preference to Conservative? One thing that would help is if stupid Conservative politicians and commentators stopped using it themselves. It just provides cover for the BBC that they do.
Andrew Marr was at it on Sunday as well starting off with 'Tories' and giving Labour and Liberal Democrats their full proper form.
I noticed also on Today over the last two days, the news reader started off with 'Conservatives', in both cases reverting immediately to 'Tories' on the second mention. It looks like a deliberately chosen policy and a standard format for the News. It's as if the guidelines made it mandatory to revert rather than simply making provision to permit it.
Given that there isn't an exact equivalence with variants of 'Labour' and 'Liberal Democrats' and that there is a distinct taint of derogatory use of 'Tories', the proper thing for the national broadcaster is to use the formal name in all three cases rather than in just two.
Your complaint could have been signed 'Capita plc' if what I read recently is correct. Apparently the BBC's 'Audience Services' is a big contract put out to tender which Capita won. (Big money, anyway.) It includes the first two stages of Complaints to the BBC. This was a surprise to me. I'd always assumed I was dealing with actual BBC people.
Yes, the BBC Complaints Dept keeps a safe distance between it and 'the programme makers'. Despite their commissioning, they don't necessarily stand by the accuracy of content. That the BBC might have instigated and facilitated the setting up of independent production companies, they can always point the finger and thus deflect direct criticism. This is particularly galling when documentaries carry the OU logo, and will be treated as reliable references for students in years to come.
Good on you, Arthur T. This is a fascinating area. On my previous blog I used to run on a count on the number of times Norman Smith used 'Tory' and the number of times he used 'Conservative'. He was overwhelmingly - and I do mean overwhelmingly - a 'Tory' man. He even made Labour's Peter Hain sound reticent when it came to using the word 'Tory'.
Laura K must be by now the leader in the 'Tory" stakes. She simply can't impart the same expression of disdain into the word 'Conservatives' as she does when spitting out the word 'Toreees'.
I heard the Infamous Chris Morris for the the first time in a while this morning. He is no longer even “checking” specific statistics. His first, rather obvious point was to state that it’s impossible to precisely cost spending based on manifestos - but apparently this rule only applies when the Conservatives are questioning Labour plans. The second, somewhat more bizarre point was his interpretation of a poster depicting Jeremy Corbyn in Nicola Sturgeon’s pocket. Isn’t that exactly what Corbyn has done in promising another Independence Referendum, or am I missing something? This isn’t even a pretence at fact checking. This is pure propaganda.
The whole of Labour's plans are based on the absurd idea that very rich people are just going to sit in the UK meekly accepting Labour's taxing of their wealth. The money will be siphoned off abroad as quick as you can say "John McDonnell is a pro-IRA Marxist extremist". So the whole of Labour's costings are fantasy stuff.
Of course billionaires won't just sit there and become non-billionaires.
Part of the problem is the short memory and lack of historical knowledge of not just voters but the media. In the 1970s taxes were up to 90% plus for the highest earners so, for example, in the film industry actors and the top directors did all they could at the time to minimize this. They would live abroad and ruthlessly schedule the few days a year they could be in the country without attracting the tax. They would jet in just after midnight and jet out just before midnight in order to not waste another day. They would force films to be made outside of the country, with the consequent loss of millions of pounds and hundreds of jobs to the economy. British films were forced to make do with a much smaller pool of possible star actors, which meant that some films never raised the finance and were never made. All this in an industry where it often makes a massive difference where the production is based. For industries where it doesn't matter so much then they will be relocated elsewhere. Of course, the younger, forgetful and ignorant aren't being reminded of this by our betters.
Hollande tried taxing the millionaires... they left the country with their money (ECB/EU won't allow exchange controls!) and what happened? The tax collected fell by billions and Hollande had to abolish his higher taxation plans.
The same will happen here under Corbyn... millionaires are among the cleverest people around and will find a way around whatever dopey socialists come up with, and the burden will fall on those Islington Labour voting luvvies with six figure incomes who say they would be happy to pay more tax but never seem to voluntarily write cheques to HMRC and who will e asking their accountants for help avoiding Corbyn type tax rises. Trust funds in tax havens are being established to squirrel away excess income producing assets so HMRC won't be shovelling away any of their hard earned money to which they feel entitled.
Yes Anonymous, Whenever someone is banging on about being happy to pay more tax it's always worth pointing out to them that anyone can choose to pay more tax than they have to (and that almost no one does). They usually get defensive or change the subject.
Oh dear, even the BBC can't completely ignore the "explosions" in Sweden...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50339977
But it can obfuscate...
Apparently these explosions mean the "environment" gets "violated"...all clear now?
And apparently a lot of the explosions are caused by "bangers"...so, just a bit of exuberance from the kids...I guess so, if you say it's true, BBC.
Well - no - actually, there are deep underlying causes...OK. What be they? It's those "low-income, vulnerable suburbs". OK, suburbs now have emotional states? I'm puzzled. Don't worry, it's the BBC - where even cars and lorries can have murderous intent.
You have to go quite a long way into the story before you get to something a bit closer to a possible explanation, what's really worrying the BBC...it seems the dastardly "political right" think the explosions "add fuel to their argument that Sweden has struggled to integrate migrants over the past two decades". Of course the rest of the article just sets out to rubbish that thesis by quoting as authoritative statements from public officials and leftist commentators.
The funniest part I thought is where we are told that in an effort to understand what is going on, the Swedish police are looking at criminal networks in Mexico...why not Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan you might wonder?
There's a lot of subtle and not so subtle misdirection in the article. Not least, because every photo there is accompanying the article looks like what you might call a "traditional" Swede.
So, all in all, definitely not journalism. More like a tricky defence in chess, trying to combat all possible mate moves, so that the reader goes away with the impression that the gangs are multi-ethnic, not migrant-dominated, do not have one religious group over-represented in them, are victims of poverty and deprivation (in Sweden for gawd's sake!) and that the seriousness of the "explosions" has been over-stated.
I wonder if Maddy Savage realises that her BBC colleague Andrew Neil was at the forefront of those speculating about whether the Swedish public broadcaster SVT was engaged in a cover-up by leaving the story out of a main evening news programme.
Oh right, I didn't know that...Yes, could be an internal hit piece...not the first time that would have been done. We know the BBC have been censoring the news from Sweden as well...
It all kicked off, as Paul Mason would put it, with a tweet from Andrew Neil that said:
"Explosions so normalized in Sweden that SVT, Sweden’s BBC, did not even mention the three explosions in the country’s capital on its national news programme that evening. Instead, the main domestic story was the purported censorship of ‘big female bodies’ on Instagram."
We know the BBC doesn't consider people's private lives off limits if it suits their purpose. They have tried to use Boris's colourful private life as a way of undermining his political rise (fail!).
Rory Stewart is back on Newsnight pushing his bogus Clarkean Conservatism!!! Yay!!!!!
Emily's interview with him was so soft - like a very underdone egg...sloppy but warm.
On to pro-Brexit Conservative MP Daniel Cawcynski ...Emily soon interrupting and calling into question his honesty. Nothing like the interview with the "King Across the Water" Rory Stewart.
Now she's getting on the Maitlis high horse...still gunning for that second RTS award.
More sceptical interruptions...none of that gentle nodding when she was interviewing the Boy Wonder!
Now implying Boris is a liar...par for the course on Newsnight.
I'd say the attempted or actual interruptions of DC compared with Rory were running at 10-1.
Now she's in anti-Polish mode and decrying DC's contacts with the Polish government - ever heard her challenge Grieve on his contacts with Macron? Er - no.
Now claiming there is a "working alliance" between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party. Keep those Labour Talking Points coming.
Maitlis on first name terms with the Labour spokesperson Richard "Pro-Hamas" Burger-Boy ...
She's giving him a tough time about migration...not sure what this is all about. I think she's not getting the answer she wants...what answer? That the Conservative migration policy is racist? I don't know.
On to the Lib Dem woman - Paula Ferguson...
Maitlis gives her a pretty soft interview.
Maitlis seems to see everything from a Remainiac perspective...that's the only way to make sense of her interviews tonight.
On to a Glinka Clunker...
Lincolnshire - dependent on migrant labour BUT voted Leave...loving those BBC conjunctions, or - if you prefer - non sequitirs...or maybe unspoken sequitirs!
On to a bit of English Nationalism bashing...you can be an Irish nationalist, the BBC will love that...you can be a Scottish nationalist and the BBC will give you a big hug...you can even be a Welsh nationalist and the BBC will give you a pat on the head...in fact you can even be a Cornish nationalist if you want! - but an English nationalist is about one remove from being a straight-armed saluting Brownshirt according to the BBC.
Yeah It’s clear the BBC hates England and the English at very deep levels. Not hard to figure out why. We voted for thatcher and leave. It’s a conservative nation.
Yes, which is why ultimately the BBC are a unionist organisation, strange as that may seem. If they can turn England Red of course that won't matter and they will happily see Scotland and Wales go their own way (Northern Ireland of course has to join the Republic - any fule nose that).
Being a suspicious (ie sensible) sort I never take the BBC at face value. I was puzzled why both on Newsnight and on Today, Radio 4, the beeboids have been pressing Labour so hard on its migration policy, making them sound weak on migration...what's up? It's not as if the BBC care about mass immigration is it?
I think I've sussed it out now. The BBC policy is to attempt to maximise Labour's vote, so as to deny the Conservatives a majority and ensure a Remain reversal of the Referendum.
However, they know Labour can't win an outright majority among the general population in a straight fight, certainly not across England and Wales. So they are looking to beef up its sectional voting blocs: migrants, young people and tractical voter Remainers.
So now the tough questioning of Labour on migration makes sense: the aim is to ensure that all Labour-voting people of migrant background get out and deliver votes to Labour having been told in no uncertain terms that Labour is nicely weak on migratino controls, whereas the hard-hearted Conservatives will be setting up military watch towers on our borders and blocking all migration.
Likewise they are doing everything possible to get out the student vote for Labour - even touring Universities on Today.
They are also publicising tactical voting as another method of increasing Labour's vote where it counts.
So that's the game - the BBC are trying to engineer Labour being the largest party or a good second, to be supported by SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Greens.
They were hoping the Brexit Party would eat into the Conservative vote but that hasn't been going so well.
TWAO yesterday with Sarah M led with “what’s happening with UK politics?”. Three headline examples of this new world were headlined: 1. Former conservative minister urges voters not to vote conservative 2. Lib dem standing aside so labor can win 3. Brexit party candidate doesn’t want to stand aside for conservatives
Now there's a surprise: Radio 4 News this morning managed to get through a single news item using 'the Conservatives' and no 'Tories' - three times in one item. Phew.
Of course it couldn't last. There soon followed an item about Gauke, in which they reverted to the BBC default with two 'Tories' and no 'Conservatives'.
Is is just me or is the latest BBC reality check not about reality at all and is really about defending Labour to show that their four day week plan is achievable?
At the moment Reality Check seems to be about attacking Conservative plans and defending Labour ones.
It's always been the way. Last time I looked at it 8 out of 10 Reality Checks were looking at Leave or Conservative claims...one looked at a Labour claim (sympathetically of course) and one was just a nonsense thing.
Also, the terms of engagement have changed. Initially they used to ask a question and at least pretend they were answering the question. Now they sometimes dispense with the question...or fail to respond to the question if there is one in any shape or form. They have become thinly disguised opinion pieces which could happily find space in the Guardian, FT or New Statesman.
Chris Morris just can’t help himself. Here he is again tonight disproving another Boris statement and taking the opportunity for the umpteenth time to dispel the £350m bus claim yet again. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50238351
But not as scary as the last Open Thread! (Thank goodness).
ReplyDeleteQuite right Anon. I’ve suffered dreadfully over the last few nights – haunted by visions of Emily willy waving. I’ve thought about suing Craig for the mental trauma.
DeleteWe are told (by BBC and ITV)not to indulge in conspiracy theories...but what to say when both ITV's News at Ten and BBC's Newsnight lead (yes, lead) on bogus "female in jeopardy" stories, focussed on whingeing whining female Labour/Remainer MPs?
ReplyDeleteLet's look at the facts:
1. Anyone who says boo to a goose or a female Labour/Remainer MP is looking at a long a stretch in prison. Everyone across the country knows that. You can say anything you like about Boris or the Conservatives, however hateful (Jess Phillips accused him today of not caring about his children) but you can't say Boo to a Remainer. So I am highly sceptical about these very vague news reports tonight about MPs being forced out of politics by hate messages. I really don't believe it.
2. Heidi Allen (this also goes for Anna Soubry) lied to her electorate at the 2017 election, stating clearly on video that she would implement the Brexit vote and that she detested the idea of a second referendum. Now if you lie in such gross terms as an MP you have got to accept a fair amount of invective coming your way. Sorry - that's just a natural reaction. Nothing to do with you being a woman or being "principled" - it's simply because you told huge lies to your electorate (which is presumably why you've ducked out of testing their support this time).
It hasn't taken long to see where the BBC News outlets have positioned themselves in coverage of the forthcoming General Election. It is clear that they will support Jeremy Corbyn along the lines that he is standing up against a general foe: The far-right racists misogynists who dared to vote Leave. Add to that the general odious wealth-creating businesses who dare to have the confidence that they can survive and prosper in a global market away from the EU. Corbyn has allowed himself to be sufficiently pliable that even though his plans for nationalisation couldn't be contemplated unless the UK left the EU, no matter, he can be reinvented to become a mouthpiece for the BBC's image for the UK.
ReplyDeleteCraig and Sue, we need your experienced eyes to keep watch for us as the BBC endeavour to sway public opinion in favour of Corbyn and more importantly - remain.
The photo of Corbyn shown on the BBC News website this morning says it all. Gone is the harsh red of traditional Labour. In its place is a subtle rose-coloured background. Yes, we are expected to see Corbyn through rose-tinted spectacles.
The last sentence of your first paragraph nails it down very well. Even if the BBC aren't consciously aware of it, the rejection of various 'evils' will define the default position.
DeleteToday Radio 4 (today):
ReplyDeleteNick Robinson interviewing Douglas Murray and Kehinde Andrews Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University (the latter barely comprehensible over the radio thanks to his non-RP accent and his lazy sentence construction). It was a classic BBC ambush, described in the article below - Robinson taking a few words out of context to paint Murray as a disseminator of religious hatred.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1198065/BBC-News-Bias-Today-Programme-Radio-4-Barack-Obama-left-right-wing-Douglas-Murray
Robinson should resign. His out of context ambush shows he is incapable of being a responsible journalist paid for by us, the licence fee holders.
Why didn't he "ambush" Andrews. Here are some things Andrews has said:
"Racial harassment... is so commonplace in UK universities that for black staff members such as myself, it feels like something we just have to get used to."
He claims the appointment of people like Sajid Javid is not on merit but a cynical bit of racial tokenism.
He claims that "racially offensive" language is "part of the norm of British political life".
Why didn't Nasty Nick have a go at Andrews' inflammatory prose?
Not sure what has happened to Nick. He must see that quote next to the statue as a challenge to break daily.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the BBC News website Politics page has been renamed Election 2019, and in the BBC's inimitable manner it contains four stories involving photos of Jeremy Corbyn, three images of John Bercow, and just one (towards the end of the page) of Boris Johnson.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, images of Corbyn show him as smiling and confident amongst friends and supporters - against the Labour backdrop, but show Boris alone as an isolated figure - somewhere away from London.
It's four now of the Cuddly Charismatic Comrade Corbyn.
Delete4 positive photos of Corbyn v 1 not v positive one of Johnson is what is known as "BBC Balance" or as Nick Robinson might say "objective reporting" or as Jon Sopel might say "being impartial, free and fair".
Delete'Conservative' isn't exactly safe now anyway, it is used to denote the 'bad' Islam practiced abroad as opposed to the 'good' Islam practiced here.
DeleteSome would say that the only reason there is a difference is because the Muslims here haven't quite achieved total control.
If Jo Johnson or Rachel Johnson were to come out and say equally controversial stuff, it would feature on the 10 o'clock news on BBC, ITV and Sky. But Jeremy has no reason to worry that the MSM will focus on what his brother Piers says about Extinction Rebellion:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/10/31/corbyns-brother-trashes-open-borders-brands-extinction-rebellion-soros-funded-globalist-scam/
I think this election is very much in the balance.
ReplyDeleteOnly a fool would underestimate the influence of biased framing in the media. Sky, ITV, and BBC are all peddling Labour talking points: supposed issue of hate-abuse (used by the liberal-left as a method of discourse control); Corbyn the cuddly campaigner; Trump interference (an own goal, thanks Nige); prominent "Vote Labour" in the frame over and over again on ITV News (yes, going to be plenty of camera tricks in this campaign); NHS not for sale... etc
Will the BBC News put forward the Conservative manifesto without clouding or colouring the content? I very much doubt it. That they are bigging up Corbyn - showing him as the wise elder statesman is dangerous.But, he has fliiped over to Remain, so that's the narrative they want to hear.
DeleteYou're right Arthur. If he was a Leave supporting Labour Leader he would be trashed by the BBC. Labour claims are not being subjected to serious scrutiny. Does Boris Johnson seriously intend to "sell off the NHS"? We've heard these claims before at previous elections from Labour. They aren't credible. But the MSM simply report them on without comment. Very different from how Conservative claims are treated.
DeleteBeeb-on-beeb violence...
ReplyDeleteHeard Adrian Chiles on Radio 5 Live today (think it was about 10.30am) having a go at Andrew Neil for his "bullying interview" of Jo Swinson. That's a quite remarkable attack for one Beeboid to launch on another...don't remember Chiles complaining about Emily's bullying of Rod...but for some reason Chilesy seems quite protective of Ms Swinson...even mentioned the fact she was a woman (how gallant, Ade -you noticed!).
Clearly Ade less concerned about losing colleagues jobs than most.
ReplyDeleteBe a shame if he got shafted.
Seems like the Night or Day or the Long Knives as we also have Isabel Hardman putting the knife into Rod Liddle for an article in the Spectator suggesting that it would be good to find a day on which to vote which was so holy to a certain religious group that they wouldn't vote on that day...not his best joke perhaps and maybe not a joke.
ReplyDeleteBoth Hardman and Robinson think it's bad form to complain about the influence of Islam in our polity
but they never say just how influence they think it should have? If not zero, or minimal influence...then significant influence? great influence? or maybe they'd prefer overwhelming influence? They are moral cowards who won't address one of the most important issues of our time. By failing to give an answer, they give an answer: they are prepared to see one religion totally transform the content of our culture and our politics.
John Simpson deleting tweets again
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1187748572621672451?s=21
John Simpson getting money off a government that refuses to investigate the murder of a journalist with anything like the determination of a democratic institution. Any surprise? Not really. He lost credibility a long time ago.
DeletePlease...a moment of silence...he was a BBC-kinda-guy so have some respect!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50268843
Beto (Fake First Name - No One Ever Called Him That) O'Rourke...RIP.
So Chris Morris is going to put his mucky paws all over our General Election, claiming he's undertaking Reality Checks? The branding is a thin disguise for anti-Conservative opinion pieces. Let's see his latest:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50222315
In this he examines the Conservative Party slogan: Get Brexit Done. Have they analysed "For The Many Not The Few" on Reality Check one wonders...
Well it seems to me this is exactly the sort of thing the BBC should NOT be doing - second guessing political slogans. Chris doesn't waste time. In the first para he is already concluding that the Conservatives have got it wrong and "it's not that simple".
He then misleadingly claims that "Brexit has been pushed back to 31 January 2020" before immediately contradicting himself by conceding it could take place before then.
He claims that Brexit will be "loved and hated in equal measure". No evidence given for this assertion. At the Referendum a million more people loved than hated the idea. But for Chris 52-48 has become 50-50.
Morris uses Remainer language throughout, referring to the WA as setting out the "divorce" agreement. This suggests a union of two parties, but that was never the case: we joined a club. A better analogy would be settling the bar bill.
At the end of the opinion piece he states: "Whatever happens in the next few months, the fallout from the Brexit referendum will remain with us for years to come."
The dictionary definition of "fallout" is "the adverse results of a situation or action". That is a very biased word to use in context.
There are some here who keep up with U.S politics and are aware of the gulf of truth between the BBC / Guardian take on the impeachment process and the actual course of events over the last 3 years.
ReplyDeleteI don't like Mr Trump, and I don't trust him, but he is selling anti-war tickets and that's good enough for me. The reporting on what is taking place in the U.S is beyond a joke.
Unless people know who Lisa Page and Peter Strzok are, it's pointless discussing Trump with anybody.
In recent months, aware voices from the left (Jimmy Dore (the American George Galloway), Tim Pool etc) have been blurring the left / right dividing line of commentary which is fascinating to me, and echoes my own perception of modern times.
Compare and contrast the two articles I've provided links to (and a few of the more recent articles featured on Moon Of Alabama). Notice the details - like actual names and sources - as opposed to the vague narrative of The Guardian / BBC.
The wierdest aspect is that the BBC keeps backing itself into corners from which it can't escape. It provides narratives or omits facts that it can't return to without highlighting its own initial failings.
Its Syrian war coverage, the Saving Syria's Children documentary, its coverage of Israel, Hungary, Turkey, France, The Netherlands, the US, black on black violence in the UK, the ongoing migrant crisis and the Tommy Take Down Panodrama are really lacking because those subjects weaken the narrative they wish to promote.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/02/its-time-to-throw-the-kitchen-sink-at-trump-impeachment
(Below is the 1st November 2019 article)
https://www.moonofalabama.org/
Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteWhen the BBC are discussing the upcoming election, in order to inform the population, is it right for them to keep talking about a party whose name will never appear on a ballot paper?
Do you mean "Tory"? If so, I agree entirely.
DeleteWhilst it might still be acceptable in general conversation, in recent decades in terms of political debate it has lost all its romantic connotations and now just summons up images of hate filled faces on demos with placards decrying these "effing Tories". The Conservative Party should have made clear they will not tolerate the word on media programmes they are involved in.
The BBC have never referred to Labour as "socialists" or "the Reds". The "Labour" tag still recalls its noble origins and aspirations and is a brilliant piece of branding which has made its capture very valuable for Marxist ideologues, extreme feminists, race activists, Islamists and others.
I have complained to the BBC several times regarding the use of the Tory label for the Conservatives. This is my last one dated 121/07/2018:
Delete...YOUR COMPLAINT:
Complaint Summary: Use of the name Tory party for Conservative party
Full Complaint: I find it necessary to repeat my complaint about the use of the name Tory Party by Laura Kuenssberg when she is referring to the Conservative party. On politics page of the BBC News website today, Laura Kuenssberg uses the name 'the Tory Party' instead of 'the Conservative Party'. There is no such thing as the Tory Party other than as a nickname for the Conservative Party. This nickname carries biased connotations which date back to a name used a long time ago. LK would not refer to the Labour Party as 'the Socialist Party' so why is she free from editorial control when speaking about the Conservative Party? Reporting is all about accuracy. The use of this term is inaccurate, and judging by your previous reply, inaccuracy is acceptable to the BBC!...
And predictably, here is the BBC reply dated 27th July 2018:
... Thank you for contacting getting back in touch with us about Daily Politics, broadcast 11 July.
As per our previous correspondence, a fundamental part of Laura Kuenssberg’s role is to give our audience an informed and impartial analysis of key political events. Many members of the Conservative party, up to and including Conservative Prime Ministers, accept that the word applies to them and many self-identify with it.
We've noted your points but do not consider they have suggested a possible breach of the BBC's standards to justify further investigation or a more detailed reply....
You may as well save your breath to cool your porridge. The BBC are arrogant. There have been occasions when LK has not used the word Conservative at all in her reports - despite any earlier assurance I received from the BBC Complaints Dept this on 7/07/2018:
.... Thank you for contacting us regarding the BBC News Website article 'Brexit: Theresa May seeks to sell plan to Tory sceptics' published on 7 July.
I understand you are unhappy with Laura Kuenssberg's use of the term 'Tory' or 'Tories' to refer to the Conservative party. I note your view that Laura's choice of words displays bias against the governing party.
We would explain that the BBC News style guide specifies that within the body of a report 'Conservatives' must be used in the first instance. However, for later references, 'the Tories' is acceptable. As such, Laura's report is entirely consistent with our guidelines.
As the BBC’s political editor, a fundamental part of Laura Kuenssberg’s role is to give our audience an informed and impartial analysis of key political events, using her experience and judgement. Indeed, all staff working for BBC News, though clearly entitled to hold personal opinions and beliefs, are acutely aware that their views should never in any way influence their work for the BBC, nor should they be apparent to our audience.
The question of what term to use when referring to the Conservative party is something the BBC has looked at in more detail in the following News Website article, which may be of interest to you ...
That bit about ...'We would explain that the BBC News style guide specifies that within the body of a report 'Conservatives' must be used in the first instance.' ... has clearly been abandoned.
Some interesting insights there Arthur - thanks!
Delete:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::
ReplyDeleteThe three unwise monkeys are on: Nick Watt (ex Guardian), "Dr." Deborah Cohen (ex Guardian)and Ben Chu (ex Guardian). Hear Tory Evil, See Tory Evil, Speak Tory Evil. All giving Labour a big push and the "Tories" well aimed kicks in the testicles.
On to the political panel...and they have on (a) the Labour candidate standing against Boris in his own constituency of Uxbridge...a complete unknown getting a nice helping hand from the BBC and (b) Stephen Crabbe...a nice reminder of Tory Scandals - doubt they'll be having Keith Vaz on.
It's interesting how little distance they put between their own views and those of Labour.
Maitlis allows (an odd sounding - what accent is that?) Ali Milani to make a tub thumping speech addressed to the electors of Uxbridge. Outrageous.
DeleteThen it's on to a favourite theme - Brexit Means Break Up of Union...this time Wales. Presented by the ever-reliable Elizabeth "40,000 Dead Sheep" Glinka.
So far, Newsnight has done a good impression of being the Guardian televised live.
Looked up Mr Milani - apparently he was born in Tehran. Very strong on promoting the Labour Muslim Network (numerous retweets on his Twitter feed). Clearly, one of those people who works to divide society while shedding crocodile tears over divisions in society - here he is in one of his tweets: "In 2017 young & black and ethnic minority people showed the Tories what we're made of."
DeleteI thought his name was familiar - and checked him out on Guido Fawkes. He's popped up several times but this was one of his worst outings - clearly anti-semitic comments from him:
Deletehttps://order-order.com/2019/07/29/meet-labours-ali-milani/
I hope the Conservatives go to town on him and make the connection with Corbyn. Challenge Corbyn to defend his comments in the debate.
Sorry - meant to add that Maitlis didn't seem to challenge him on any of his comments as recorded by Guido Fawkes. Can you imagine her giving a free ride to a Conservative in such circumstances. Why didn't Crabbe immediately launch into him? Newsnight seem to specialise in having pathetic panellists on from the Conservative Party.
DeleteLet's see what's missing from this BBC in depth look at the NHS - a key battleground we are told in the forthcoming GE:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50290033
... 'Ten charts on why the NHS matters in this election.' ...
1. We spend more on the NHS than ever before...
2. ...but spending has slowed
3. Waiting times are getting worse
4. The population is ageing
5. Care for older people costs much more
6. The UK spends a lower proportion on health than some other EU countries
7. The number of vacancies is high...
8. ...and building works are falling behind
9. Not many older people get free care
10. Satisfaction remains high
Surely, a chart showing the number of consultations/appointments increasing year on year should be at the top of the list. This, IMO, is the equivalent of a set of annual accounts being published without the top line (turnover) being declared. It is impossible to make any judgement about the efficiency and value for money without first knowing the scale of the business.
Also missing from the BBC analysis:
Delete11. Our migrant populations are far more likely to suffer from diabetes - one of the huge drains on NHS funds. The repeated cousin marriage tradition in certain migrant groups results in a huge increase in serious abnormalities. There are numerous specialist FGM clinics throughout the NHS that cost tens of millions to run. Health tourism accounts for losses in the hundreds of millions.
No surprise there! :)
I must admit that originally I thought Jacob Rees-Mogg was a liability to the Conservatives...then I began to think he was an asset...now I am back to thinking of him as a liability.
ReplyDeleteSurely, as soon as any Cabinet Member hears the word "Grenfell" they must know they have to be on extreme guard, as this is a sensitive touchstone issue.
That a Cabinet Member should come out with crap about it being "common sense" to ignore the clear advice of the Fire Service to "stay put", especially when corridors are already filled with dense smoke, is beyond me. Anyone who has looked into the matter knows that it was the Fire Service chiefly to blame for the deaths by (a) not being flexible about the "stay put" advice and (b) not risking the lives of their personnel to get the residents out.
I think perhaps he ought to resign. Boris needs to make clear, with absolute assurance, that his words were not acceptable. Otherwise I think we are going to see Labour using this quote over and over to support their "born to rule, callous Tories" narrative.
I should add, I've seen JRM's apology. If one accepts what he says, it's still not good. JRM is a Cabinet Minister and has been a broadcaster himself. The issue was Grenfell - he should have chosen his words much more carefully. It's a bit like if someone asks a question about Remembrance Day - be on your guard, say nothing ambiguous. Come out with platitudes that are not capable of misinterpretation. JRM should not have created this hostage to fortune.
DeleteAgreed MB. Very very silly comment. The BBC have seized on this and it is now lead story with Lucy Manning putting the boot in. Totally self inflicted.
DeleteYes, I switched over into the middle of Lucy Manning's report and thought she was a Labour spokesperson such was the palpable bile being directed at JRM and the "uncaring" Torees. Very unprofessional.. or maybe totally professional if your profession is getting Steptoe into No. 10.
DeleteMaitlis and Watts were piling in on Newsnight...with a bit of encouragement from alleged Conservative and May's Avenger, Gavin (now Lord) Barwell. Barwell even managed to mention Hillsborough...just to bring it all back to Boris (with his Liverpool remarks). Thanks Gavin!
DeleteJRM has really effed up. I'd definitely be looking for his resignation were it not for the fact that it's difficult to know whether that would just put the skids under the Conservative campaign entirely. Time for some real leadership from Boris. Tricky...
Boris needs to come out all guns blazing. He needs to remind the British public about McDonnell and Corbyn's pro IRA pro assassination leanings, about the many anti-semitic remarks from Labour candidates, about their hypocrisy, about their underhand dealings with the EU...
Going back to Newsnight the only light moment was when Maitlis sneeringly referred to the "Tories' claim to competence"...but misread her autocue and said "incompetence"...showing that she was, well, a bit incompetent herself.
Makes a change from a Newsnight panel:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DxFfsp1d34
Not saying it's any more balanced.
Zarah Sultana, Labour candidate for Coventry saying she is anti-racism and pro Palestinian is here wanting to celebrate the death of Bush, Blair and Netanyahu.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-50292235
She was presumably just following John McDonnell's lead, as he celebrated the attempted assassination of Mrs Thatcher (to the extent that he wanted to travel back in time to finish off the job) and also looked forward to Esther McVey's demise.
DeletePresident Duterte of the Philippines used to be regularly reviled by the BBC as a populist monster who would drag his country into violent chaos...haven't heard much about him recently, but just noticed Philippines scored a rise of 6.2% in GDP in 2018. Most Filipinos believe his war on drug addiction has been successful.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2019/2/16/SWS-Filipinos-drug-addicts-decrease-2018.html
I can see why the BBC have left this country alone despite the temptation to highlight the undoubted human rights abuses.
Emily on GMB with Piers Morgan...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR5LbrkZbAA&t=259s
Does Emily sound credible when she feigns ignorance of what Piers means by "liberal" or cannot confirm his observation that he's never come across a Conservative BBC person (by which I think he means, from the context, someone who has some significant role in delivering news and current affairs content at the BBC)? We should regard that as astonishing as more than a third of the population support Conservatives at elections.
Interesting to note as well that (as Piers rather cleverly lets slip) of course they are all inviting each other to their dinner parties...it's one great big bubble!
I saw the Ian Austin interview with Kay Burley. This was a very powerful interview. The only time I've heard anyone in this campaign lay down the real choice before the UK electorate and explain why a Corbyn led government would be a disaster for our country. Conservative spokespeople so far have been less than forceful in getting this across.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC and MSM are already trying to minimise the impact of Austin's attack. Firstly, they are doing so by suggesting the attack was based on the Labour Party's failure to tackle anti-semitism. It was more than that. Austin also berated Corbyn for aligning himself with this country's enemies and stated that Corbyn himself had made anti-semitic statements. Secondly they are doing by omitting or relegating two key elements: Austin's contention that Corbyn is unfit to PM and that as the country faces in reality a choice between Corbyn as PM and Boris Johnson as PM, long term Labour voters should switch to voting Conservative.
They are also diminishing the attack by not stating prominently that Ian Austin is an ex Government Minister and, until recently, lifelong Labour supporter.
In other words, I think they are trying to minimise the traction this gets.
I've noticed the main Radio 4 News for the last couple of mornings starting with an 'item' (arguably not news as it hasn't happened yet: rather... JC / Labour will give a speech and will say...) - about Labour, with the Conservatives mentioned second, coming in like an afterthought. Also-rans eh? Is this becoming a pattern? Is it the BBC's Today or News unthinking pre-set default?
ReplyDeleteAnd I noticed Robinson this morning jabbering away about Labour and the 'Tories', without using 'Conservatives' first, as required by Guidelines - explained earlier by Arthur. Of course, if he'd used it earlier in the programme, what then? He'd probably say it was within guidelines, if he could even be bothered to say anything at all about listeners' concerns.
Emma Barnett was Torying away non-stop this morning. Sometimes getting in ten "Tories" into a minute's jabbering.
DeleteTake a look at what the BBC News website Election 2019 page (under Scotland) did here:
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-50338977/boris-johnson-only-my-party-scottish-conservatives-can-prevent-another-referendum
... Boris Johnson: 'Only my party Scottish Conservatives can prevent another referendum' ... Now to me this looks like a direct quote of Boris's words.
But look again at the Election 2019 page, and we see the same story with a different headline:
... 'only Scots Tories can prevent indyref2'. ...
Both quotes have single inverted commas - the first as a direct quote of Boris's words, the second, also with single inverted commas, uses the word Tories as if it were the word from Boris's quote. See how easily the BBC News website slides into their habit of bias.
Newsnight appear to have completely airbrushed Ian Austin's statement out of the news.
DeleteJust to add, it's clear from various news programmes that even a lot of Labour sympathisers accept this was a v. powerful intervention by Ian Austin...and yet Newsnight could go the first ten minutes not mentioning it! Extraordinary!!
DeleteNew game - guess how someone votes. If you are truly impartial BBC reporters I shouldn’t be able too, but I bet we get it right, even if you deny it.
ReplyDeleteI like it... but I can only think of one presenter/reporter who probably votes Conservative.
DeleteAndrew Neil. Nick Robinson might vote Conservative if it was Kenneth Clarke or Dominic Grieve in his constituency...
DeleteAll the rest are 80% Labour 10% Lib Dems 5% Greens and 5% SNP/PC/SWP or other left minorities. Not a single Brexit Party or UKIP voter, on that you can be sure.
Add to the stack of questions that won't be asked by the BBC: Jeremy Corbyn's and the Labour Party's reaction to the proposed Royal Mail strike called by the CWU over the run-up to Christmas and the GE. Do they support this proposed industrial action?
ReplyDeleteQ2. What happens if postal votes aren't delivered?
While Boris's "letterbox/Burka" comment is constantly referred to by BBC presenters, Corbyn's reference to Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends" never is. Likewise McDonnell praise of "brave" IRA fighters is never ever referred to.
DeleteIt’s quite simple though for the BBC. Leaving aside any nuances, they chose sides a long time ago.
DeleteThey dislike Boris, the nasty Tories and his ‘populist’ approach so any smear and attack is OK.
They like Labours left-wing Marxist
policies and so won’t smear or attack any of the leadership.
I think the BBC community are more pretend revolutionaries than real ones. They like Marxism in theory, but in practice they want to inherit large sums from their parents and send their children to good schools - if necessary private schools. If they have some troublesome ailment, they want it treated it privately if a wait for NHS treatment is going to inconvenience them. Also, they are as much interested in being "on trend" than being right from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism.
DeleteBBC staff are definitely on the left - probably 99% but the number of dedicated Marxist ideologues is probably still quite small. Of course Jeremy, John, Sean and Paul intend to change that - Momentum will be "moving in" to the BBC if Labour win. Some of the more intelligent Beeboids probably realise that, and fear for their jobs and influence - which tends to make them more sympathetic to Labour "moderates" (Starmer, Cooper et al), Lib Dems, Greens and SNP as the mood takes them. Of course, even they must realise by now that the game is up within the Labour Party - that it has been captured by hardline Marxists and they will never willingly let go of it again.
David Mitchell is thinking of voting Lib Dem or Green...not that he said that...but that's why the BBC had him on to pontificate at length and incoherently about his political views.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1192871144174608390
One odd thing he proposed was that MPs would be condemned to work only as MPs while MPs and not at all on retirement from the Commons. He wants them well paid (I agree) and to receive good pensions.
He mumbled something about them not working for businesses...does that mean they can work for trade unions, charities, co-operatives, theatre companies, magazines? does it mean they can be self-employed working as "consultants" maybe? It's pretty clear that like most light entertainment folk, Mitchell can really think beyond the end of his nose. He sees no difficulties with his proposals.
can = can't !
DeleteWe have had frequent cause here to mention the BBC's appalling "Reality Check" opinion pieces.
ReplyDeleteKnowing they might feel a bit of heat during the election campaign, they have clearly decided to depart from their normal practice of focussing exclusively on Conservative claims and are now looking at the claims of other parties.
So here they look at SNP claims...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50348521
But this particular Reality Check is interesting because it looks at the entire speech of a party leader, not a particular claim. This allows them to produce a very unfocussed analysis.
OK so far so good, but where they find fault in the SNP's claims do they sternly warn that the SNP are being "misleading", "inaccurate" or similar, as they do when they find fault with Conservative claims? Er - no...
They conclude: "...the £1,600 per person figure is unhelpful."
Unhelpful!!! lol Indeed, unhelpful to the BBC's overall objective of producing a win for the "Progressive Alliance".
Our great Prime Minister knows exactly how to treat Rory Stewart take the p out of him...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9GpEvkXH18
48:48 (you definitely don't want to watch the whole of Rory's ego-massage!).
I thought JRM's remarks were sensible and that he had nothing to apologize for. I certainly think he should not have apologized.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to be edgy, or are you just a prick ?
DeleteWhat's the little black sambo nonsense ?
Why is it that some people feel that freedom of speech has to be polluted by the lowest common denominator ?
Argue your points and learn how to spell apologise.
Are you trying to be needlessly offensive?
DeleteI agree with LBS. JRM was making a response 'on the hoof', not carefully constructing a 'politically correct', offend no-body, say nothing, mean nothing response.
The use of 'z' or 's' has been a feature of English English for a very long time, the 'z' variants being preferred by the UK Civil Service when they bothered about writing style, (a battle long lost).
I can't say that I'm bothered about LBS as a user name either, it brings happy memories of little boys creating 'tiger butter' to me.
Best not to assume bad motives when responding to people that you don't know.
Yes, the use of z is proper English even though it's not the preferred current usage. Modern journalism went over to the s in about the 1970s and the Civil Service followed suit. I'm not sure why it happened. Something to do with the keyboard perhaps.
DeleteThanks, Anons 2 and 3!
DeleteYou don't have to be a seer or a sage to know that the whole of the Left-Liberal MSM, and the BBC in particular, will be up in arms about the Brexit Party's sensible decision not to stand against the Conservative Party. It's even more important than it seems as it will give some Labour voters a push to vote Conservative, who otherwise would have voted TBP or stayed at home.
ReplyDeleteAll we need now is someone to set up a website to show which non-Conservative constituencies are more vulnerable to the TBP and which to Conservatives, so that both parties can engage in a little judicious soft-pedalling in those constituencies where their opponents have a very good chance of winning.
Polly put the kettle on...and brew up a "storm" to be featured later on Guardian TV (aka Newsnight).
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/11/farage-brexit-pact-progressives-urgent
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::
ReplyDeleteTBP's unilateral non-aggression pact is according to Emily "astonishing". Of course, she found nothing "astonishing" in a nationalist party (Plaid Cymru) entering a pact with two unionist parties (Lib Dems and Greens), so depriving Welsh people in many parts of Wales from having any chance of voting for independence.
Cahootism is the new word! James Clayton raising the possibility of TBP and Conservatives being "in cahoots".
The other meme message is "backfire"...this will backfire.
It's astonishing, they're all in cahoots, it's all choreographed, it's going to help Boris,it's not going to work but it's all going to backfire.
Typical Newsnight analysis (i.e. propaganda).
This is a good case study in how the BBC communicate "Good" and "Bad".
DeleteFor the Remainer Alliance (Lib Dems/Greens/PC): no suggestion that anyone is "in cahoots" or that discussions on the fringes are illegitimate. Tone of voice is positive with a note of delighted surprise.
No suggestion that the ultimate objective of the alliance (Revoke) might be dangerous or illegitimate.
For the TBP unilateral withdrawal (not even a Pact!): Suggestion that people are "in cahoots" and discussion on the fringes of parties shows bad faith and underhand dealing.
Tone of voice is negative, full of concern and anxiety. The suggestion is that the ultimate objective is dangerous or illegitimate (a "hard" Brexit).
:::Newsnight Watch:::
ReplyDeleteDid I hear Emily right? I think she say that "made up numbers" about Labour funding commitments appeared in the Press over the weekend.
Made up? Is Emily now a Momentumista?
It's perfectly legitimate to convert Labour Conference approved policies and Shadow Minister statements into financial realities - they shouldn't publish such policies and statements if they don't want them to be costed.
And more than that, there is a strong argument for saying that Labour's costs are underestimated in the sense that economic collapse will follow very soon after their election, requiring the government to impose taxes that will impact on family budgets.
:::Newsnight Watch:::
DeleteA final thought: Manifestoes, in theory at least, set out what parties intend and pledge to do. A Manifesto is NOT an exhaustive list of everything that a Government might do. So it is perfectly legitimate to say "What else might a party do?" if the potential Governing Party has made specific policy commitments.
And so to Burley Rob:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/1193970394375557121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1193970394375557121
Notice that clause: "Despite the intrinsic absurdity of the allegation and all the evidence that it was untrue..."
Well, quite Rob, but the "intrinsic absurdity and lack of evidence" doesn't stop the BBC from majoring on:
1. We are all going to die from eating chlorinated chicken despite the fact we get more chlorine from a 30 min swim in the local pool compared with eating chlorinated chicken for a year.
2. Greta Thunberg's demands that we achieve zero carbon emissions within six years are perfectly rational and will not lead to (a) socioeconomic collapse (b) deaths of millions (c) total destruction of the NHS as we know it.
3. Sharia is good for you.
4. The only racism is white racism.
5. Trump is the devil incarnate.
Regarding chlorinated chicken,always mentioned by those who hate America, they simply ignore the fact that most bagged salad leaves sold in this country are cleaned in a chlorine wash to remove bacteria.
ReplyDeleteAnne G.
Very good point. An inconvenient fact you can guarantee the BBC will overlook.
DeleteQuite. Well noted Anne.
DeleteBBC still reporting on the front page of it's website that 'Raheem Sterling to miss England qualifier' creating the impression that he is injured or unavailable for selection. The real truth is that their new self styled role model attacked another England team mate, Liverpool player Joe Gomez, throttling him and abusing him at dinner. Most other news outlets are reporting that Gareth Southgate has dropped Sterling for his appalling behaviour yet the BBC continues to play down the incident as Sterling is their golden boy and tireless campaigner against racism.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC News website on the Election 2019 page continue to ignore its own guidelines this morning by using in headlines the term 'Tory' or 'Tories' eight times without using the word 'Conservatives' once.
ReplyDeleteAS the BBC Complaints Dept is no doubt very busy at the moment, I wrote my own reply to the complaint I couldn't be bothered to make:
DeleteDear Mr T,
Thank you very much for taking the time to write to us with regard to your complaint over the use of the word "Tory' or 'Tories' when referring to the Conservatives. We have taken note of your complaint, and it will be presented at tomorrow's editorial meeting so that our team of content managers are aware of your complaint.
With regard to your reference to our editorial guidelines, I can confirm that these were changed a while ago, and therefore, we have not as you suggest ignored them. In the fast-moving environment of our busy newsroom, headlines need to be concise. Recent research shows that the terms 'Tories' and 'Conservatives' are interchangeable and the term 'Tory' does not carry the negative connotation that you suggest.
Thank you once again for taking the the time to contact us. We shall not be taking your complaint any further as, in this case, we got things about right.
Yours sincerely, ... BBC Complaints Dept.
Well done Arthur! If there are no negative connotations why do Labour politicians and media folk nearly always use it in preference to Conservative? One thing that would help is if stupid Conservative politicians and commentators stopped using it themselves. It just provides cover for the BBC that they do.
DeleteAndrew Marr was at it on Sunday as well starting off with 'Tories' and giving Labour and Liberal Democrats their full proper form.
DeleteI noticed also on Today over the last two days, the news reader started off with 'Conservatives', in both cases reverting immediately to 'Tories' on the second mention. It looks like a deliberately chosen policy and a standard format for the News. It's as if the guidelines made it mandatory to revert rather than simply making provision to permit it.
Given that there isn't an exact equivalence with variants of 'Labour' and 'Liberal Democrats' and that there is a distinct taint of derogatory use of 'Tories', the proper thing for the national broadcaster is to use the formal name in all three cases rather than in just two.
Your complaint could have been signed 'Capita plc' if what I read recently is correct. Apparently the BBC's 'Audience Services' is a big contract put out to tender which Capita won. (Big money, anyway.) It includes the first two stages of Complaints to the BBC. This was a surprise to me. I'd always assumed I was dealing with actual BBC people.
DeleteYes, the BBC Complaints Dept keeps a safe distance between it and 'the programme makers'. Despite their commissioning, they don't necessarily stand by the accuracy of content. That the BBC might have instigated and facilitated the setting up of independent production companies, they can always point the finger and thus deflect direct criticism. This is particularly galling when documentaries carry the OU logo, and will be treated as reliable references for students in years to come.
DeleteGood on you, Arthur T. This is a fascinating area. On my previous blog I used to run on a count on the number of times Norman Smith used 'Tory' and the number of times he used 'Conservative'. He was overwhelmingly - and I do mean overwhelmingly - a 'Tory' man. He even made Labour's Peter Hain sound reticent when it came to using the word 'Tory'.
DeleteLaura K must be by now the leader in the 'Tory" stakes. She simply can't impart the same expression of disdain into the word 'Conservatives' as she does when spitting out the word 'Toreees'.
DeleteI heard the Infamous Chris Morris for the the first time in a while this morning. He is no longer even “checking” specific statistics. His first, rather obvious point was to state that it’s impossible to precisely cost spending based on manifestos - but apparently this rule only applies when the Conservatives are questioning Labour plans. The second, somewhat more bizarre point was his interpretation of a poster depicting Jeremy Corbyn in Nicola Sturgeon’s pocket. Isn’t that exactly what Corbyn has done in promising another Independence Referendum, or am I missing something? This isn’t even a pretence at fact checking. This is pure propaganda.
ReplyDeleteThe whole of Labour's plans are based on the absurd idea that very rich people are just going to sit in the UK meekly accepting Labour's taxing of their wealth. The money will be siphoned off abroad as quick as you can say "John McDonnell is a pro-IRA Marxist extremist". So the whole of Labour's costings are fantasy stuff.
DeleteOf course billionaires won't just sit there and become non-billionaires.
DeletePart of the problem is the short memory and lack of historical knowledge of not just voters but the media.
In the 1970s taxes were up to 90% plus for the highest earners so, for example, in the film industry actors and the top directors did all they could at the time to minimize this.
They would live abroad and ruthlessly schedule the few days a year they could be in the country without attracting the tax. They would jet in just after midnight and jet out just before midnight in order to not waste another day. They would force films to be made outside of the country, with the consequent loss of millions of pounds and hundreds of jobs to the economy.
British films were forced to make do with a much smaller pool of possible star actors, which meant that some films never raised the finance and were never made.
All this in an industry where it often makes a massive difference where the production is based. For industries where it doesn't matter so much then they will be relocated elsewhere.
Of course, the younger, forgetful and ignorant aren't being reminded of this by our betters.
Hollande tried taxing the millionaires... they left the country with their money (ECB/EU won't allow exchange controls!) and what happened? The tax collected fell by billions and Hollande had to abolish his higher taxation plans.
DeleteThe same will happen here under Corbyn... millionaires are among the cleverest people around and will find a way around whatever dopey socialists come up with, and the burden will fall on those Islington Labour voting luvvies with six figure incomes who say they would be happy to pay more tax but never seem to voluntarily write cheques to HMRC and who will e asking their accountants for help avoiding Corbyn type tax rises. Trust funds in tax havens are being established to squirrel away excess income producing assets so HMRC won't be shovelling away any of their hard earned money to which they feel entitled.
Yes Anonymous, Whenever someone is banging on about being happy to pay more tax it's always worth pointing out to them that anyone can choose to pay more tax than they have to (and that almost no one does). They usually get defensive or change the subject.
DeleteOh dear, even the BBC can't completely ignore the "explosions" in Sweden...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50339977
But it can obfuscate...
Apparently these explosions mean the "environment" gets "violated"...all clear now?
And apparently a lot of the explosions are caused by "bangers"...so, just a bit of exuberance from the kids...I guess so, if you say it's true, BBC.
Well - no - actually, there are deep underlying causes...OK. What be they? It's those "low-income, vulnerable suburbs". OK, suburbs now have emotional states? I'm puzzled. Don't worry, it's the BBC - where even cars and lorries can have murderous intent.
You have to go quite a long way into the story before you get to something a bit closer to a possible explanation, what's really worrying the BBC...it seems the dastardly "political right" think the explosions "add fuel to their argument that Sweden has struggled to integrate migrants over the past two decades". Of course the rest of the article just sets out to rubbish that thesis by quoting as authoritative statements from public officials and leftist commentators.
The funniest part I thought is where we are told that in an effort to understand what is going on, the Swedish police are looking at criminal networks in Mexico...why not Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan you might wonder?
There's a lot of subtle and not so subtle misdirection in the article. Not least, because every photo there is accompanying the article looks like what you might call a "traditional" Swede.
So, all in all, definitely not journalism. More like a tricky defence in chess, trying to combat all possible mate moves, so that the reader goes away with the impression that the gangs are multi-ethnic, not migrant-dominated, do not have one religious group over-represented in them, are victims of poverty and deprivation (in Sweden for gawd's sake!) and that the seriousness of the "explosions" has been over-stated.
All good then! Carry on as before!!
That is quite some BBC piece!
DeleteI wonder if Maddy Savage realises that her BBC colleague Andrew Neil was at the forefront of those speculating about whether the Swedish public broadcaster SVT was engaged in a cover-up by leaving the story out of a main evening news programme.
I suspect she's well aware of it.
Oh right, I didn't know that...Yes, could be an internal hit piece...not the first time that would have been done. We know the BBC have been censoring the news from Sweden as well...
DeleteIt all kicked off, as Paul Mason would put it, with a tweet from Andrew Neil that said:
Delete"Explosions so normalized in Sweden that SVT, Sweden’s BBC, did not even mention the three explosions in the country’s capital on its national news programme that evening. Instead, the main domestic story was the purported censorship of ‘big female bodies’ on Instagram."
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1187770249887784960
AT - Seems Complaints have hired Kevin Maguire as ECU overseer on this issue. With Paul Mason on back-up.
ReplyDeleteWe know the BBC doesn't consider people's private lives off limits if it suits their purpose. They have tried to use Boris's colourful private life as a way of undermining his political rise (fail!).
ReplyDeleteThe BBC love the Clintons:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07tnr11
Smiles all round!
But the Clinton family circle is built on a lie:
https://twitter.com/telekinetica/status/1148616276144721920
:::NEWSNIGHT WATCH:::
ReplyDeleteWoarwee we love you!
Rory Stewart is back on Newsnight pushing his bogus Clarkean Conservatism!!! Yay!!!!!
Emily's interview with him was so soft - like a very underdone egg...sloppy but warm.
On to pro-Brexit Conservative MP Daniel Cawcynski ...Emily soon interrupting and calling into question his honesty. Nothing like the interview with the "King Across the Water" Rory Stewart.
Now she's getting on the Maitlis high horse...still gunning for that second RTS award.
More sceptical interruptions...none of that gentle nodding when she was interviewing the Boy Wonder!
Now implying Boris is a liar...par for the course on Newsnight.
I'd say the attempted or actual interruptions of DC
compared with Rory were running at 10-1.
Now she's in anti-Polish mode and decrying DC's contacts with the Polish government - ever heard her challenge Grieve on his contacts with Macron? Er - no.
Now claiming there is a "working alliance" between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party. Keep those Labour Talking Points coming.
Maitlis on first name terms with the Labour spokesperson Richard "Pro-Hamas" Burger-Boy ...
She's giving him a tough time about migration...not sure what this is all about. I think she's not getting the answer she wants...what answer? That the Conservative migration policy is racist? I don't know.
On to the Lib Dem woman - Paula Ferguson...
Maitlis gives her a pretty soft interview.
Maitlis seems to see everything from a Remainiac perspective...that's the only way to make sense of her interviews tonight.
On to a Glinka Clunker...
Lincolnshire - dependent on migrant labour BUT voted Leave...loving those BBC conjunctions, or - if you prefer - non sequitirs...or maybe unspoken sequitirs!
On to a bit of English Nationalism bashing...you can be an Irish nationalist, the BBC will love that...you can be a Scottish nationalist and the BBC will give you a big hug...you can even be a Welsh nationalist and the BBC will give you a pat on the head...in fact you can even be a Cornish nationalist if you want! - but an English nationalist is about one remove from being a straight-armed saluting Brownshirt according to the BBC.
Yeah It’s clear the BBC hates England and the English at very deep levels. Not hard to figure out why. We voted for thatcher and leave. It’s a conservative nation.
DeleteYes, which is why ultimately the BBC are a unionist organisation, strange as that may seem. If they can turn England Red of course that won't matter and they will happily see Scotland and Wales go their own way (Northern Ireland of course has to join the Republic - any fule nose that).
DeleteWages are now rising over 2% faster than prices.
ReplyDeleteWill we hear this news on the BBC? I doubt it.
We hear endlessly when it is the other way round.
Surely that translates into "Inflation concern grows." in Beeblish?
DeleteBeing a suspicious (ie sensible) sort I never take the BBC at face value. I was puzzled why both on Newsnight and on Today, Radio 4, the beeboids have been pressing Labour so hard on its migration policy, making them sound weak on migration...what's up? It's not as if the BBC care about mass immigration is it?
ReplyDeleteI think I've sussed it out now. The BBC policy is to attempt to maximise Labour's vote, so as to deny the Conservatives a majority and ensure a Remain reversal of the Referendum.
However, they know Labour can't win an outright majority among the general population in a straight fight, certainly not across England and Wales. So they are looking to beef up its sectional voting blocs: migrants, young people and tractical voter Remainers.
So now the tough questioning of Labour on migration makes sense: the aim is to ensure that all Labour-voting people of migrant background get out and deliver votes to Labour having been told in no uncertain terms that Labour is nicely weak on migratino controls, whereas the hard-hearted Conservatives will be setting up military watch towers on our borders and blocking all migration.
Likewise they are doing everything possible to get out the student vote for Labour - even touring Universities on Today.
They are also publicising tactical voting as another method of increasing Labour's vote where it counts.
So that's the game - the BBC are trying to engineer Labour being the largest party or a good second, to be supported by SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid, and Greens.
They were hoping the Brexit Party would eat into the Conservative vote but that hasn't been going so well.
TWAO yesterday with Sarah M led with “what’s happening with UK politics?”. Three headline examples of this new world were headlined:
Delete1. Former conservative minister urges voters not to vote conservative
2. Lib dem standing aside so labor can win
3. Brexit party candidate doesn’t want to stand aside for conservatives
It’s a political broadcaster.
Now there's a surprise: Radio 4 News this morning managed to get through a single news item using 'the Conservatives' and no 'Tories' - three times in one item. Phew.
ReplyDeleteOf course it couldn't last. There soon followed an item about Gauke, in which they reverted to the BBC default with two 'Tories' and no 'Conservatives'.
Ah well.
Is is just me or is the latest BBC reality check not about reality at all and is really about defending Labour to show that their four day week plan is achievable?
ReplyDeleteAt the moment Reality Check seems to be about attacking Conservative plans and defending Labour ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50405068
It's always been the way. Last time I looked at it 8 out of 10 Reality Checks were looking at Leave or Conservative claims...one looked at a Labour claim (sympathetically of course) and one was just a nonsense thing.
DeleteAlso, the terms of engagement have changed. Initially they used to ask a question and at least pretend they were answering the question. Now they sometimes dispense with the question...or fail to respond to the question if there is one in any shape or form. They have become thinly disguised opinion pieces which could happily find space in the Guardian, FT or New Statesman.
In which case Reality Check is in synergy with every other BBC platform.
ReplyDeleteReality Check - another one today
ReplyDeleteChris Morris just can’t help himself. Here he is again tonight disproving another Boris statement and taking the opportunity for the umpteenth time to dispel the £350m bus claim yet again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50238351
So BBC are using the word "reality" as an ambush word
ReplyDeleteie they claim they are checking REALITY when they aren't at all.