tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post7739876857282683355..comments2024-01-01T17:21:52.555+00:00Comments on Is the BBC biased?: Keeping tabs on 'The World Tonight'Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08741318067991857821noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-76774658081357193962016-03-12T21:32:29.150+00:002016-03-12T21:32:29.150+00:00Also we should keep an eye on the non-news progs. ...Also we should keep an eye on the non-news progs. On the Now Show there were several references to the Referendum issue. One was quite oblique (all about how the media like things cut and dried or black and white, whereas any sensible person realise things are more complicated and we have to settle for muddy compromises in life) which I read as a subtle Remain nudge. It was a very odd item because normally comedy works on the principle of extreme contrasts - comedy is rarely subtle in the way it treats its subject matter. But suddenly "settling for the imperfect" is the new comedy gold. Then there was the John Holmes piece which was like wading through a jungle of caveats but he managed to smuggle in the message that concern about EU migration was a sign of "racism". <br /><br />The more I think about it the Now Show was seriously weird! But really it was only because they were clearly having to perform contortions in order to just launching an all out attack on those want to Leave the EU. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-79587905753532777312016-03-12T21:24:04.034+00:002016-03-12T21:24:04.034+00:00I agree. The narrative is what counts. One way of...I agree. The narrative is what counts. One way of looking at the migration crisis is "A state that cannot patrol and protect its borders must die." This would lead into a narrative about how the EU is in danger of chaotic disintegration. Well, you won't find that narrative on the BBC will you? No, the dominating narrative is all about a humanitarian crisis that has to be responded to within Europe. An Australian style solution of processing people thousands of miles away from mainland Europe is hardly ever canvassed even though it is easily the simplest way of distinguishing between genuine refugees and economic migrants (the latter won't waste their time on it whereas genuine refugees will be glad to find safety wherever that be). The narrative about WHY we should be concerned specifically about Islamic migration (Cologne/Rotheram style attacks; importing terrorism; introducing Sharia law which competes with our democratic law making etc) also doesn't get a look in as a narrative (these issues only come up in a disconnected way as though they are not all linked to the common factor of Islam.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-49428369517642074452016-03-12T21:10:03.354+00:002016-03-12T21:10:03.354+00:00But notice how immigration is treated differently ...But notice how immigration is treated differently from trade. With trade you get items on "What would happen to trade and jobs if the UK left the EU?" But with migration you don't get "What will happen to immigration if the UK remains in the EU?" When migration is looked at it's in a rather amorphous way as something that "people are concerned about", not as something real, with real impacts on schools, hospitals, employment and pay. The BBC are much more likely to go to a particular firm and ask them how their orders will be affected by Brexit - far less prepared to go and ask people on the social housing waiting lists how they feel about their chances of getting a decent place to live in with net migration running at 320,000 per annum. Also I've noticed the debate is set out in very black and white terms e.g. that either you have free movement and the right of people to move here from the EU area or you don't. But there is no reason why, having left the EU, you might not have people coming to work in the UK on a guest worker, time-limited basis, with an infrastructure contribution from their employer. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-22097228149746589932016-03-12T16:04:24.186+00:002016-03-12T16:04:24.186+00:00Yes, that's why the BBC has to distract with i...Yes, that's why the BBC has to distract with immigration and economic fearmongering.David Preiser (USA)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00055001852090086556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-40408348863687954062016-03-12T16:03:38.857+00:002016-03-12T16:03:38.857+00:00Excellent work and tireless effort as usual, Craig...Excellent work and tireless effort as usual, Craig. I have only one quibble.<br /><br />The Thursday Feb 25 edition was ultimately pro-Remain. Everything leading up to the pollsters segment was about how some European countries not wanting to take in refugees will destroy the EU. Not that the undemocratic methods which led to crisis are the problem, but that countries like Austria don't want innocent women and children seeking safety coming in through countries like Greece. I realize that events predicated the choice of examples, but it's almost pantomime. Innocent, put-upon Greece, already a victim of the wealthier EU countries, being hurt by stock villain Austria.<br /><br />If the UK leaves the EU, that will be the final straw, apparently. This sets up the pollster segment about whether or not immigration is the main reason people want Out. Ritula Shah took care to make the distinction between the 'refugee/migrant' issue and plain old immigration. It was clear she was trying to get the pollster to say that Leavers were concerned about immigration, full stop, which as we know is racist and wrong, as opposed to having a possibly more legitimate concern about Europe creating chaos with the 'refugees/migrants' from outside Europe. Big difference. Then one of the pollsters gave the game away.<br /><br /><i>"It's only if this cultural concern, this concern about immigration, is married with a belief that if we left the European Union we'd actually be economically better off..."</i> would it be a deciding factor. Otherwise, the pollster said, most people think Britain would be economically better off In. So racism and xenophobia is the deciding factor for Leave supporters.<br /><br />This is pro-Remain in that it demonizes people concerned about rapid, mass immigration from third-world Muslim countries and creating more segregated communities. In other words, the usual BBC Narrative worked in where useful. If they had done the pollster segment first, then gone to the Austria/Greece debate and then on to the Christian refugees in Thailand and so on, it wouldn't have had the same effect. The producers chose to build a narrative instead.David Preiser (USA)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00055001852090086556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-34399709130115337232016-03-12T15:57:51.519+00:002016-03-12T15:57:51.519+00:00Good point. Norman Smith chooses "security, i...Good point. Norman Smith chooses "security, immigration, jobs, finance and trade".<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35632046Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08741318067991857821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-72358759289251509202016-03-12T15:30:41.871+00:002016-03-12T15:30:41.871+00:00A lot the bias will come from structural bias. For...A lot the bias will come from structural bias. For instance Norman Smith's 5 key issues doesn't include democratic control. But that is a key issue for many leavers on both left and right. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com