hibs.net Messageboard

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 181 to 185 of 185

Thread: BBC bias again?

  1. #181
    @hibs.net private member Golden Fleece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    between a brewery & distillery
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Im sorry, youve lost me. Of course the figures are from NHS (ISD) and it is those figures which the SG have apologised for, because they are currently way off target. Thats the media story, which i understood you felt was them displaying bias (apologies if i have picked you up wrong) as it misrepresented something.
    Sarah Smith mentioned the 100000 figure as having missed the 4 hour target in A&E. How can anyone confuse a weekly figure for an annual one. It wasn't even in the NHS report for the last week of December.
    Scotland can be a beacon, within these islands and beyond, for a socially just and sustainable society. Whilst there are many priorities which will require independence, there is also much that can and must be done now by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #182
    @hibs.net private member JimBHibees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Fleece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I should have clarified (which I did when I posted these figures previously) The ANNUAL figures for Scotland are the second best since 2013.

    Note the ANNUAL figure of 100,000, the figure Sarah Smith said was for the last week of 2017. That is some mistake to make when the actual figure missing the target for the week was in the region of 1,400 (the actual figure is out there somewhere)

    PS My health board, NHS Tayside A&E figure is 98.2% . Better than the target and ranked 2nd in Scotland. Scotland as a whole last met the A&E target in August last year.
    If she has honestly made that error and it is a whopper to be honest, then like newspapers the news programme should be forced to apologise and correct the error.

  4. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No worries mate!

    Ive been thinking about the craig thomson analogy here, because in my view, part of the problem here is that some people treat politics like they treat a fitba team - with an irrational and unquestioning support, particularly when challenged by someone they percieve as from the 'other team'.

    So, i habe witnessed with my own eyes thomson giving terrible, big and important decisions against us (or not giving them in tge case of that wee runt Black elbowing Griffiths).

    Do i believe he is rubbish, arrogant or any other defect that means hr makes terrible decisions from time to time? Yes. Do i believe he let the pressure of that occasion get to him, and either conciously or unconciously made poor decisions as a result? Yes.

    Do i believe he is personally biased against hibs? I dunno, im open minded about that but he has made enough bad decisions elsewhere that i lean more towards him just being rubbish than having a vendetta against hibs.

    But, even if i believe he is biased, it is quite a leap to think that he is biased because of orders he recieves from the SFA, decided by some anonymous committee of behind the scenes fitba guys who meet in total secrecy, who manage to exclude not only anyone involved with hibs, but also just anyone involved in fitba who has any integrity, professionalisn or sense of fair play. And of course, this committee has decided it will persecute hibs for reasons unknown, and give orders to presumably a team of 4 match officials without anyonr knowing, or blowing the whistle.

    Noe i have no difficulty that the SFA have, in the past been corrupt, but i just find it hard to believe that in a world of transparency, digital leaks, hacking and tv money, that such practices could exist without being exposed. And im also not sure why they would decidd to pick on hibs?

    So is it possible that a particular journo might be anti SNP? Yeah, i would say so. Is it possible that the entire BBC is systematically biased against the SNP? I suppose its possible, but it seems unlikely.

    I think there is lots of confirmation bias that goes on. I dont remember how many games thomson has had where he hasnt given bad decisions against hibs, orbhas given decisions for us. The bad ones stick in my mind, not the uneventful or positive ones.

    Also, supporters of the SNP have to accept that as a party pf govt, they will be attacked by all sides, fairly relentlessly. Thats the business of govt, and would and does happen to every govt, regardless of party. The tories down south are getting it relentlessly, as did the labour govt before them.

    And lastly, there also has to an acceptance that if your personal viewpoint is biased, then what you view as normal or fair will also be biased. And something that to a non-aligned person would seem fair, would appear biased to you because of your own bias.

    This is an interesting discussion. I take your point on stats, i am just too lazy to look for them - plus i am very suspicious of them anyway as they are too easily manipulated and spun.

    The difference for me between the sfa /ref bias/incompetence and the editor/journalist relationships is that in the latter The editor has a material input into the final outcomes.

    An SFA blazer isn't in Thompsons ear telling him to blow for a penalty that wasnt.
    A newspaper editor is involved in cutting and re-writing a story to comply with its owner's agenda.

    I accept some of what you're saying -yes a govt will be scrutinised intensely for eg. And yes they should be held accountable.

  5. #184
    @hibs.net private member Mibbes Aye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Just on the stats point, it's important to recognise that while Scotland may be doing slightly better than England, both are generally miles off their target. Within all that there will be pockets where targets are being met but when you aggregate it up to a national level then both systems are struggling to provide effective, timely care.

    More importantly, and as I've said before I'm sure, it doesn't matter if you hit a target but miss the point. A+E waiting times are important but the pressure to meet them can have a perverse incentive e.g. people are moved from ward to ward unnecessarily, or discharged unsafely, because of that pressure at the front door. This merely increases the risk of things like hospital-acquired infections, or readmission. But that gets lost because the focus is on the four-hour waiting time.

    This isn't a party political point - there needs to be a serious, frank and candid debate about what health service we want because in my lifetime the only time it's really worked was c.Blair's second term when the spending taps were flowing and those days are unlikely to return anytime soon, unless we choose to fund that level of investment against the increasing demographic pressures - that's one for the health economists to calculate but I know it would mean an ongoing hike in taxes.

    Interestingly, Nick Boles (rabidly libertarian Tory minister) has suggested hypothecating National Insurance to fund the NHS. I say interesting, because despite him often having views that a left-of-centre voter would hate, sometimes his policy positions are exactly the same as Labour, albeit for different reasons. I've not fully thought it through, so I don't have an opinion as yet but what's also fascinating is the Treasury is reputed to have always been resistant to hypothecated taxation. That makes sense politically - it means the Treasury retains vast power at the expense of the big-spend departments like Education and Health, though whether that's ultimately good for the nation is a different story.
    There's only one thing better than a Hibs calendar and that's two Hibs calendars

  6. #185
    Testimonial Due Glory Lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Miles from in the know
    I would be really interested to know if there are examples of the BBC mistakenly complimenting the performance of a devolved area, or of them featuring as Jock Public in a devolved-area report someone who was easily identified a tub-thumping indy sort.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved