PDA

View Full Version : BBC bias?



pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 10:08 PM
Been thinking about the situation the Rangers and i understand it may appeal to a more wider audience, however, when rangers were struggling the BBC were seen helping their downfall with various programs and documentaries about the goings on.

The Hearts situation is far more interesting with alleged potential serious criminal activity, yet the BBC continue to roll out interest in hearts players, hearts need to be saved blah blah blah. All of which has been played out for all to see in the last 5 or more years.

Where are the documentaries investigating potential money laundering, shocking headlines of criminal activities, the dodgy share issue and the board appearing to release stories to entice more wages for themselves. Que the BBC - premiership clubs may be interested in great crop of youngsters- aye right.

Disgusting from a national broadcaster (BBC Scotland), not that i am backing The Rangers in anyway

Hibercelona
14-06-2013, 10:10 PM
What do you expect from the BBC? Honest news?

You're asking for too much.

Winston Ingram
14-06-2013, 10:11 PM
Been thinking about the situation the Rangers and i understand it may appeal to a more wider audience, however, when rangers were struggling the BBC were seen helping their downfall with various programs and documentaries about the goings on.

The Hearts situation is far more interesting with alleged potential serious criminal activity, yet the BBC continue to roll out interest in hearts players, hearts need to be saved blah blah blah. All of which has been played out for all to see in the last 5 or more years.

Where are the documentaries investigating potential money laundering, shocking headlines of criminal activities, the dodgy share issue and the board appearing to release stories to entice more wages for themselves. Que the BBC - premiership clubs may be interested in great crop of youngsters- aye right.

Disgusting from a national broadcaster (BBC Scotland), not that i am backing The Rangers in anyway

To be fair Hearts aren't big enough. For Rangers think Tesco, for Hearts think Ali's Cave. To quote JKB 'non-story'

jacomo
14-06-2013, 10:13 PM
What do you expect from the BBC? Honest news?

You're asking for too much.

Credit to Vlad, his media monkey rants were nuts but he intimidated the media a wee bit. Hibs.net has been the sole source of investigative journalism for years and years.

Sir David Gray
14-06-2013, 10:14 PM
Hearts aren't a big enough club, despite what their fans might say.

Rangers going bust was one of the biggest news stories in Scotland last year. Hearts going bust will be a big sports story but no way would it merit the amount of airtime that Rangers got last year by the media.

jacomo
14-06-2013, 10:15 PM
To be fair Hearts aren't big enough. For Rangers think Tesco, for Hearts think Ali's Cave. To quote JKB 'non-story'

It is quite a big story though, isn't it? I mean, despite their delusions, they are one of the biggest six clubs in Scotland. I mean, were one of the bigger clubs in Scotland.

pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 10:16 PM
To be fair Hearts aren't big enough. For Rangers think Tesco, for Hearts think Ali's Cave. To quote JKB 'non-story'

They seem to be big enough for the BBC to put out many stories about saving them, interest in youngsters which is all completely uninteresting compared to the real story, as i said disgusting journalism but the line up on sportsound, coupled with the people that do ground reports says it all

Hibercelona
14-06-2013, 10:17 PM
To be fair Hearts aren't big enough. For Rangers think Tesco, for Hearts think Ali's Cave. To quote JKB 'non-story'

For Hearts, think "a cave".

CropleyWasGod
14-06-2013, 10:18 PM
They seem to be big enough for the BBC to put out many stories about saving them, interest in youngsters which is all completely uninteresting compared to the real story, as i said disgusting journalism but the line up on sportsound, coupled with the people that do ground reports says it all

Did you miss the documentary about Vlad and the Bosnian plant a few years ago?

pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 10:20 PM
Did you miss the documentary about Vlad and the Bosnian plant a few years ago?

Yeah a few years ago was great, there is a much bigger story now in the present, however they have a great crop of youngsters and an expert says they will survive, great journalism :wink:

CropleyWasGod
14-06-2013, 10:22 PM
Yeah a few years ago was great, there is a much bigger story now in the present, however they have a great crop of youngsters and an expert says they will survive, great journalism :wink:

What is the story, though? Thus far all we have is allegations and suspicions.

Be honest, if Hibs.net don't know it, there's no chance of MSM knowing it. :greengrin

Bishop Hibee
14-06-2013, 10:22 PM
BBC Scotland gave it a fair bit of time today but don't expect too much serious journalism. If you want to look into any story you get far better informed in depth info on the net or .net in this case :hnet:

pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 10:23 PM
What is the story, though? Thus far all we have is allegations and suspicions.

Be honest, if Hibs.net don't know it, there's no chance of MSM knowing it. :greengrin

aren't you on the wrong thread :greengrin

Part/Time Supporter
14-06-2013, 10:24 PM
Been thinking about the situation the Rangers and i understand it may appeal to a more wider audience, however, when rangers were struggling the BBC were seen helping their downfall with various programs and documentaries about the goings on.

The Hearts situation is far more interesting with alleged potential serious criminal activity, yet the BBC continue to roll out interest in hearts players, hearts need to be saved blah blah blah. All of which has been played out for all to see in the last 5 or more years.

Where are the documentaries investigating potential money laundering, shocking headlines of criminal activities, the dodgy share issue and the board appearing to release stories to entice more wages for themselves. Que the BBC - premiership clubs may be interested in great crop of youngsters- aye right.

Disgusting from a national broadcaster (BBC Scotland), not that i am backing The Rangers in anyway

You answer your own question there. You seemingly want them to report allegations as being fact.

If it's that easy, why don't you do it yourself?

Hibercelona
14-06-2013, 10:27 PM
You answer your own question there. You seemingly want them to report allegations as being fact.

If it's that easy, why don't you do it yourself?

It is that easy.

Barry Anderson is living proof.

pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 10:29 PM
You answer your own question there. You seemingly want them to report allegations as being fact.

If it's that easy, why don't you do it yourself?

Not sure about timescales but im sure the Rangers thing wasnt fully know when they showed the documentary. My point is they have not attempted the same thing although in this case it appears more widespread and easier to investigate from a journalist point of view.

Wouldn't attempt to do it myself i work for the BBC :wink:

Part/Time Supporter
14-06-2013, 10:29 PM
It is that easy.

Barry Anderson is living proof.

He just reports what Hearts officials say.

You might not like what they say, they may be obfuscating or distracting from the truth, but I am sure that he is being factual in his reports of what they say.

Some folk really have to get this idea that every journalist is Woodward or Bernstein out of their head.


Not sure about timescales but im sure the Rangers thing wasnt fully know when they showed the documentary. My point is they have not attempted the same thing although in this case it appears more widespread and easier to investigate from a journalist point of view.

Wouldn't attempt to do it myself i work for the BBC :wink:

IIRC the only new thing the BBC found that advanced the Rangers story was that Whyte was a disqualified director. Which they found by unsealing a court judgement and confirmed with the Insolvency Service. That then meant he wasn't a fit and proper person per the SFA guidelines.

CropleyWasGod
14-06-2013, 10:33 PM
Not sure about timescales but im sure the Rangers thing wasnt fully know when they showed the documentary. My point is they have not attempted the same thing although in this case it appears more widespread and easier to investigate from a journalist point of view.

Wouldn't attempt to do it myself i work for the BBC :wink:

The Hearts and Rangers situations are completely different. In Rangers' case, all it needed was 1 person (either inside HMRC or RFC) to leak the details for the BBC programme. It was hardly investigative journalism.

In Hearts' case, we're talking about many companies over many countries. I have no doubt that there are many journalists trying to get to the bottom of things, but if it were that easy then it would have come to light by now, either in the media or the Courts.

pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 10:39 PM
The Hearts and Rangers situations are completely different. In Rangers' case, all it needed was 1 person (either inside HMRC or RFC) to leak the details for the BBC programme. It was hardly investigative journalism.

In Hearts' case, we're talking about many companies over many countries. I have no doubt that there are many journalists trying to get to the bottom of things, but if it were that easy then it would have come to light by now, either in the media or the Courts.

I understand it is completely different hence my reason for saying it is far more interesting. My point is the BBC appear in my opinion, and i accept yours may differ, to be going out their way to ignore the real juicy stuff. Which they did not do for a Rangers story that was not as interesting but may ultimately have the same outcome

CropleyWasGod
14-06-2013, 10:44 PM
I understand it is completely different hence my reason for saying it is far more interesting. My point is the BBC appear in my opinion, and i accept yours may differ, to be going out their way to ignore the real juicy stuff. Which they did not do for a Rangers story that was not as interesting but may ultimately have the same outcome

... and the BBC may have sound economic reasons for doing so. The Rangers story cost them virtually nothing, whereas chasing what "may" turn out to be a boring story about Hearts (which, let's be honest, would have limited interest) would cost them a small fortune of taxpayers' money.

Your best hope of hearing the story is through independent sources, some of which are fairly close to home.

pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 10:55 PM
... and the BBC may have sound economic reasons for doing so. The Rangers story cost them virtually nothing, whereas chasing what "may" turn out to be a boring story about Hearts (which, let's be honest, would have limited interest) would cost them a small fortune of taxpayers' money.

Your best hope of hearing the story is through independent sources, some of which are fairly close to home.

I accept you points however if we are more likely to hear through an independent source then A) it cant be that difficult to investigate B) not really going cost much to investigate C) back to my original point of lazy biased journalism, no matter how much in the end it may not be that interesting

CropleyWasGod
14-06-2013, 11:15 PM
[/B]

I accept you points however if we are more likely to hear through an independent source then A) it cant be that difficult to investigate B) not really going cost much to investigate C) back to my original point of lazy biased journalism, no matter how much in the end it may not be that interesting

A) you seem to be saying that independent journalists aren't as good as the BBC. Are you sure?

B) it's precisely because of the relatively high cost that an independent is more likely to take it on than the BBC. The independent doesn't have the overheads of the BBC, but it's still going to be expensive.

C) the BBC are charged to provide value for money. If they decide not to investigate a story that costs a lot and interests relatively few, I as a taxpayer am happy with that. I wouldn't call it lazy and biased.

pedroorange1875
14-06-2013, 11:23 PM
A) you seem to be saying that independent journalists aren't as good as the BBC. Are you sure?

B) it's precisely because of the relatively high cost that an independent is more likely to take it on than the BBC. The independent doesn't have the overheads of the BBC, but it's still going to be expensive.

C) the BBC are charged to provide value for money. If they decide not to investigate a story that costs a lot and interests relatively few, I as a taxpayer am happy with that. I wouldn't call it lazy and biased.

you said independent sources so i am responding to your point, i never mentioned independent journalists. The independent also does not have the spending power of the BBC if decided it was a story they wanted to run (ie the rangers situation). As for your last point then if that's what they are charged to do then that is a completely different and massive thread, because a lot of them at the moment are being charged with something completely different and i don't think the public purse was at the forefront in their mind. They are a shambles of an organisation, surely you can come up with a better argument than point c

CropleyWasGod
15-06-2013, 07:39 AM
you said independent sources so i am responding to your point, i never mentioned independent journalists. The independent also does not have the spending power of the BBC if decided it was a story they wanted to run (ie the rangers situation). As for your last point then if that's what they are charged to do then that is a completely different and massive thread, because a lot of them at the moment are being charged with something completely different and i don't think the public purse was at the forefront in their mind. They are a shambles of an organisation, surely you can come up with a better argument than point c

As a taxpayer I think it's a pretty good argument.

They can either spend lots of money now or wait for thw judicial process to do its job. The chances are the story will be the same in both cases.

Again I say...they didn't chase the Rangers story. It came to them.

NORTHERNHIBBY
15-06-2013, 08:51 AM
Difficulty maybe is that there has to be audience appeal and the hook of " how did they get to here?". Now for the The Rangers, the events were intriguing and newsworthy because the organization trades on being a bedrock of values and history that make it a social institution (in their own opinion) so their fall from grace was unexpected. The situation at Tynie is about as unexpected as getting wet in a bath. An interesting programme mayy be to talk to someone who didn't see this coming but they may be hard to find.

pedroorange1875
15-06-2013, 08:54 AM
As a taxpayer I think it's a pretty good argument.

They can either spend lots of money now or wait for thw judicial process to do its job. The chances are the story will be the same in both cases.

Again I say...they didn't chase the Rangers story. It came to them.

Taxpayer?, other than the BBC World Service im pretty sure the funding is from the license fee which is unlike paying tax. Anyway we digress. In 2004 the report from the Hutton inquiry layed out serious concerns about BBC impartialty and standards of journalism, in the 9 years since my opinion is nothing much has changed

CropleyWasGod
15-06-2013, 09:44 AM
Taxpayer?, other than the BBC World Service im pretty sure the funding is from the license fee which is unlike paying tax. Anyway we digress. In 2004 the report from the Hutton inquiry layed out serious concerns about BBC impartialty and standards of journalism, in the 9 years since my opinion is nothing much has changed

Change "taxpayer" to "licence payer". The point stands.

I share your concerns about standards of journalism, but I still see no bias. The BBC and other MSM outlets have been equally poor in their coverage of the Rangers and Hearts stories.

JohnStephens91
15-06-2013, 12:43 PM
Change "taxpayer" to "licence payer". The point stands.

I share your concerns about standards of journalism, but I still see no bias. The BBC and other MSM outlets have been equally poor in their coverage of the Rangers and Hearts stories.

Not chasing a story like Rangers or Hearts boils down to one simple thing - fear. Alex Thomson and Mark Daly spoke at my university about the intimidation aspect from Rangers fans and also from board members and specified that this is a reason that Scottish mainstream media outlets avoid getting their hands mucky. I have to admit myself after I had a simple match report on a Rangers game published on a website in which I said something along the lines of 'despite winning the lack of creativity may cost them the title' and I started to get abusive comments on the comment section. I even got a threat to have my legs broken by a private message on Facebook. It's fair to say that at 20 years old and not experiencing that before it was pretty scary, but I've just grown used to it, most journalists have a family to protect whereas I only have my parents and my sister.

When it comes down to it the Hearts situation may be a juicy story, it may not be, but would any journalist risk his/her life to find out if Vlad has been laundering money or whatever the other allegations are to shady places which may be a haven of criminal activity? Chances are she/he won't. It's not because of lack of skill it's because the potential risk may be far greater than the outcome. If I was at a newspaper I would try and chase the story in my own free time as I know if it got to any semblance of being a story it would be published.

brog
16-06-2013, 08:05 AM
I think the OP makes a decent point but its unfair to single out the BBC, the whole Scottish media has been pathetic in following this story & swallowing the propaganda emanating from PBS. Other posters have said there are allegations only & no facts, here's 3 simple facts.
1. They raised £1million through a share issue.
2. No one has received a share certificate.
3. The money has all gone.

That issue alone should trigger a major investigation, if someone stole £1million from a bank or PO it would be headlines.

Andy74
16-06-2013, 08:17 AM
I think the OP makes a decent point but its unfair to single out the BBC, the whole Scottish media has been pathetic in following this story & swallowing the propaganda emanating from PBS. Other posters have said there are allegations only & no facts, here's 3 simple facts.
1. They raised £1million through a share issue.
2. No one has received a share certificate.
3. The money has all gone.

That issue alone should trigger a major investigation, if someone stole £1million from a bank or PO it would be headlines.

Hearts aren't listed though so it was just a private company offering some shares. They've not complied with some Companies Act requirements but its not really a major issue. Most fans went into that transaction knowing full well it was a donation.

lapsedhibee
16-06-2013, 08:20 AM
Difficulty maybe is that there has to be audience appeal and the hook of " how did they get to here?". Now for the The Rangers, the events were intriguing and newsworthy because the organization trades on being a bedrock of values and history that make it a social institution (in their own opinion) so their fall from grace was unexpected. The situation at Tynie is about as unexpected as getting wet in a bath. An interesting programme mayy be to talk to someone who didn't see this coming but they may be hard to find.

:hmmm: You mean other than the obvious 400,000? :wink:

brog
16-06-2013, 10:09 AM
Hearts aren't listed though so it was just a private company offering some shares. They've not complied with some Companies Act requirements but its not really a major issue. Most fans went into that transaction knowing full well it was a donation.

Do you honestly think your average Yam can distinguish between a private & a public company? Most of them can't dress themselves in the morning! I'm also not convinced by bold above. I'm sure you're correct that some did but others really believed they were investing in the club's future, as Yam propaganda at time of share issue stated, IIRC, was supposed to be for infrastructure & youth development. If most intended it as a donation there would be nothing to stop them doing same thing now, getting in another million & all would be barry again!!
PS, I still have my Hibs share certificate from 23 years ago & that was worth every penny!

Beefster
16-06-2013, 11:06 AM
He just reports what Hearts officials say.

You might not like what they say, they may be obfuscating or distracting from the truth, but I am sure that he is being factual in his reports of what they say.

Some folk really have to get this idea that every journalist is Woodward or Bernstein out of their head.

Folk only deserve the title 'journalist' if they can investigate/consider the circumstances and ask the right questions. Anderson doesn't do that - as demonstrated by his utter confusion over what's happening at PBS this week.

The likes of Nick Davies, Paul Foot, Woodward, Bernstein, Hersh, Guerin are/were journalists. Anderson isn't - he's a transcriber.