BBC bias again?

[Hibbyradge]

Why has this story appeared?

It's a total non-story, but it seems to me that it's designed to make sure that as many euro-sceptics as possible don't vote Labour.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32566522

[Hibbyradge]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11174874_887969307892747_8872396615509752532_n.jpg ?oh=7ba698512c629f63d773b282c20b116d&oe=55CA7CB3

[Just Alf]

1st BBC repeat could be a BBC fluke, 2nd repeat a mistake, repeat appearances 3 through 11 and counting is the BBC being culpable.

When you count in that the "unsolicited letter from 5000 small businesses" to the media was coordinated on the Tory party web site makes it even more damming!

[JimBHibees]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11174874_887969307892747_8872396615509752532_n.jpg ?oh=7ba698512c629f63d773b282c20b116d&oe=55CA7CB3

That is disgusting to be honest. Has this story been picked up by any of the other media outlets? Can remember the woman clearly on the Question time and she was incredibly hostile and to be described as an undecided voter is laughable. Sounds like BBC is totally unaccountable. No doubt Nick Robinson will be along soon to tell us how to vote. His background IMO should rule him out from being seen as impartial

[Hibbyradge]

His background IMO should rule him out from being seen as impartial

:agree:

[snooky]

50,000 in London today apparently in an anti-austerity march.
Nothing about it on BBC or in the press.
Some reporting 100 demonstrators at Downing St.
There is something seriously wrong with this nation's media.
Troubled times ahead if news like this continues to be suppressed methinks.

[marinello59]

50,000 in London today apparently in an anti-austerity march.
Nothing about it on BBC or in the press.
Some reporting 100 demonstrators at Downing St.
There is something seriously wrong with this nation's media.
Troubled times ahead if news like this continues to be suppressed methinks.

It has been reported in the press.
There is no way that there was anything like 50 000 people involved. iIf there had been then Sky would have been running 24/7 reports about the end of civilisation as we know it.

[PiemanP]

50000 - I'll tell the jokes. Can't have been more than 1000.

The usual bunch of young anarchist low life's who can't accept a democracy. Grafiting a war memorial is a new low though.

[marinello59]

50000 - I'll tell the jokes. Can't have been more than 1000.

The usual bunch of young anarchist low life's who can't accept a democracy. Grafiting a war memorial is a new low though.

I may agree with you about the number attending, 1000 seems about right going by those who took parts own accounts. But they have every right to protest. The vast majority were apparently peaceful. These things will attract a small element intent on causing trouble. The actions of those who defaced the war memorial have been condemned by other participants.

[Colr]

50,000 in London today apparently in an anti-austerity march.
Nothing about it on BBC or in the press.
Some reporting 100 demonstrators at Downing St.
There is something seriously wrong with this nation's media.
Troubled times ahead if news like this continues to be suppressed methinks.

Yes it was. I saw it.

[Colr]

50000 - I'll tell the jokes. Can't have been more than 1000.

The usual bunch of young anarchist low life's who can't accept a democracy. Grafiting a war memorial is a new low though.

To be honest, these twats turn up quite frequently and there are lots of protests outside Westminster most of which aren't covered because there not news. This one was covered. Did Russell Brand turn up?

[snooky]

Yes it was. I saw it.

What did yo see Colr?
What was your estimate of numbers?
My original post was to highlight the discrepancy in the figures. I suspected there was some under/over estimating done depending on which side was doing the report.

[johnbc70]

The BBC has a well known history for being 'leftie' so maybe just evens things up. Maybe a rouge Tory made it into a position of power.

[johnbc70]

This riot by 50,000 is being reported on the BBC, maybe they got their numbers wrong as it says 'hundreds'. More bias I assume or the facts?

[Colr]

This riot by 50,000 is being reported on the BBC, maybe they got their numbers wrong as it says 'hundreds'. More bias I assume or the facts?

Hundreds is a bit more like it.

[snooky]

Hundreds is a bit more like it.

Thanks for clearing that up. We need as many reliable witnesses on these incidents as possible. There are so many sources of misinformation out there from both sides of the argument, it's vital that eye witnesses like yourself tell us like it is.
(And I have no doubt that you probably are.)

[grunt]

Thanks for clearing that up. We need as many reliable witnesses on these incidents as possible. There are so many sources of misinformation out there from both sides of the argument, it's vital that eye witnesses like yourself tell us like it is.
Haha! You were the only one I've seen who mentioned 50000!! You were the source of this particular piece of misinformation!

:confused:

[Hibbyradge]

50000 - I'll tell the jokes. Can't have been more than 1000.

The usual bunch of young anarchist low life's who can't accept a democracy. Grafiting a war memorial is a new low though.

"Low lifes"? Seriously?

[Hibbyradge]

The BBC has a well known history for being 'leftie' so maybe just evens things up. Maybe a rouge Tory made it into a position of power.

"A rouge Tory". A brilliant typo! :greengrin

Isn't that what the right wing call David Cameron?

[PiemanP]

"Low lifes"? Seriously?

Yes, violent protesting and damage to property means they’re probably lower than low-life. Not all of them are fighting and causing damage, but it’s their intent as a group for it to escalate to that.


I live in London and see this sort of trouble quite regularly and I’ve got no time for it or the people who revel in it.

[johnbc70]

"Low lifes"? Seriously?

What would you call a group that vandalises a war memorial?

[cabbageandribs1875]

the one/ones that wrote graffiti on a war memorial should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves...no need whatsoever for an act like that, shameful

[Colr]

Talking of bias, if you post a coherent comment in opposition to SNP policy in the Herald it gets moderated out?

[Keith_M]

Talking of bias, if you post a coherent comment in opposition to SNP policy in the Herald it gets moderated out?


Really? I've seen loads of Anti-SNP comments in the Herald, both coherent and rants.


Jane Pollock, Kevin Kelly, John Mac-OBE and some guy from Dunbar (Flinn?) regularly post what could only be described as obsessive Anti-SNP rants and their comments are still there for all to see.

[Colr]

Really? I've seen loads of Anti-SNP comments in the Herald, both coherent and rants.


Jane Pollock, Kevin Kelly, John Mac-OBE and some guy from Dunbar (Flinn?) regularly post what could only be described as obsessive Anti-SNP rants and their comments are still there for all to see.

Maybe they only allow rants. Well made poits which undermine the SNP are scrubbed.

[snooky]

Really? I've seen loads of Anti-SNP comments in the Herald, both coherent and rants.


Jane Pollock, Kevin Kelly, John Mac-OBE and some guy from Dunbar (Flinn?) regularly post what could only be described as obsessive Anti-SNP rants and their comments are still there for all to see.
Better to read the letters in the Scotsman if you want a fair balance of opinion :fibber:

[Keith_M]

Maybe they only allow rants. Well made poits which undermine the SNP are scrubbed.


I see you cannot prove what you say and discount any evidence to the contrary, as on other threads.


You have once again posted on something based on no facts whatsoever, demonstrating that you merely post your prejudices.

[Colr]

I see you cannot prove what you say and discount any evidence to the contrary, as on other threads.


You have once again posted on something based on no facts whatsoever, demonstrating that you merely post your prejudices.

What are you on about?

[snooky]

Do others find that they read BBC reports on news events with much more scepticism since the referendum?
I know I do. My first question now is, what is the political interest & motivation behind this report.
Generally, you can find one easily if you want to - whether there is one or not. :wink:
Signed
Mr Dowten Thomas

[ronaldo7]

Seems our licence fees are put to good use.:rolleyes:


http://t.co/qZ7h15pl8S

Jacuzzi's of cash.

[steakbake]

I see the recent stooshie that Alex Massie tried to whip up about Salmond's comments on Charles Kennedy didn't real catch on - I was half expecting the BBC would run with it...

On the BBC: I stopped paying the license a while ago. More because it's mostly patronising guff. I think they certainly went into bat for the No side - quite clearly. I think though, it's because they are rooted in the very fabric of the status quo that independence would fundamentally change.

I do have to laugh when people on either side moan about newspapers not being impartial. They're editorially driven and unless they carry an Op-Ed like the NY Times does, then neutrality doesn't come into it.

[Berwickhibby]

That said Salmond should have kept his opinion to himself and offered his condolences rather than using Charles Kennedy's death to get on his soapbox. To be honest I am sick of Salmond and his desperate need to be in the limelight.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[ronaldo7]

That said Salmond should have kept his opinion to himself and offered his condolences rather than using Charles Kennedy's death to get on his soapbox. To be honest I am sick of Salmond and his desperate need to be in the limelight.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Really?

This is what he tweeted on June 2nd

"Charles Kennedy was by far the most generous person I've ever met in politics. Sad loss of a great politician, and above all, a great man".

Can't see much wrong with that.:confused:

[steakbake]

Really?

This is what he tweeted on June 2nd

"Charles Kennedy was by far the most generous person I've ever met in politics. Sad loss of a great politician, and above all, a great man".

Can't see much wrong with that.:confused:

I read his comments because a colleague was all in a fluster about them - I honestly cannot see what the problem was. I think though, if the Yes side can dish it out about people like Brown, Darling and Murphy, they should be able to take it when the flak comes the other way.

[lyonhibs]

Really?

This is what he tweeted on June 2nd

"Charles Kennedy was by far the most generous person I've ever met in politics. Sad loss of a great politician, and above all, a great man".

Can't see much wrong with that.:confused:

What he tweeted and what he was quoted in the papers as saying to a journo are rather different things.

[Hibs Class]

Really?

This is what he tweeted on June 2nd

"Charles Kennedy was by far the most generous person I've ever met in politics. Sad loss of a great politician, and above all, a great man".

Can't see much wrong with that.:confused:

i think he may have said more than just that, something along the lines of CK being a reluctant member of the No campaign.

[Hibbyradge]

As I understand it, Salmond was asked a question about this. He gave a measured and respectful answer, imo.

Still, he is the bogeyman and he does turn people off the SNP.

His public profile will diminish, just as it did during election campaign, but opponents will continue to use him to frighten people.

I'm not sure I explained my view very eloquently, but I hope you get my meaning.

[ronaldo7]

What he tweeted and what he was quoted in the papers as saying to a journo are rather different things.

I know, and some may think that going to his words by his own hand are better than listening to some hack who when challenged about his piece on Salmond's comments then says he might have been OTT. Mr Massie shot from the hip without thinking, and has now apologised.

Massie's tweet...Happy that Alex Salmond has clarified his remarks re Charlie Kennedy. Happy to concede too that, given this, my piece on him yesterday was OTT.


i think he may have said more than just that, something along the lines of CK being a reluctant member of the No campaign.


He did. He responded to a question about Kennedy and Better Together, and said that his heart really wasn't in it, not that he was some rabid Nationalist. He said he was a Federalist and was a great politician and a great man who'll be sadly missed.

Kennedy himself had said that Better Together wasn't doing a great job, and he'd rather they were more positive.

Salmond is the bogeyman who'll be used by the MSM to strike fear into some people, others just don't buy papers anymore.

There's a new one today about him calling Anna Soubry a Woman. Cue faux outrage.

[Berwickhibby]

I have a major problem with Salmond and his rhetoric, his constant need to bang on about another referendum is infuriating. Scotland held a referendum last year and the majority voted NO!!! Now do what you were elected to do by the people of Gordon and represent your constitutes.

[ronaldo7]

I have a major problem with Salmond and his rhetoric, his constant need to bang on about another referendum is infuriating. Scotland held a referendum last year and the majority voted NO!!! Now do what you were elected to do by the people of Gordon and represent your constitutes.

As is your right. He's not the only one banging on about another referendum though.

I just think his comments were used by Massie (who's now apologised) to score a petty point on the back of a great politician.

[Geo_1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33009579

Why are they reporting this as savings when they are obviously cuts in budgets?

[Berwickhibby]

Sorry, I have not seen the words sorry or apology in any of Alex Massie's tweets. Is this the SNP interpretation of the attached tweet.

Happy that @AlexSalmond has clarified his remarks re Charlie Kennedy. Happy to concede too that, given this, my piece on him y'day was OTT.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[lyonhibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33009579

Why are they reporting this as savings when they are obviously cuts in budgets?

Did you see the word "cut" in both the main title and the 1st line in the body of the article?? :confused:

[lyonhibs]

I know, and some may think that going to his words by his own hand are better than listening to some hack who when challenged about his piece on Salmond's comments then says he might have been OTT. Mr Massie shot from the hip without thinking, and has now apologised.

Massie's tweet...Happy that Alex Salmond has clarified his remarks re Charlie Kennedy. Happy to concede too that, given this, my piece on him yesterday was OTT.




He did. He responded to a question about Kennedy and Better Together, and said that his heart really wasn't in it, not that he was some rabid Nationalist. He said he was a Federalist and was a great politician and a great man who'll be sadly missed.

Kennedy himself had said that Better Together wasn't doing a great job, and he'd rather they were more positive.

Salmond is the bogeyman who'll be used by the MSM to strike fear into some people, others just don't buy papers anymore.

There's a new one today about him calling Anna Soubry a Woman. Cue faux outrage.

Fair enough, it was a poorly timed question but to be fair Salmond could have just said "today is not the day to be discussing Charles' views on the Independence debate" or similar, which would have been a slightly more appropriate answer than a personal opinion that CK heart wasn't in the BT campaign.

Anyway, I can't claim to be unbiased re: Alex Salmond as he irritates me in a way that NS does not (I voted SNP in this past election for what it's worth)

[Berwickhibby]

Fair enough, it was a poorly timed question but to be fair Salmond could have just said "today is not the day to be discussing Charles' views on the Independence debate" or similar, which would have been a slightly more appropriate answer than a personal opinion that CK heart wasn't in the BT campaign.

Anyway, I can't claim to be unbiased re: Alex Salmond as he irritates me in a way that NS does not (I voted SNP in this past election for what it's worth)

My thoughts exactly, a great response which I could not have put any better

[Geo_1875]

Did you see the word "cut" in both the main title and the 1st line in the body of the article?? :confused:

I did but both the headline and body refer to Osborne making savings. He is not making savings he is making cuts in already agreed budgets.

[ronaldo7]

Fair enough, it was a poorly timed question but to be fair Salmond could have just said "today is not the day to be discussing Charles' views on the Independence debate" or similar, which would have been a slightly more appropriate answer than a personal opinion that CK heart wasn't in the BT campaign.

Anyway, I can't claim to be unbiased re: Alex Salmond as he irritates me in a way that NS does not (I voted SNP in this past election for what it's worth)

:agree:

I just wish some would see it for what it was.

[ronaldo7]

Sorry, I have not seen the words sorry or apology in any of Alex Massie's tweets. Is this the SNP interpretation of the attached tweet.

Happy that @AlexSalmond has clarified his remarks re Charlie Kennedy. Happy to concede too that, given this, my piece on him y'day was OTT.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

:dunno:about the SNP, you'd have to ask them for the fishul position if you're minded to.

FWIW the hack has conceded that his piece on Salmond was OTT. At least he had the balls say that, if indeed as you point out the word sorry or apologise wasn't in the tweet.

Have a nice day:aok:

[grunt]

I did but both the headline and body refer to Osborne making savings. He is not making savings he is making cuts in already agreed budgets.It's a question of perspective. A reduction in spending is a saving to the person doing the spending, but a cut to the person receiving it. I don't think the wording is anything to get upset over.

[Mikey09]

I have a major problem with Salmond and his rhetoric, his constant need to bang on about another referendum is infuriating. Scotland held a referendum last year and the majority voted NO!!! Now do what you were elected to do by the people of Gordon and represent your constitutes.


Did you see and hear the other parties election campaigns?!! :faf::faf::faf::faf:

[Galahibby]

Did you see and hear the other parties election campaigns?!! :faf::faf::faf::faf:

Exactly! The biggest 'banger onner' was Willie Rennie. It was all he had.

[RyeSloan]

It's a question of perspective. A reduction in spending is a saving to the person doing the spending, but a cut to the person receiving it. I don't think the wording is anything to get upset over.

Considering the article was full of the SNPs favourite rhetoric and Gideon's announcement tacked on the end I would go further and suggest this is a perfect piece of BBC reporting to counter the somewhat over excited supposition of determined and ongoing BBC bias..

[snooky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38890090

So refreshing to see the Beeb explaining themselves so thoroughly following Trumpton's accusation of selective reporting on terrorism.

Just a pity they didn't provide and publish the same depth of analysis following accusations of bias reporting during the Indy referendum. It would have been a most interesting read (if factual, of course).

[Hiber-nation]

Why is the BBC's main story about Tories raging about Bercow rather than other parties' clapping of Bercow?

[marinello59]

Why is the BBC's main story about Tories raging about Bercow rather than other parties' clapping of Bercow?

Because that's the real story. Has he overstepped the mark and broken some unwritten rule on neutrality? I have no idea if he has or hasn't but I'm happy with what he has said. And I always enjoy hearing about raging Tories.
It's nice that he let the clapping go 'just this once' though. :greengrin

[Hiber-nation]

Because that's the real story. Has he overstepped the mark and broken some unwritten rule on neutrality? I have no idea if he has or hasn't but I'm happy with what he has said. And I always enjoy hearing about raging Tories.
It's nice that he let the clapping go 'just this once' though. :greengrin

I know, it just annoyed me today :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Because that's the real story. Has he overstepped the mark and broken some unwritten rule on neutrality? I have no idea if he has or hasn't but I'm happy with what he has said. And I always enjoy hearing about raging Tories.
It's nice that he let the clapping go 'just this once' though. :greengrin

I think the real story is about Johanna Cherry being given a gag during the brexit debate. "Shut up Scotland because your view is meaningless".

[Just Alf]

Was listening to BBC Scotland today....
Their initial reporting of the SNP manifesto launch was interesting, they reported on a number of the commitments and on a number of occasions various commentators mentioned how little was made of independence and how it had clearly been put into a different "box" for later consideration by the Scottish government.

Apparently there was even boo's, quickly quashed when reporters tried to discuss non manifesto stuff.

As I said.. In the 1st hour, the reporting seemed quite balanced.... Now it seems to have been edited to make the indy question the main talking point.


Apologies in advance dropped phone mid type and sent half the post!

EDIT. What I'm trying to say is that the beeb seem to be trying to hide the actual manifesto by putting indy in front of it.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[snooky]

Oh ma sides. :faf:
I couldn't get any further than the article title and the columnist whose name appears next to it.
Barefaceness of the highest order. Kettle/teapot, comes to mind.
When I stop laughing, I maybe attempt to read the rest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41412758

[JeMeSouviens]

Oh ma sides. :faf:
I couldn't get any further than the article title and the columnist whose name appears next to it.
Barefaceness of the highest order. Kettle/teapot, comes to mind.
When I stop laughing, I maybe attempt to read the rest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41412758

I actually feel Nick gets bit of unfair stick. He arrived to cover the Indyref like he was jetting in from another planet.

Most of the Beeb folk from London actually did ok I thought: Peston was really good, Andrew Neil was a **** to both sides. BBC Scotland otoh. James Naughtie was unreal, Jackie Bird, that reporter that got sent to Madrid to find the most rabid PP deputy going ...

[snooky]

I actually feel Nick gets bit of unfair stick. He arrived to cover the Indyref like he was jetting in from another planet.

Most of the Beeb folk from London actually did ok I thought: Peston was really good, Andrew Neil was a **** to both sides. BBC Scotland otoh. James Naughtie was unreal, Jackie Bird, that reporter that got sent to Madrid to find the most rabid PP deputy going ...

I take it you didn't see his 'edited' version of his question(s) to Alex Salmond?
Nick is a nasty little piece of work, IMO.

From Wiki - "Robinson was interested in politics from a young age, and went on to study Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University, where he was also President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. Starting out in broadcasting at Piccadilly Radio, after a year as President of the Conservative Party youth group, he worked his way up as a producer, eventually becoming deputy editor of Panorama before becoming a political correspondent in 1996."

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I take it you didn't see his 'edited' version of his question(s) to Alex Salmond?
Nick is a nasty little piece of work, IMO.

From Wiki - "Robinson was interested in politics from a young age, and went on to study Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University, where he was also President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. Starting out in broadcasting at Piccadilly Radio, after a year as President of the Conservative Party youth group, he worked his way up as a producer, eventually becoming deputy editor of Panorama before becoming a political correspondent in 1996."

So should sarah smith be sacked from her role? And the head of BBC scotland politics for many years (possibly still is) is married to Susan Deacon.

And john swinney's wife works, or did work for the BBC i believe.

Its diffixult to find people involved in politics who aren't 'tainted' to one extent or another by having political opinions of their own.

[snooky]

So should sarah smith be sacked from her role? And the head of BBC scotland politics for many years (possibly still is) is married to Susan Deacon.

And john swinney's wife works, or did work for the BBC i believe.

Its diffixult to find people involved in politics who aren't 'tainted' to one extent or another by having political opinions of their own.

No problems with people having their own political views. My point was that Nick Robinson's report was edited in such a way as to give a totally false impression on what was actually said. At best it was a very convenient error (promoting his point of view). At worst, it was downright skulduggery.
I added the Wiki part to show that he is not exactly 'a neutral' in reporting circles when it comes to politics.

[ronaldo7]

I thought this thread had been resurrected to report that Rona Fairhead ex chair of the BBC trust has been given a life peerage.

Tories looking after their own again.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/sep/28/former-bbc-chair-rona-fairhead-given-ministerial-post

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No problems with people having their own political views. My point was that Nick Robinson's report was edited in such a way as to give a totally false impression on what was actually said. At best it was a very convenient error (promoting his point of view). At worst, it was downright skulduggery.
I added the Wiki part to show that he is not exactly 'a neutral' in reporting circles when it comes to politics.

And my point is that there are effectively no neutrals, either due to reporters' own biases (consxious or unconscious) or because the viewers / readers project their own biases and shoot the messenger.

[snooky]

And my point is that there are effectively no neutrals, either due to reporters' own biases (conscious or unconscious) or because the viewers / readers project their own biases and shoot the messenger.

As I said, fair enough you can report from your political angle if you are honest about it but it's the deliberate lying that I abhor, no matter what party you represent.

[Just Alf]

And my point is that there are effectively no neutrals, either due to reporters' own biases (consxious or unconscious) or because the viewers / readers project their own biases and shoot the messenger.


As I said, fair enough you can report from your political angle if you are honest about it but it's the deliberate lying that I abhor, no matter what party you represent.

It's actually good to have reporting from different perspectives, it helps get a wider view on some issues..... Hate it when those reporting try to hide behind a neutral banner though, it almost becomes fake news (see the "once in a generation" SNP stuff and the "Scots don't have the DNA to make an intelligent choice" Tory stuff.... Both selectively quoted/reported to suit people's agenda's)

[snooky]

Anybody seen the Beeb's barrel-scraping trailer for Andrew Neill's prog (spoofing 007)?
Embarrassingly bad by any standards.

[ronaldo7]

The BBC, Andrew Neil, and the Tories. All, one and the same really.

Maybe, Andrew, and Nick, can start a wee show up themselves. RT offer good rates. :greengrin

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/11/29/bbc-forced-admit-andrew-neil-used-fake-tory-statistics-general-election-video/

[-Jonesy-]

https://twitter.com/iscotnews/status/936297517775548418

STV at it too

[snooky]

https://twitter.com/iscotnews/status/936297517775548418

STV at it too

His question actually flagged up David Cowan's alliance (and/or his employer's) rather than hitting the target he was aiming at.
What a pathetic and unnecessary attempt at political point scoring.

[steakbake]

https://twitter.com/iscotnews/status/936297517775548418

STV at it too

It was really disrespectful - a guy like that, an expert in his field, expresses a professional opinion ... but that doesn't fit with the hysteria and his view is reduced to that? Incredible.

Couple of years ago, folk would say your paranoid if you mentioned the media is bent. People must be blind if they cannot admit at the very least, that the presentation of information is slanted and some politicians get a much easier ride than others.

I don't want cheerleading in the media but what we have just now is selling everyone short.

[Mr Grieves]

https://twitter.com/iscotnews/status/936297517775548418

STV at it too

That is really odd. I can't recall hearing an interviewer ask a question like that before.

[ronaldo7]

That is really odd. I can't recall hearing an interviewer ask a question like that before.

It probably wasn't in the script given to them by the (insert political party here)

Bateman has produced a great piece on the latest news over the holiday period, and he should know, he was one of them back in the day. The hacks must take a skiing holiday and allow others to take over. You'll have to read the blog to get what I mean.:

https://t.co/z63BIjQ6sd

[JimBHibees]

It probably wasn't in the script given to them by the (insert political party here)

Bateman has produced a great piece on the latest news over the holiday period, and he should know, he was one of them back in the day. The hacks must take a skiing holiday and allow others to take over. You'll have to read the blog to get what I mean.:

https://t.co/z63BIjQ6sd

That is shameful. Personally think it is true also browsing newspapers stand in supermarket today kind of corroborates this IMO.

[Kavinho]

That is shameful. Personally think it is true also browsing newspapers stand in supermarket today kind of corroborates this IMO.

Will be interesting to see if
MORE THAN ONE IN TEN SCOTTISH CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES ‘ON THE FINANCIAL EDGE

Is in the papers tomorrow..

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That is shameful. Personally think it is true also browsing newspapers stand in supermarket today kind of corroborates this IMO.

Im a bit unclear what this is saying?

Is it saying that this is labour's media plan leaked (if so, i dont see the problem) or is it a list of stories that have been published (in which case i can see the problen)?

[Kavinho]

Im a bit unclear what this is saying?

Is it saying that this is labour's media plan leaked (if so, i dont see the problem) or is it a list of stories that have been published (in which case i can see the problen)?

The latter really.

Stories provided by a political party and embargoed, to be published daily over the Christmas /new year period.
My comment above is the knee that's mean t to be scheduled for tomorrow. If you look at the link to Batemans piece, the full text of each of the stories over the past 2 weeks are included.

Save for a little editing, "job done" for the newspaper, and for Labour spreading a pr message without proper journalistic challenge.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The latter really.

Stories provided by a political party and embargoed, to be published daily over the Christmas /new year period.
My comment above is the knee that's mean t to be scheduled for tomorrow. If you look at the link to Batemans piece, the full text of each of the stories over the past 2 weeks are included.

Save for a little editing, "job done" for the newspaper, and for Labour spreading a pr message without proper journalistic challenge.

So this was a labour media plan, and it has all been published as they requested by them?

I read the texts as being the written-up stories as provided by the labour party, not the published articles. That is stabdard practice, though - the print media has been completely hollowed out, and so will be grateful for steers from anyone.

But they cant just publish them verbatim, they will have to fact check, and they will have to take them to the Scottish Govt for a response etc and get quotes.

Im just not clear what the blog is accusing them of? Being really organised? I can assure you all political parties, and many lobbying organisations act in a similar way, as the blog itself makes clear.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not on the bias but a damning account of the inequalities that exist at the BBC

http://carriegracie.com/news.html

[Hiber-nation]

Not on the bias but a damning account of the inequalities that exist at the BBC

http://carriegracie.com/news.html

A lot of squirming going on as BBC breakfast news tries to report on it....

[ronaldo7]

So this was a labour media plan, and it has all been published as they requested by them?

I read the texts as being the written-up stories as provided by the labour party, not the published articles. That is stabdard practice, though - the print media has been completely hollowed out, and so will be grateful for steers from anyone.

But they cant just publish them verbatim, they will have to fact check, and they will have to take them to the Scottish Govt for a response etc and get quotes.

Im just not clear what the blog is accusing them of? Being really organised? I can assure you all political parties, and many lobbying organisations act in a similar way, as the blog itself makes clear.

It seems they take what they're getting as read, with a few minor tweeks.

The story on the Ambulances having 10,000 single person calls in the last 4 years was given to the BBC by the Tories. It was a FOI, received in August last year. As it was news, why would it be held back until the winter, when the NHS is under more strain. :hmmm:

The BBC have a lot to answer for in this one story. They should also remember when an FOI is requested, everyone can see when it has been requested, and answered.

[ronaldo7]

Not on the bias but a damning account of the inequalities that exist at the BBC

http://carriegracie.com/news.html

You'd think the bastion of Britishness would at least apply the laws of the land.

[ronaldo7]

Bateman's follow up blog, after he's had it in the neck from all and sundry. Food for thought.

http://derekbateman.scot/2018/01/07/done-up-like-a-kipper/

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It seems they take what they're getting as read, with a few minor tweeks.

The story on the Ambulances having 10,000 single person calls in the last 4 years was given to the BBC by the Tories. It was a FOI, received in August last year. As it was news, why would it be held back until the winter, when the NHS is under more strain. :hmmm:

The BBC have a lot to answer for in this one story. They should also remember when an FOI is requested, everyone can see when it has been requested, and answered.

I doubt that. When a news release is written however, there will nornally be a note for editor included that will detail the sources to make fact checking easy.

I dont know about specific cases, but presumably they held it over to suit their own internal agenda and timelines, and to maximise its effect. All political parties and the Scottish Gobt would do this, its why they have teams of media staffers. There is nothing suspicious about it, its normal behaviour and its certainly not a media conspiracy - the media cant report a story they dont have!

The blog appears to be lambasting labour for having a media plan, but unless someone can point to a strong correlation between these stories in the plan, and them appearing in print, i dont understand the point he is making.

Likewise, even if they do appear in the media, all that demonstrates is a lazy media. And newspapers are up front (generally) about their political bias, they are allowed to be. So really, the blogger would need to demonstrate that there is a strong correlation between this media plan and the BBC output, and that they ignored similar plans from other parties and from tge SG for there to be a bias, surely?

[ronaldo7]

5269932I doubt that. When a news release is written however, there will nornally be a note for editor included that will detail the sources to make fact checking easy[/B].

I dont know about specific cases, but presumably they held it over to suit their own internal agenda and timelines, and to maximise its effect. All political parties and the Scottish Gobt would do this, its why they have teams of media staffers. There is nothing suspicious about it, its normal behaviour and its certainly not a media conspiracy - the media cant report a story they dont have!

The blog appears to be lambasting labour for having a media plan, but unless someone can point to a strong correlation between these stories in the plan, and them appearing in print, i dont understand the point he is making.

Likewise, even if they do appear in the media, all that demonstrates is a lazy media. And newspapers are up front (generally) about their political bias, they are allowed to be. So really, the blogger would need to demonstrate that there is a strong correlation between this media plan and the BBC output, and that they ignored similar plans from other parties and from tge SG for there to be a bias, surely?

That's the whole point. Have you ever heard the beeb saying, "and now a press release from the Labour party"? They publish it as news, as if it happened yesterday, without details. As I've indicated in the ambulance story. Nothing in it was ever alluded to how it had come to pass, or the time-lapse. When they were pulled up about it, they changed the story online to add in the bits that they had originally omitted.

Bateman is having a go at the MSM for allowing themselves to be used by all parties, without putting in the effort to actually hold government, and it's opposition to account. Hence the reason the readership is on the wane, and more people are getting their news elsewhere.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's the whole point. Have you ever heard the beeb saying, "and now a press release from the Labour party"? They publish it as news, as if it happened yesterday, without details. As I've indicated in the ambulance story. Nothing in it was ever alluded to how it had come to pass, or the time-lapse. When they were pulled up about it, they changed the story online to add in the bits that they had originally omitted.

Bateman is having a go at the MSM for allowing themselves to be used by all parties, without putting in the effort to actually hold government, and it's opposition to account. Hence the reason the readership is on the wane, and more people are getting their news elsewhere.

So its not about media bias, just media laziness? In that case i agree, although its less laziness and more a vicious spiral of cuts, fewer resources, worse product equalling more cuts etc

I also agree the BBC should be held to higher standards - but equally, news is news, and if they havemt got a good story and one arrives in their inbox, why shouldn't they use it, although they should say when the figures came from and where they got the info.

I dont really get your indignation about the ambulance story - so the tories sat on it, so what? Its their story, its their right surely? Everyone will try to maximise a story's impact, and take into account wider ramifications, or to suit their own internal reasons (whatever they may be).

None of this is BBC bias however.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's the whole point. Have you ever heard the beeb saying, "and now a press release from the Labour party"? They publish it as news, as if it happened yesterday, without details. As I've indicated in the ambulance story. Nothing in it was ever alluded to how it had come to pass, or the time-lapse. When they were pulled up about it, they changed the story online to add in the bits that they had originally omitted.

Bateman is having a go at the MSM for allowing themselves to be used by all parties, without putting in the effort to actually hold government, and it's opposition to account. Hence the reason the readership is on the wane, and more people are getting their news elsewhere.

And to your first point, no, but i have heard them reference "the figures, which came from a FOI request by the Scottish Labour Party said...."

They will also offer the SG or whoever the right of reply, so that they can counter.

[ronaldo7]

So its not about media bias, just media laziness? In that case i agree, although its less laziness and more a vicious spiral of cuts, fewer resources, worse product equalling more cuts etc

I also agree the BBC should be held to higher standards - but equally, news is news, and if they havemt got a good story and one arrives in their inbox, why shouldn't they use it, although they should say when the figures came from and where they got the info.

I dont really get your indignation about the ambulance story - so the tories sat on it, so what? Its their story, its their right surely? Everyone will try to maximise a story's impact, and take into account wider ramifications, or to suit their own internal reasons (whatever they may be).

None of this is BBC bias however.

My indignation is not about the Tories placing the ambulance story at BBC HQ, it's the BBC deciding to run it without giving the full picture.

I suppose it depends on how many "stories" the BBC have run from each party. Going by their equal pay debacle, I'm not sure I'd trust them as far as I could throw them.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

My indignation is not about the Tories placing the ambulance story at BBC HQ, it's the BBC deciding to run it without giving the full picture.

I suppose it depends on how many "stories" the BBC have run from each party. Going by their equal pay debacle, I'm not sure I'd trust them as far as I could throw them.

I dont think youd trust them either, but thats because you dont like them and are looking for reasons to justify that stance.

I would bet a good amount of money that the BBC run more stories from scottish govt news releases than any other political party. It wouldnt even surprise me if theuy ran more from the SG than all other parties combined.

[ronaldo7]

I dont think youd trust them either, but thats because you dont like them and are looking for reasons to justify that stance.

I would bet a good amount of money that the BBC run more stories from scottish govt news releases than any other political party. It wouldnt even surprise me if theuy ran more from the SG than all other parties combined.

I don't trust them because they're not impartial. Simples.

If you could supply some stats to back up your case on which and how many stories they've run for the SG I'd be interested, otherwise I wouldn't bother betting on it.:wink:

[ronaldo7]

Carrie Gracie on BBC pay..." I no longer trust my bosses to give an accurate answer".

https://t.co/h6g7fOi9WM

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't trust them because they're not impartial. Simples.

If you could supply some stats to back up your case on which and how many stories they've run for the SG I'd be interested, otherwise I wouldn't bother betting on it.:wink:


In your, incredibly biased opinion, im sure they arent.

No. Im not making a case here, you are. The BBC may well be biased, but the stuff you have linked to doesnt come close to proving it im afraid.

And both the tories, and labour accuse the BBC of being biased too, as do both remainers and brexiters.They cant all be right.

Maybe people just confuse stories they dont like because they challenge their world view or attack their side, with being biased and thats what drives perception?

The same way that fitba fans always think refs / media have it in for their team (see the weekly BBC bias thread on main board about their anti-hibs bias).

[Moulin Yarns]

The Ambulance srevice response to the FOI

http://www.scottishambulance.com/TheService/FOIPapers.aspx?ID=987

According to the BBC 10,000 such ambulances had been despatched between 2013/14 and 2016/17. In every single broadcast the same phrase was used: "Paramedics were sent on their own to 2,204 emergency call-outs in 2016/17, according to figures obtained by the Scottish Conservatives."




(http://www.scottishambulance.com/TheService/FOIPapers.aspx?ID=987)

BBC Scotland withheld the fact that the figures were the result of a FOI request.
BBC Scotland ran a four month old FOI request at a time of maximum benefit to the Conservative party and presented the figures as though only recently obtained.
Every BBC Scotland headline/intro presented the figures as though a failing, despite the most recent figures being the second best on record and an improvement of over one third on the previous year.
BBC Scotland omitted the following highly relevant part of the Scottish Ambulance Service response from all of its news bulletins. “A single crew will be sent to an incident if they are the closest resource to provide a patient with immediate care, but they will always be backed up by a double crew.”






BREAKING NEWS: TOBY YOUNG RESIGNS



(http://www.scottishambulance.com/TheService/FOIPapers.aspx?ID=987)

[Hibrandenburg]

The Ambulance srevice response to the FOI

http://www.scottishambulance.com/TheService/FOIPapers.aspx?ID=987

According to the BBC 10,000 such ambulances had been despatched between 2013/14 and 2016/17. In every single broadcast the same phrase was used: "Paramedics were sent on their own to 2,204 emergency call-outs in 2016/17, according to figures obtained by the Scottish Conservatives."




(http://www.scottishambulance.com/TheService/FOIPapers.aspx?ID=987)

BBC Scotland withheld the fact that the figures were the result of a FOI request.
BBC Scotland ran a four month old FOI request at a time of maximum benefit to the Conservative party and presented the figures as though only recently obtained.
Every BBC Scotland headline/intro presented the figures as though a failing, despite the most recent figures being the second best on record and an improvement of over one third on the previous year.
BBC Scotland omitted the following highly relevant part of the Scottish Ambulance Service response from all of its news bulletins. “A single crew will be sent to an incident if they are the closest resource to provide a patient with immediate care, but they will always be backed up by a double crew.”






BREAKING NEWS: TOBY YOUNG RESIGNS



(http://www.scottishambulance.com/TheService/FOIPapers.aspx?ID=987)

When I read the whole story it was clear that it was a non story. There's many countries that use the "First Responder" system that sends single paramedics to calls as a first response to an emergency call, mainly on motorbikes with the aim to assist as quickly as possible and free up ambulances if possible.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

When I read the whole story it was clear that it was a non story. There's many countries that use the "First Responder" system that sends single paramedics to calls as a first response to an emergency call, mainly on motorbikes with the aim to assist as quickly as possible and free up ambulances if possible.

I have to admit i thought that was fairly normal too. But there is no doubt ambulance service is under pressure, i know of someone who had to wait 4 hours for an ambulance over the christmas period.

But anyway, it may well be a crap story, in which case the BBC could be accused of running a crap story, but they habe space to fill and it was probably a very slow news day.

It also seems from Golden Fleece's comments that they clearly identified the story came from the tory party, so i dont see that its done anything wrong, apart from running a pretty weak story.

[ronaldo7]

In your, incredibly biased opinion, im sure they arent.

No. Im not making a case here, you are. The BBC may well be biased, but the stuff you have linked to doesnt come close to proving it im afraid.

And both the tories, and labour accuse the BBC of being biased too, as do both remainers and brexiters.They cant all be right.

Maybe people just confuse stories they dont like because they challenge their world view or attack their side, with being biased and thats what drives perception?

The same way that fitba fans always think refs / media have it in for their team (see the weekly BBC bias thread on main board about their anti-hibs bias).

You only have to go through the thread to see the evidence provided by many posters.

Some cracking posts.

[Kavinho]

I have to admit i thought that was fairly normal too. But there is no doubt ambulance service is under pressure, i know of someone who had to wait 4 hours for an ambulance over the christmas period.

But anyway, it may well be a crap story, in which case the BBC could be accused of running a crap story, but they habe space to fill and it was probably a very slow news day.

It also seems from Golden Fleece's comments that they clearly identified the story came from the tory party, so i dont see that its done anything wrong, apart from running a pretty weak story.

Its the culmulative affect of having run so many weak stories, that fuels the growing perception of unbalance in their output.

[JeMeSouviens]

In your, incredibly biased opinion, im sure they arent.

No. Im not making a case here, you are. The BBC may well be biased, but the stuff you have linked to doesnt come close to proving it im afraid.

And both the tories, and labour accuse the BBC of being biased too, as do both remainers and brexiters.They cant all be right.

Maybe people just confuse stories they dont like because they challenge their world view or attack their side, with being biased and thats what drives perception?

The same way that fitba fans always think refs / media have it in for their team (see the weekly BBC bias thread on main board about their anti-hibs bias).

I don't think that's true. The UK BBC has always had a pretty clear "liberal" (in the American sense) bias and more recently an obvious pro-Remain bias. Both of these are fine by me but they are no less obvious. Similarly, the North British BBC has an unmissable pro-Union bias. I'm not so keen on that one. :rolleyes:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Its the culmulative affect of having run so many weak stories, that fuels the growing perception of unbalance in their output.

Perhaps, but this thread is only hearing from one side, who all have a similar viee and then all congratulate one another when they post something that they see as confirming that shared view.

How many weak stories are picked up from the scottish government?

Also, the SNP / SG will rightly be criticised more, because that is what happens to governments. Opposition attack them, and media run it because the media love negativity and negative stories. Thats the system working as it is supposed to.

Its like complaining that FMQs are biased because the government doesnt get to ask any questions.

And as i said above, all sides accuse the BBC of bias against them - by definition, most of them must be wrong.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't think that's true. The UK BBC has always had a pretty clear "liberal" (in the American sense) bias and more recently an obvious pro-Remain bias. Both of these are fine by me but they are no less obvious. Similarly, the North British BBC has an unmissable pro-Union bias. I'm not so keen on that one. :rolleyes:

So its biased against conservatives then? But that bias only exists up until the border, where it switches to being biased for the tories and labour? I wonder who BBC Wales are biasdd in favour of?

Tories in england will regularly complain of the woolly BBC, yet labour supporters habe run a campaign against some of their key political journos for being bias to the tories. Seems incongruous to me.

Maybe the BBC is biased, maybe it isnt, i certainly couldnt say for sure. Individuals within it will ceetainly have a particular view of course. Like (former?) leader of the Yes campaign Blair Jenkins, who was previously a senior news guy at the BBCS (possibly its editor?)

But does it not seem a bit unwholesome , not to mention churlish, to use that accusation to try and discredit any news story that doesnt suit a particular agenda that you happen to support. In fact, its straight out of the Brexit / Trump book of shooting the messenger.

At least Alastair Campbell's tactics were to rebut the story, not the publisher.

[johnbc70]

We should all know the rules by now.

If you perceive the organisation in question agrees with your stance or viewpoint = not biased.

If you perceive the organisation in question does not agree with your stance or viewpoint = biased beyond belief, how come everyone else cannot see it.

[JeMeSouviens]

We should all know the rules by now.

If you perceive the organisation in question agrees with your stance or viewpoint = not biased.

If you perceive the organisation in question does not agree with your stance or viewpoint = biased beyond belief, how come everyone else cannot see it.

As I said above, I mostly agree with the UK BBC stances but I can still see they're biased.

Fwiw, I think the issue is the lack of diversity in the pool they draw their journalists from rather than anything more sinister.

[hibsbollah]

We should all know the rules by now.

If you perceive the organisation in question agrees with your stance or viewpoint = not biased.

If you perceive the organisation in question does not agree with your stance or viewpoint = biased beyond belief, how come everyone else cannot see it.

If you applied that rationale to every piece of information you hear or see, you'd believe absolutely everything you were fed, especially if it's something you disagreed with!
Propaganda isn't some abstract conspiracy theory,its part of every society.

[JeMeSouviens]

So its biased against conservatives then? But that bias only exists up until the border, where it switches to being biased for the tories and labour? I wonder who BBC Wales are biasdd in favour of?

Tories in england will regularly complain of the woolly BBC, yet labour supporters habe run a campaign against some of their key political journos for being bias to the tories. Seems incongruous to me.


BBC journalists tend to be Oxbridge educated metropolitan liberals, the sort of demographic that is heavily pro-remain and centre to softish left, definitely pro-establishment and gets the heeby jeebies from the Corbynites.

To pick something obvious - would anyone for a moment dispute that BBC output is pro the royal family?

[Future17]

BBC journalists tend to be Oxbridge educated metropolitan liberals, the sort of demographic that is heavily pro-remain and centre to softish left, definitely pro-establishment and gets the heeby jeebies from the Corbynites.

To pick something obvious - would anyone for a moment dispute that BBC output is pro the royal family?

To be fair, so is the majority of Britain...unfortunately.

[JeMeSouviens]

To be fair, so is the majority of Britain...unfortunately.

Absolutely. I'm just trying to make the point that the BBC (and any other media outlet) has biases. Some are just a bit more in your face than others.

[McD]

I don't trust them because they're not impartial. Simples.

If you could supply some stats to back up your case on which and how many stories they've run for the SG I'd be interested, otherwise I wouldn't bother betting on it.:wink:


Fair enough - out of curiosity, is Wings Over Scotland unbiased, or do you not trust them? :wink:



Just joshing, you are very honest about where your political views lie 😊

[JimBHibees]

There was a research study done by ne of the universities in Scotland which clearly outlined an anti snp bias during the Indy ref was there not.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

BBC journalists tend to be Oxbridge educated metropolitan liberals, the sort of demographic that is heavily pro-remain and centre to softish left, definitely pro-establishment and gets the heeby jeebies from the Corbynites.

To pick something obvious - would anyone for a moment dispute that BBC output is pro the royal family?

You make a fair point, although more pertinent to england than BBCS i would guess.

Good point on the royals, but id say its less pro them, and more reverential towards them - that may or may not be the same thing, i dunno. Certinly prince Charlie was no fan of the BBC's royal correspondent!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

There was a research study done by ne of the universities in Scotland which clearly outlined an anti snp bias during the Indy ref was there not.

That rings a bell, but was it not looking at print media aswell?

[JimBHibees]

That rings a bell, but was it not looking at print media aswell?

No think it was the BBC and itv coverage

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must

[Mr Grieves]

No think it was the BBC and itv coverage

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must

Here's the report.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report

I think there was also a study on Radio Scotland that made similar findings.

[ronaldo7]

No think it was the BBC and itv coverage

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must

"One email I hadn’t been expecting came directly from BBC Scotland’s head of policy and corporate affairs on 21 January 2014. He expressed serious concerns about the methodology, accuracy and language used in the report, and felt so strongly that he by-passed my head of school and dean of faculty and went straight to the university principal".

Old school tie at work, fortunately for Mr Robertston, his principal backed him to the hilt.

Mr Robertson still does a blog, and unearths some beauties.

This was a good one back in 2014. Is it still happening today? :wink:

http://johnhilley.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/professor-john-robertson-bbcs-framing.html

[johnbc70]

No think it was the BBC and itv coverage

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must

Not really overwhelming proof though is it, it's one man's opinion based on a study he did himself. His second study was then funded by a pro indy organisation.

[ronaldo7]

Fair enough - out of curiosity, is Wings Over Scotland unbiased, or do you not trust them? :wink:



Just joshing, you are very honest about where your political views lie 😊

:aok:

He's up front about his affiliations, and imo does a fantastic job of dissecting MSM pish. It's a pity some cannot or won't acknowledge the bias which is evident at the BBC. :wink:

[Kavinho]

Perhaps, but this thread is only hearing from one side, who all have a similar viee and then all congratulate one another when they post something that they see as confirming that shared view.

How many weak stories are picked up from the scottish government?

Also, the SNP / SG will rightly be criticised more, because that is what happens to governments. Opposition attack them, and media run it because the media love negativity and negative stories. Thats the system working as it is supposed to.

Its like complaining that FMQs are biased because the government doesnt get to ask any questions.

And as i said above, all sides accuse the BBC of bias against them - by definition, most of them must be wrong.


So you contingently agree with the couple of minor contributions I've made, but then go on to ask a rhetorical, and Id wager unanswerable question.
No wonder this is a circular argument.

But if you want to add some weght to your argument feel to come back with anything remotely assembling stats to back up your couple of claims that its worse in respect to Govt stories



Or you can help me try and square this circle from Twitter today (Ponsonby)

Sarah Smith: "Last week over one hundred thousand patients waited more than four hours to be seen."
--
There were 25,865 attendances at Emergency Departments across Scotland last week. Source. https://t.co/dcIm4ZsFXn

https://t.co/MMi27oN72T


--
Yet:
According to her figures, 78% were seen in the target 4 hours. Therefore her "100,000" represents only 22% of total A&E attendances. So total attendance works out at over 454,000, i.e about 8.5% of Scottish population.

--
Genuine question.. I'm open to any explanation

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not really overwhelming proof though is it, it's one man's opinion based on a study he did himself. His second study was then funded by a pro indy organisation.

So youre saying it might be biased... 😊

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

"One email I hadn’t been expecting came directly from BBC Scotland’s head of policy and corporate affairs on 21 January 2014. He expressed serious concerns about the methodology, accuracy and language used in the report, and felt so strongly that he by-passed my head of school and dean of faculty and went straight to the university principal".

Old school tie at work, fortunately for Mr Robertston, his principal backed him to the hilt.

Mr Robertson still does a blog, and unearths some beauties.

This was a good one back in 2014. Is it still happening today? :wink:

http://johnhilley.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/professor-john-robertson-bbcs-framing.html

Do you know that is the case, or is it another od your innuendos?

What old school network are they both part of?

If an organisation had come out fundamentally challening my organisation and i felt it was unfounded, i would also seek to raise it at the highest possible levels.

That doesnt prove anything, other than the author fept he had rattled the BBC

Rather than take the opinion ofnour friendly, local Hibs net SNP political education officer, lets see what Blair Jenkins thinks about this issue, habing worked at senior levels on both sides -

"Mr Jenkins said the broadcast media had an important role to play. He added that as a former BBC Scotland news boss, he very rarely saw "deliberate bias" and he did not believe there was "systematic bias" at the BBC.

He told the committee: "You see mistakes being made and mistakes are being made because resources are being cut, particularly at BBC Scotland.

"As someone who held a senior role in BBC Scotland I am very aware of the strength of feeling in the journalistic community that they are over stretched.

"I am more aware of opportunities being missed, programmes not being done and issues not being treated with enough depth."

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So you contingently agree with the couple of minor contributions I've made, but then go on to ask a rhetorical, and Id wager unanswerable question.
No wonder this is a circular argument.

But if you want to add some weght to your argument feel to come back with anything remotely assembling stats to back up your couple of claims that its worse in respect to Govt stories



Or you can help me try and square this circle from Twitter today (Ponsonby)

Sarah Smith: "Last week over one hundred thousand patients waited more than four hours to be seen."
--
There were 25,865 attendances at Emergency Departments across Scotland last week. Source. https://t.co/dcIm4ZsFXn

https://t.co/MMi27oN72T


--
Yet:
According to her figures, 78% were seen in the target 4 hours. Therefore her "100,000" represents only 22% of total A&E attendances. So total attendance works out at over 454,000, i.e about 8.5% of Scottish population.

--
Genuine question.. I'm open to any explanation

What is people's obsession on here with stats? It isnt a court of law, its about people's opinions.

The point i was making about scot govt news releases is exactly that - we dont know (and certainly cant be bothered looking) but how can we then claim bias when we habe only one side's figures? For all we know it could ne biased the other way.

I dont know about the a&e figures, although interestingly they came from a SG news release i believe.

But a couple of points... firstly, the ambulance story was a claim of bias in favour of the tories, but surely a pro tory organisation would not hire the daughter of a former Labour leader to front up its political coverage?

Secondly, its normal for the media to pick up and run more stories that are questioning the government of the day - that isnt about being anti-SNP, its about holding a govt to account. Too many SNP supporters still view their government as a campaign, viewimg everything througj the prism of yes/no. But this is govt business as usual, all govts get questioned more than the opposition. I doubt anyone could claim that the tory govt in london gets favourable coverage from the bbc for the same (and many other, self-inflicted, reasons!)

Im happy to take the word of Blair Jenkins i posted abovd rather than that of pro-SNP supporters who themselves are biased in their outlook.

Im sure there have been, and are individuals in the bbc with political bias, but i dont believe the BBC as an org is biased. And given as a country the SNP are our most popular party, i would suggest a high number of those working in the bbc habe snp sympathies.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So you contingently agree with the couple of minor contributions I've made, but then go on to ask a rhetorical, and Id wager unanswerable question.
No wonder this is a circular argument.

But if you want to add some weght to your argument feel to come back with anything remotely assembling stats to back up your couple of claims that its worse in respect to Govt stories



Or you can help me try and square this circle from Twitter today (Ponsonby)

Sarah Smith: "Last week over one hundred thousand patients waited more than four hours to be seen."
--
There were 25,865 attendances at Emergency Departments across Scotland last week. Source. https://t.co/dcIm4ZsFXn

https://t.co/MMi27oN72T


--
Yet:
According to her figures, 78% were seen in the target 4 hours. Therefore her "100,000" represents only 22% of total A&E attendances. So total attendance works out at over 454,000, i.e about 8.5% of Scottish population.

--
Genuine question.. I'm open to any explanation

Sorry, to answer your question i dont know - maybe she confused last week with last month? Maybe she is just talking ******* - as we all know, stats can generally be massaged whatever way you want them, hence my distrust of them in argument.

But i dount she got an editorial line from her bosses / old school networks or anyone else, telling her to deliberately make stuff up to stick it to the nats.

[Moulin Yarns]

So you contingently agree with the couple of minor contributions I've made, but then go on to ask a rhetorical, and Id wager unanswerable question.
No wonder this is a circular argument.

But if you want to add some weght to your argument feel to come back with anything remotely assembling stats to back up your couple of claims that its worse in respect to Govt stories



Or you can help me try and square this circle from Twitter today (Ponsonby)

Sarah Smith: "Last week over one hundred thousand patients waited more than four hours to be seen."
--
There were 25,865 attendances at Emergency Departments across Scotland last week. Source. https://t.co/dcIm4ZsFXn

https://t.co/MMi27oN72T


--
Yet:
According to her figures, 78% were seen in the target 4 hours. Therefore her "100,000" represents only 22% of total A&E attendances. So total attendance works out at over 454,000, i.e about 8.5% of Scottish population.

--
Genuine question.. I'm open to any explanation

I haven't seen the Sarah Smith piece on BBC England but this is possibly where the 100,000 comes from




Last month, BBC analysis of NHS data showed that fewer patients in Scotland were waiting longer than four hours in A&E than they did in 2012/3 in contrast to England where the number had more than doubled.

It found England had a 155% rise in long waits between 2012/3 and this year, up to 2.5 million a year.

Hospitals in Wales and Northern Ireland also saw an increase over the period.

In Scotland, the number of patients waiting more than four hours fell by 9% to just over 100,000.

The 100,000 appears to be for the whole of December, not last week of December.

[Kavinho]

Sorry, to answer your question i dont know - maybe she confused last week with last month? Maybe she is just talking ******* - as we all know, stats can generally be massaged whatever way you want them, hence my distrust of them in argument.

But i dount she got an editorial line from her bosses / old school networks or anyone else, telling her to deliberately make stuff up to stick it to the nats.


So it'll just be another honest mistake then.
Fair enough cheers.

Just wish they weren't as regular as they are, and anecdotally it seems the vast majority are against the govt to me.

[Kavinho]

I haven't seen the Sarah Smith piece on BBC England but this is possibly where the 100,000 comes from



The 100,000 appears to be for the whole of December, not last week of December.

Cheers
Appreciated

[GlesgaeHibby]

I haven't seen the Sarah Smith piece on BBC England but this is possibly where the 100,000 comes from





The 100,000 appears to be for the whole of December, not last week of December.

The 100,000 is for more than December.

Smith's piece on BBC News at Six last night was a disgrace, with the headline being that 100,000 people attending A&E last week failed to be seen within 4 hours. Reailty is that the number was 22% of 25,865 total attendees, ie 5,690. The constant attacks by Reporting Scotland on the NHS have been bad enough, but to announce gross misinformation to the whole of the UK on the News at Six shows that Sarah Smith is either incompetent or a liar.

If you look at the published stats, it's actually inconceivable how that mistake could be made as the first bullet point highlights total A&E attendances at 25,865.

[Kavinho]

Sorry, to answer your question i dont know - maybe she confused last week with last month? Maybe she is just talking ******* - as we all know, stats can generally be massaged whatever way you want them, hence my distrust of them in argument.

But i dount she got an editorial line from her bosses / old school networks or anyone else, telling her to deliberately make stuff up to stick it to the nats.

Having just revered the clip again. The same quoted figure is given by the news presenter in her intro and by Sarah Smyth in her piece.. so Not just the one genuine mistake it would appear.


No wonder cynicism levels are through the roof.
People have as much faith in Craig Thompson..!!

[ronaldo7]

Having just revered the clip again. The same quoted figure is given by the news presenter in her intro and by Sarah Smyth in her piece.. so Not just the one genuine mistake it would appear.


No wonder cynicism levels are through the roof.
People have as much faith in Craig Thompson..!!

Craig Thompson gets more things right. 😁

[ACLeith]

The 100,000 is for more than December.

Smith's piece on BBC News at Six last night was a disgrace, with the headline being that 100,000 people attending A&E last week failed to be seen within 4 hours. Reailty is that the number was 22% of 25,865 total attendees, ie 5,690. The constant attacks by Reporting Scotland on the NHS have been bad enough, but to announce gross misinformation to the whole of the UK on the News at Six shows that Sarah Smith is either incompetent or a liar.

If you look at the published stats, it's actually inconceivable how that mistake could be made as the first bullet point highlights total A&E attendances at 25,865.
Her father must be birlin' in his grave on Iona

[Kavinho]

Craig Thompson gets more things right. 😁

I would agree.. others might not - as countless threads have shown!

[ronaldo7]

Do you know that is the case, or is it another od your innuendos?

What old school network are they both part of?

If an organisation had come out fundamentally challening my organisation and i felt it was unfounded, i would also seek to raise it at the highest possible levels.

That doesnt prove anything, other than the author fept he had rattled the BBC

Rather than take the opinion ofnour friendly, local Hibs net SNP political education officer, lets see what Blair Jenkins thinks about this issue, habing worked at senior levels on both sides -

"Mr Jenkins said the broadcast media had an important role to play. He added that as a former BBC Scotland news boss, he very rarely saw "deliberate bias" and he did not believe there was "systematic bias" at the BBC.

He told the committee: "You see mistakes being made and mistakes are being made because resources are being cut, particularly at BBC Scotland.

"As someone who held a senior role in BBC Scotland I am very aware of the strength of feeling in the journalistic community that they are over stretched.

"I am more aware of opportunities being missed, programmes not being done and issues not being treated with enough depth."


I thought you might have taken the opportunity to move into 2018, having left all that pish behind. Perhaps you should have posted it in the baby box thread. :dummytit:

[ronaldo7]

They just can't help themselves.

https://randompublicjournal.com/2018/01/09/britains-smoke-and-mirrors-media/

[johnbc70]

They just can't help themselves.

https://randompublicjournal.com/2018/01/09/britains-smoke-and-mirrors-media/

Again, it's one man's opinion and interpretation of what he felt he saw.

What facts can you present, not someone else's opinions, that the BBC is anti SNP?

[snooky]

The 100,000 is for more than December.

Smith's piece on BBC News at Six last night was a disgrace, with the headline being that 100,000 people attending A&E last week failed to be seen within 4 hours. Reailty is that the number was 22% of 25,865 total attendees, ie 5,690. The constant attacks by Reporting Scotland on the NHS have been bad enough, but to announce gross misinformation to the whole of the UK on the News at Six shows that Sarah Smith is either incompetent or a liar.

If you look at the published stats, it's actually inconceivable how that mistake could be made as the first bullet point highlights total A&E attendances at 25,865.

She can also be both surely?

[GlesgaeHibby]

She can also be both surely?

True, but I don't believe she is incompetent. She's a pretty shrewd character.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

True, but I don't believe she is incompetent. She's a pretty shrewd character.

Well she cant be that shrewd if she blows her cover as a secret anti-nat agent in so obvious a way, and on an issue of such minor importance!

I would guess that she has just repeated something she was given without properly checking it - sloppy journalism would be my guess.

[snooky]

Well she cant be that shrewd if she blows her cover as a secret anti-nat agent in so obvious a way, and on an issue of such minor importance!

I would guess that she has just repeated something she was given without properly checking it - sloppy journalism would be my guess.

Her cover was blown long time ago.

[Moulin Yarns]

a little bit of redressing the balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42648951

They must read Hibs.net :wink:

[snooky]

a little bit of redressing the balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42648951

They must read Hibs.net :wink:

Ffs, I need smelling salts. :dizzy:

[xyz23jc]

Ffs, I need smelling salts. :dizzy:

Fake news! :greengrin

[johnbc70]

a little bit of redressing the balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42648951

They must read Hibs.net :wink:

Clearly the BBC have been hacked.

[ronaldo7]

Again, it's one man's opinion and interpretation of what he felt he saw.

What facts can you present, not someone else's opinions, that the BBC is anti SNP?

You're obsessed with the SNP.😄

It's about balance and impartiality.

You've got to wonder how the beeb got hold of the one legged wonder. Maybe he was just hanging around eh.

Nice to see Donalda has received my letter. 😎

[johnbc70]

You're obsessed with the SNP.😄

It's about balance and impartiality.

You've got to wonder how the beeb got hold of the one legged wonder. Maybe he was just hanging around eh.

Nice to see Donalda has received my letter. 😎

So no facts, no problem.

I have no idea what the rest of your post means. Is one legged wonder some reference to someone's disability?

[ronaldo7]

So no facts, no problem.

I have no idea what the rest of your post means. Is one legged wonder some reference to someone's disability?

Did you read the link?

[grunt]

Did you read the link?Do you think that he'd have posted what he said in #132 if he'd read the link?

[ronaldo7]

So no facts, no problem.

I have no idea what the rest of your post means. Is one legged wonder some reference to someone's disability?

Balance and impartiality in full from the BBC. The one legged wonder is in this link too.

http://indyref2.scot/a-bbc-scotland-complaint-broken-ankle-man


Do you think that he'd have posted what he said in #132 if he'd read the link?

:aok:

[ronaldo7]

a little bit of redressing the balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42648951

They must read Hibs.net :wink:

The difference with this story is, it's actually true. What's come over them.

[johnbc70]

I never related the man with a broken ankle to a man with one leg.

[johnbc70]

Do you think that he'd have posted what he said in #132 if he'd read the link?

Yes he would have.

[ronaldo7]

I never related the man with a broken ankle to a man with one leg.

Now that you have, what do you think of the BBC "story", which made the main news ALL DAY?

I wonder if they'll run a story on someone going into A&E and getting seen, triaged, and fixed, all in the space of 4 hours. I won't hold my breath though.

[grunt]

Yes he would have.
Well you may have read it, but you appear to have missed the point.
Which is that the BBC's use of that interview is a clear example of bias, or failing that, lack of professionalism.
If they had done any background checking they should have identified the man as someone with an axe to grind against the Scottish Government and the SNP in particular.

But I'm not going to engage further, because I suspect you're just trolling for an argument.

[johnbc70]

Now that you have, what do you think of the BBC "story", which made the main news ALL DAY?

I wonder if they'll run a story on someone going into A&E and getting seen, triaged, and fixed, all in the space of 4 hours. I won't hold my breath though.

Why would the scenario you describe be news? Viewing numbers would quickly drop.

[johnbc70]

Well you may have read it, but you appear to have missed the point.
Which is that the BBC's use of that interview is a clear example of bias, or failing that, lack of professionalism.
If they had done any background checking they should have identified the man as someone with an axe to grind against the Scottish Government and the SNP in particular.

But I'm not going to engage further, because I suspect you're just trolling for an argument.
All in your opinion of course.

[ronaldo7]

Why would the scenario you describe be news? Viewing numbers would quickly drop.
:faf:

So the only news we need is Baaaadddd news in your world. Got you.:aok:

I wonder if they'll run the story linked by GF(post 137) tomorrow on a loop. Then again, it's the Beeb we're talking about here.

Anything on the story about Mr Browne?

[johnbc70]

:faf:

So the only news we need is Baaaadddd news in your world. Got you.:aok:

I wonder if they'll run the story linked by GF(post 137) tomorrow on a loop. Then again, it's the Beeb we're talking about here.

Anything on the story about Mr Browne?

If the news was all good news stories then that would be great, not the real world though.

[ronaldo7]

If the news was all good news stories then that would be great, not the real world though.

And still no response on Mr Browne?

[RyeSloan]

:faf:

So the only news we need is Baaaadddd news in your world. Got you.:aok:

I wonder if they'll run the story linked by GF(post 137) tomorrow on a loop. Then again, it's the Beeb we're talking about here.

Anything on the story about Mr Browne?

The news has always been like that and still is. Stories of war and disaster (or NHS failings!) always take precedence over peace and love (or <4 hour A&E waits).

To claim that such an approach is any evidence of a specific and institutional bias against one particular political party seems a bit of a stretch.

[Kavinho]

What is people's obsession on here with stats? It isnt a court of law, its about people's opinions.

The point i was making about scot govt news releases is exactly that - we dont know (and certainly cant be bothered looking) but how can we then claim bias when we habe only one side's figures? For all we know it could ne biased the other way.

I dont know about the a&e figures, although interestingly they came from a SG news release i believe.

But a couple of points... firstly, the ambulance story was a claim of bias in favour of the tories, but surely a pro tory organisation would not hire the daughter of a former Labour leader to front up its political coverage?

Secondly, its normal for the media to pick up and run more stories that are questioning the government of the day - that isnt about being anti-SNP, its about holding a govt to account. Too many SNP supporters still view their government as a campaign, viewimg everything througj the prism of yes/no. But this is govt business as usual, all govts get questioned more than the opposition. I doubt anyone could claim that the tory govt in london gets favourable coverage from the bbc for the same (and many other, self-inflicted, reasons!)

Im happy to take the word of Blair Jenkins i posted abovd rather than that of pro-SNP supporters who themselves are biased in their outlook.

Im sure there have been, and are individuals in the bbc with political bias, but i dont believe the BBC as an org is biased. And given as a country the SNP are our most popular party, i would suggest a high number of those working in the bbc habe snp sympathies.


Missed this reply a couple of days back - sorry.

Opinions, or at the least valid ones, should be based on evidentially correct information, and on a thread about perceived bias, Id have thought interest in stats, as a measurement metric, to be fairly obvious.

More than one poster has disparaged individual egs as anecdotal.


Your point about the stat coming from an SG releases raises an interesting point. I'd consider the misrepresentation of the stat to be a stronger eg of manipulation of information by the BBC. They read it, and managed to change the context entirely

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Missed this reply a couple of days back - sorry.

Opinions, or at the least valid ones, should be based on evidentially correct information, and on a thread about perceived bias, Id have thought interest in stats, as a measurement metric, to be fairly obvious.

More than one poster has disparaged individual egs as anecdotal.


Your point about the stat coming from an SG releases raises an interesting point. I'd consider the misrepresentation of the stat to be a stronger eg of manipulation of information by the BBC. They read it, and managed to change the context entirely

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.

[ronaldo7]

The news has always been like that and still is. Stories of war and disaster (or NHS failings!) always take precedence over peace and love (or <4 hour A&E waits).

To claim that such an approach is any evidence of a specific and institutional bias against one particular political party seems a bit of a stretch.

I'd much rather they just stick to "reporting" news, rather than just making stuff up though. That's for ALL political parties. :aok:

Some on here are in favour of the way they do the news, other aren't. We'll have to disagree, I suppose.

This is from the Charter.

To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and
engage with t he world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and
impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s
understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content
should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and
depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news
providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local,
regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens

[snooky]

I'd much rather they just stick to "reporting" news, rather than just making stuff up though. That's for ALL political parties. :aok:

Some on here are in favour of the way they do the news, other aren't. We'll have to disagree, I suppose.

This is from the Charter.

To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and
engage with t he world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and
impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s
understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content
should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and
depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news
providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local,
regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens

:agree: 100%
I can accept a slight political slant on the article or report. It's the downright lies that makes my blood boil - no matter who does it.
They should be held accountable for it in the courts.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Just for reference, here are all the other headlines for Wednesday on this story -

Scotsman - worst performance ever for Scotland's A&E depts

P&J - highland hospitals experience largest rise in festive a&e attendance

National - Dr dan Beckett blames flu for slide in Scotland's NHS a&e figures

Holyrood magazine - record numbers waiting more than four hours at a&e

Herald - record a&e delays blamed on flu, but not aussie virus

Courier - dozens of tayside and fife patients waiting at least eight hours at a&e

So while it would seem that the Sarah Smith muddled her figures, the gist of the BBC story seems in line with all others, including the National, it is worth noting.

Also worth noting that the BBC ran a story (Winter flu will be 'key factor' for NHS over coming weeks) where they extensively cover the cab sec's statement to parliament explaining the numbers.

[grunt]

The news has always been like that and still is. Stories of war and disaster (or NHS failings!) always take precedence over peace and love (or <4 hour A&E waits).To claim that such an approach is any evidence of a specific and institutional bias against one particular political party seems a bit of a stretch.I'm sorry but it look like you too haven't read the linked article. The accusation of bias isn't due to the content of the piece, it's because the story is about someone who has a blatant political bias and this was neither mentioned or taken account of in the coverage.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm sorry but it look like you too haven't read the linked article. The accusation of bias isn't due to the content of the piece, it's because the story is about someone who has a blatant political bias and this was neither mentioned or taken account of in the coverage.

Do you mean Sarah Smith?

To be clear, you have no issue with the content of the story, your issue is with percieved bias of the person who wrote the story?

Is that not playing the man, not the ball?

[RyeSloan]

I'm sorry but it look like you too haven't read the linked article. The accusation of bias isn't due to the content of the piece, it's because the story is about someone who has a blatant political bias and this was neither mentioned or taken account of in the coverage.

This thread covers more than one article!

I don't believe the BBC has an editorial stance to be be constantly and deliberately biased against the SNP.

That's not to say that some of their output is either wrong or contains negative SNP slant on occasion but in general I think that negative stories on the incumbent government of the day is being interpreted by some as biased when in reality it's just the usual negative news that would be spewed out no matter who was in power.

As others have pointed out there is plenty of BBC articles that put across the SG's and SNP's positions on a range of issues including a rather lengthy one the other day on Nicola's crystal ball gazing on Brexit. That contained not one iota of challenge or opinion on her comments. I don't believe an inherently biased outlet would ever have done that.

[JeMeSouviens]

Do you mean Sarah Smith?

To be clear, you have no issue with the content of the story, your issue is with percieved bias of the person who wrote the story?

Is that not playing the man, not the ball?

Think he means Ally Browne, the guy who claimed to have gone home from A&E because a receptionist told him he might have to wait 8 hours. When he actually went in a few days later he was dealt with within the 4 hour target.

He is involved in a group called "United Against Separation". Whether the Beeb knew that or not and how they found him, who knows?

[JeMeSouviens]

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.


That's an interesting comparison. I would have been inclined to take a similar position on CT as yourself - incompetence over bias. Until someone did an analysis of his yellow/red/cards and penalties in Hibs matches compared to those of other referees. The figures were stark to say the least.

[Moulin Yarns]

Just for reference, here are all the other headlines for Wednesday on this story -

Scotsman - worst performance ever for Scotland's A&E depts

P&J - highland hospitals experience largest rise in festive a&e attendance

National - Dr dan Beckett blames flu for slide in Scotland's NHS a&e figures

Holyrood magazine - record numbers waiting more than four hours at a&e

Herald - record a&e delays blamed on flu, but not aussie virus

Courier - dozens of tayside and fife patients waiting at least eight hours at a&e

So while it would seem that the Sarah Smith muddled her figures, the gist of the BBC story seems in line with all others, including the National, it is worth noting.

Also worth noting that the BBC ran a story (Winter flu will be 'key factor' for NHS over coming weeks) where they extensively cover the cab sec's statement to parliament explaining the numbers.

Get past EVERY headline and read the truth behind the story and you will find that the figures were the second best since targets began.

MEANWHILE on twitter.


sarah smith‏Verified account
@BBCsarahsmith

This week I made a factual error in a report on the BBC 6 o’clock news. For which I apologise. I mistakenly used the annual figure for A&E waiting times in Scotland instead of the weekly one. As soon as I realised my error I changed the report for all subsequent broadcasts.



11:35 AM - 12 Jan 2018

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Think he means Ally Browne, the guy who claimed to have gone home from A&E because a receptionist told him he might have to wait 8 hours. When he actually went in a few days later he was dealt with within the 4 hour target.

He is involved in a group called "United Against Separation". Whether the Beeb knew that or not and how they found him, who knows?

Ha ha ha, ok i see!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's an interesting comparison. I would have been inclined to take a similar position on CT as yourself - incompetence over bias. Until someone did an analysis of his yellow/red/cards and penalties in Hibs matches compared to those of other referees. The figures were stark to say the least.

Really? Ok, i haven't seen that before. But still, that kind of naked statistical analysis is pretty difficult and troublesome. Not that im defending Craig Thomson, who is very near the top of my 'one bullet' list.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Get past EVERY headline and read the truth behind the story and you will find that the figures were the second best since targets began.

MEANWHILE on twitter.


sarah smith‏Verified account
@BBCsarahsmith

This week I made a factual error in a report on the BBC 6 o’clock news. For which I apologise. I mistakenly used the annual figure for A&E waiting times in Scotland instead of the weekly one. As soon as I realised my error I changed the report for all subsequent broadcasts.



11:35 AM - 12 Jan 2018

So she cocked up a figure.

"Hang the witch.."

And you claim media bias for not noticing that the figures are second best ever...

The SG news release makes no mention of this either, amd the cab sec talks about extraordinary pressures etc etc, so if these are the second best figures ever, they must be doing terribly the rest of the time

The cab sec also mentions that "almost eight out of ten" were attended within 4 hrs. So less than 80% met the target, and your claiming this is the second best figures ever?

[JeMeSouviens]

Really? Ok, i haven't seen that before. But still, that kind of naked statistical analysis is pretty difficult and troublesome. Not that im defending Craig Thomson, who is very near the top of my 'one bullet' list.

Found it: http://www.hibs.net/content.php?378-Craig-Thomson

A couple of highlights:


To further explore Mr Thomson’s statistics (3) an analysis of the figures for clubs (**) in which he has refereed over 25 games would suggest the team with the highest likelihood of getting a player booked is Hibernian (2.28 per game or 73 in 32 games) whilst the club involved in games where the opposition are least likely to get booked is also Hibernian (1.38pg). The side least likely to get awarded a penalty from Mr Thomson is Hibernian (0.06pg or 2 in 32) and most likely to get a penalty awarded against them is also Hibernian (0.28pg or 9 in 32).



On average, Mr Thomson awards 1.70 yellow cards per game (excludes Hibernian, includes double-yellows).

On average, Mr Thomson gives Hibernian 2.41 yellow cards per game.
He gives Hibernian 42% more yellow cards than his average.

On average, Mr Thomson awards 1.38 yellow cards against Hibernian opposition per game.
He gives Hibernian opposition 18% fewer yellow cards than his average.

In Hibernian games, he gives Hibernian 75% more yellow cards than the opposition.

After Hibernian, the next worst “sufferers” are Kilmarnock. In their games Mr Thomson gives Kilmarnock 27% more cards than the opposition.

In Hearts games, Mr Thomson gives the opposition 24% more yellow cards than Hearts.

On average, Mr Thomson awards 0.13 pens per game to all other teams, and 0.06 per game to Hibernian; in effect, he is half as likely to award Hibernian a penalty as any other team.

On average, Mr Thomson awards 0.10 penalties against other teams and 0.28 against Hibernian i.e. he is three times more likely to give a penalty against Hibernian than any other team.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Found it: http://www.hibs.net/content.php?378-Craig-Thomson

A couple of highlights:

Cheers, hadnt seen that before. He such a noel hunt. But the point would still stand that him being a noel doesnt equate to am SFA bias against us. Which was the point of my analogy!

[Moulin Yarns]

So she cocked up a figure.

"Hang the witch.."

And you claim media bias for not noticing that the figures are second best ever...

The SG news release makes no mention of this either, amd the cab sec talks about extraordinary pressures etc etc, so if these are the second best figures ever, they must be doing terribly the rest of the time

The cab sec also mentions that "almost eight out of ten" were attended within 4 hrs. So less than 80% met the target, and your claiming this is the second best figures ever?

I have no idea where you get your information from but the 'OFFICIAL' figures from NHS INFORM are what I go by.

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Emergency-Care/Publications/2018-01-09/2018-01-09-ED-Weekly-Summary.pdf?40888613463

and the week before

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Emergency-Care/Publications/2018-01-03/2018-01-03-ED-Weekly-Summary.pdf?40888613463

I posted earlier the comparative figures for NHS England. Let's just say I'm glad I live north of the border.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I have no idea where you get your information from but the 'OFFICIAL' figures from NHS INFORM are what I go by.

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Emergency-Care/Publications/2018-01-09/2018-01-09-ED-Weekly-Summary.pdf?40888613463

and the week before

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Emergency-Care/Publications/2018-01-03/2018-01-03-ED-Weekly-Summary.pdf?40888613463

I posted earlier the comparative figures for NHS England. Let's just say I'm glad I live north of the border.

I get my info from the cabinet Secretary's quote on the SG news release.

Sorry cant read those on my phone, but i can see that published on 9th jan, 2018 by ISD is a figure that says -

During the week ending 31st dec 2017 -

78.0% of people attending... were attended within 4 hours.

4.5% waited more than 8hrs, amd 1.1% waited more than 12 hrs.

If that is the second best figures ever as you claim, then thats a disgraceful performance. For the record, i dont believe they are the 2nd best figures ever.

Source - www.isdscotland.org/Publications/index.asp

[JeMeSouviens]

Cheers, hadnt seen that before. He such a noel hunt. But the point would still stand that him being a noel doesnt equate to am SFA bias against us. Which was the point of my analogy!

Right, sorry, wasn't keeping up.

I more or less agree but would make the point that as far as Indy is concerned all your Jackie Birds, Jim Naughties, Eleanor Bradfords, Andrew Marrs & Neills are right in there at CT Hibs levels.

But there were definitely BBC journos who I thought did great work during the Indyref: Robert Peston, Stephanie Flanders, Isabel Fraser to name 3 off the top of my head.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Right, sorry, wasn't keeping up.

I more or less agree but would make the point that as far as Indy is concerned all your Jackie Birds, Jim Naughties, Eleanor Bradfords, Andrew Marrs & Neills are right in there at CT Hibs levels.

But there were definitely BBC journos who I thought did great work during the Indyref: Robert Peston, Stephanie Flanders, Isabel Fraser to name 3 off the top of my head.

Perhaps, but its subjective. Id say Marr is pretty even handed, i dont remember specifically the indyref so i cant comment specifically on those.

[Moulin Yarns]

I get my info from the cabinet Secretary's quote on the SG news release.

Sorry cant read those on my phone, but i can see that published on 9th jan, 2018 by ISD is a figure that says -

During the week ending 31st dec 2017 -

78.0% of people attending... were attended within 4 hours.

4.5% waited more than 8hrs, amd 1.1% waited more than 12 hrs.

If that is the second best figures ever as you claim, then thats a disgraceful performance. For the record, i dont believe they are the 2nd best figures ever.

Source - www.isdscotland.org/Publications/index.asp (http://www.isdscotland.org/Publications/index.asp)

I should have clarified (which I did when I posted these figures previously) The ANNUAL figures for Scotland are the second best since 2013.


Last month, BBC analysis of NHS data showed that fewer patients in Scotland were waiting longer than four hours in A&E than they did in 2012/3 in contrast to England where the number had more than doubled.

It found England had a 155% rise in long waits between 2012/3 and this year, up to 2.5 million a year.

Hospitals in Wales and Northern Ireland also saw an increase over the period.

In Scotland, the number of patients waiting more than four hours fell by 9% to just over 100,000 a year



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 :wink: and ranked 2nd in Scotland. Scotland as a whole last met the A&E target in August last year.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

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 :wink: and ranked 2nd in Scotland. Scotland as a whole last met the A&E target in August last year.

Kind of illustrates the point about the difficulty and sliperiness of stats.

But, everyone, including the FM, the Cab Sec and the SG, NHS Scotland etc is discussing the winter crisis, and the weekly reports, whixh the SG publish, but you have decided thats a sign of media bias because they arent using your preferred annual figures.

That doesnt strike me as a reasonable basis on which to accuse the media of bias, when your interpretation is just as much of a piece of spin as you are accusing them of.

But equally it also shows the futility of this debate, as clearly what you say is true, and what the media (or most of the media) are reporting is also true.

Kinda brings us back to the point that people will look for news they like, and disregard that they dont.

[Moulin Yarns]

Kind of illustrates the point about the difficulty and sliperiness of stats.

But, everyone, including the FM, the Cab Sec and the SG, NHS Scotland etc is discussing the winter crisis, and the weekly reports, whixh the SG publish, but you have decided thats a sign of media bias because they arent using your preferred annual figures.

That doesnt strike me as a reasonable basis on which to accuse the media of bias, when your interpretation is just as much of a piece of spin as you are accusing them of.

But equally it also shows the futility of this debate, as clearly what you say is true, and what the media (or most of the media) are reporting is also true.

Kinda brings us back to the point that people will look for news they like, and disregard that they dont.

I can't win, can I?

Quote from Shona Robison which is based on the figures I quoted from NHS Scotland. Where else would the Scottish Government get their figures from if not the NHS?


During my visits to hospitals I’ve been struck time and time again by the dedication and sheer hard work of staff throughout this busy winter. I’d like to thank them for their work in supporting any patient or family experiencing a delay to their treatment, and to thank patients themselves for their patience and understanding.“Scotland’s accident and emergency departments are continuing to outperform those across the rest of the UK - and indeed it is to the great credit of NHS staff that even at the height of these exceptional winter pressures, almost eight out of ten people who attended A&E were admitted, transferred or discharged within the four hour target.
“I’ve heard an overwhelming number of reports from clinicians about how flu and respiratory illness, combined with other winter pressures and exceptional and sustained levels of demand, is changing the way they are treating patients arriving at A&E. It is crucial that patients with complex care needs and flu receive the right care, not simply the fastest.
“It will take some time for services to recover from the pressures being felt this winter and for the spikes in flu levels to subside - however we are working to provide support to Boards wherever they might need it, alongside the £22.4 million investment the Scottish Government has already made available for winter contingencies. to ensure demand is appropriately managed.”

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I can't win, can I?

Quote from Shona Robison which is based on the figures I quoted from NHS Scotland. Where else would the Scottish Government get their figures from if not the NHS?

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.

[Moulin Yarns]

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.

[JimBHibees]

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 :wink: 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.

[Kavinho]

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.

[Mibbes Aye]

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.

[Glory Lurker]

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.

[ronaldo7]

The wee Ginger dug in inimitable form on the lastest outrage from the Britnat media pack. #Braw

Being deafened by the “silenced”
Jan
20
by weegingerdug
The job of most media commentators in Scotland is to criticise the SNP. To do so they use a Scottish media which overwhelmingly takes as its starting point that British nationalism is the norm and is a norm which is not nationalist at all. The job of the media in Scotland is to judge Scotland by the standards of Britain. Their job is to shoehorn criticism of the SNP and Scottish independence into any topic you care to think of. Their job is to undermine Scottish self-confidence and instill in us the fear that we couldn’t cope as a normal nation. But don’t you dare criticise them back, and for the sake of all the gods don’t dream of mocking them. That means you’re a tyrant who is silencing them.
The state capitol building in Hartford Connecticut has a domed roof covered with golf leaf. It’s a big building, it’s a big dome, but the amount of the precious metal used to gild it works out at a couple of gold coins’ worth. That’s because gold leaf is incredibly thin, a mere couple of hundred of atoms thick. If you could cut a leaf of gold leaf into cubes with the length and breadth equal to the thickness, each would be smaller than a virus. A single gold sovereign coin, if beaten out into gold leaf, could cover the floor of a room in your house. That’s how thin gold leaf is, but it’s still a whole lot thicker than the skin of your average media apologist for Scottish Unionism. And unlike British nationalism, gold leaf won’t tarnish.
One of the iron-clad laws of Scottish politics is that those who have greatest access to publicity, to the media, and to the corridors of British power, are those who complain most about how they are being silenced. Generally it turns out that they’re being silenced by people who write blogs which get only a fraction of the readership of a newspaper, or by ordinary punters who tweet mockery. Public figures with a platform in a national newspaper and who make regular appearances as a commentator on the telly are being bullied because a granny in Grangemouth tweets a cutting remark. Oh the irony, the British state with its military fetish, its nukes, its Brexit, its nostalgia for empire, and it’s complaining that it’s being bullied by a guy in Invergordon with an internet connection. The privileged always regard a challenge to their privilege as discrimination. The privileged are always the first to rush to claim victim status.
They’re being victimised and silenced because they no longer can lecture us without push-back. Their definition of democracy is one where they should be allowed to tell us how bad an independent Scotland would be without being challenged. Dare to challenge, and there will be anguished articles in several newspapers and right wing magazines bewailing how silenced they are. Talking heads will pop up on politics programmes to lecture us about how they’re being silenced. We’re being deafened by the silenced. The bullies are complaining that the bullied are threatening them.
Those who are really silenced, those who really struggle to make their voices and opinions heard, are being told by those who disproportionately dominate the mass media that the silenced are silencing those with the megaphones. People who oppose independence are far more likely to be given a platform than those who support it. Scotland has a legion of Conservative commentators, far out of proportion to the number of Conservatives. Meanwhile the likelihood of a pro-independence voice in Scotland being granted access to the TV, or to the vast majority of Scotland’s print media, is directly proportional to that voice’s willingness to attack and criticise other pro-independence voices.
It’s now day three of The Biggest Scandal in Scottish Politics Since Last Week, beardy-glasses-guy-gate. The SNP party political broadcast featuring a beardy guy with hipster glasses, who may or may not have been based upon the Herald columnist and proponent of SNPbadness David Torrance, has spawned outraged articles in the Herald, the Scotsman, the Times, the Express, and on Saturday Stephen Daisley piled in with a piece in the Spectator. That’s the Daisley who was silenced by the SNP and who told us all, at great length, about how silenced he was in his columns for the Mail and the Spectator. No doubt there will be more pieces decrying the SNP’s intolerance of criticism in the Sundays.
Mind you, for a party that’s supposedly intolerant of criticism it does seem to come in for an awful lot of criticism. It is impossible to open a newspaper or view a news broadcast in Scotland without being subjected to a barrage of stories telling us just how terrible the SNP is. So it does appear that what those who complain about the SNP’s supposed intolerance of criticism are really upset about is when the party turns the tables on its critics and gently takes the piss out of them.
Hysterical voices like the Lib Dem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton have complained about the “tyranny” of the SNP. In Alex’s world, tyranny is when a party produces a video featuring a guy who bears a passing resemblance to a right wing columnist who’s a pal of Alex’s. If Alex had never stoked the fires by submitting his ridiculously petulant complaint to Ofcom, the entire episode would have passed as nothing more than a little bit of piss-taking on Twitter. Instead Alex wants to liken it to the oppression of journalists by authoritarian regimes. That’s the very definition of victimhood seeking.
It has all been counterproductive. All that has happened is that a party political broadcast which would have struggled to have attracted an audience of a few thousand people will now be seen by considerably more. By complaining loudly and vociferously that they’re being silenced, the apologists for British nationalism have only amplified the audience for the video that they claim is silencing them.
The real silenced in Scotland is the half of the population who support independence but who rarely see their viewpoint given airtime or column inches in a Scottish media which is overwhelmingly British nationalist in outlook. When apologists for British nationalism complain that they are being silenced, what they really mean is that they are appalled that other voices, voices which disagree with them, demand to be heard as well.

[One Day Soon]

The wee Ginger dug in inimitable form on the lastest outrage from the Britnat media pack. #Braw

Being deafened by the “silenced”
Jan
20
by weegingerdug
The job of most media commentators in Scotland is to criticise the SNP. To do so they use a Scottish media which overwhelmingly takes as its starting point that British nationalism is the norm and is a norm which is not nationalist at all. The job of the media in Scotland is to judge Scotland by the standards of Britain. Their job is to shoehorn criticism of the SNP and Scottish independence into any topic you care to think of. Their job is to undermine Scottish self-confidence and instill in us the fear that we couldn’t cope as a normal nation. But don’t you dare criticise them back, and for the sake of all the gods don’t dream of mocking them. That means you’re a tyrant who is silencing them.
The state capitol building in Hartford Connecticut has a domed roof covered with golf leaf. It’s a big building, it’s a big dome, but the amount of the precious metal used to gild it works out at a couple of gold coins’ worth. That’s because gold leaf is incredibly thin, a mere couple of hundred of atoms thick. If you could cut a leaf of gold leaf into cubes with the length and breadth equal to the thickness, each would be smaller than a virus. A single gold sovereign coin, if beaten out into gold leaf, could cover the floor of a room in your house. That’s how thin gold leaf is, but it’s still a whole lot thicker than the skin of your average media apologist for Scottish Unionism. And unlike British nationalism, gold leaf won’t tarnish.
One of the iron-clad laws of Scottish politics is that those who have greatest access to publicity, to the media, and to the corridors of British power, are those who complain most about how they are being silenced. Generally it turns out that they’re being silenced by people who write blogs which get only a fraction of the readership of a newspaper, or by ordinary punters who tweet mockery. Public figures with a platform in a national newspaper and who make regular appearances as a commentator on the telly are being bullied because a granny in Grangemouth tweets a cutting remark. Oh the irony, the British state with its military fetish, its nukes, its Brexit, its nostalgia for empire, and it’s complaining that it’s being bullied by a guy in Invergordon with an internet connection. The privileged always regard a challenge to their privilege as discrimination. The privileged are always the first to rush to claim victim status.
They’re being victimised and silenced because they no longer can lecture us without push-back. Their definition of democracy is one where they should be allowed to tell us how bad an independent Scotland would be without being challenged. Dare to challenge, and there will be anguished articles in several newspapers and right wing magazines bewailing how silenced they are. Talking heads will pop up on politics programmes to lecture us about how they’re being silenced. We’re being deafened by the silenced. The bullies are complaining that the bullied are threatening them.
Those who are really silenced, those who really struggle to make their voices and opinions heard, are being told by those who disproportionately dominate the mass media that the silenced are silencing those with the megaphones. People who oppose independence are far more likely to be given a platform than those who support it. Scotland has a legion of Conservative commentators, far out of proportion to the number of Conservatives. Meanwhile the likelihood of a pro-independence voice in Scotland being granted access to the TV, or to the vast majority of Scotland’s print media, is directly proportional to that voice’s willingness to attack and criticise other pro-independence voices.
It’s now day three of The Biggest Scandal in Scottish Politics Since Last Week, beardy-glasses-guy-gate. The SNP party political broadcast featuring a beardy guy with hipster glasses, who may or may not have been based upon the Herald columnist and proponent of SNPbadness David Torrance, has spawned outraged articles in the Herald, the Scotsman, the Times, the Express, and on Saturday Stephen Daisley piled in with a piece in the Spectator. That’s the Daisley who was silenced by the SNP and who told us all, at great length, about how silenced he was in his columns for the Mail and the Spectator. No doubt there will be more pieces decrying the SNP’s intolerance of criticism in the Sundays.
Mind you, for a party that’s supposedly intolerant of criticism it does seem to come in for an awful lot of criticism. It is impossible to open a newspaper or view a news broadcast in Scotland without being subjected to a barrage of stories telling us just how terrible the SNP is. So it does appear that what those who complain about the SNP’s supposed intolerance of criticism are really upset about is when the party turns the tables on its critics and gently takes the piss out of them.
Hysterical voices like the Lib Dem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton have complained about the “tyranny” of the SNP. In Alex’s world, tyranny is when a party produces a video featuring a guy who bears a passing resemblance to a right wing columnist who’s a pal of Alex’s. If Alex had never stoked the fires by submitting his ridiculously petulant complaint to Ofcom, the entire episode would have passed as nothing more than a little bit of piss-taking on Twitter. Instead Alex wants to liken it to the oppression of journalists by authoritarian regimes. That’s the very definition of victimhood seeking.
It has all been counterproductive. All that has happened is that a party political broadcast which would have struggled to have attracted an audience of a few thousand people will now be seen by considerably more. By complaining loudly and vociferously that they’re being silenced, the apologists for British nationalism have only amplified the audience for the video that they claim is silencing them.
The real silenced in Scotland is the half of the population who support independence but who rarely see their viewpoint given airtime or column inches in a Scottish media which is overwhelmingly British nationalist in outlook. When apologists for British nationalism complain that they are being silenced, what they really mean is that they are appalled that other voices, voices which disagree with them, demand to be heard as well.


Christ that's dull.

[Hiber-nation]

Christ that's dull.

Probably the biggest waste of a minute in my entire life.

[marinello59]

Christ that's dull.

Typical of the guy unfortunately. I had high hopes for The National. I stopped buying it when it became more like a print version of Wings.

[Hiber-nation]

Typical of the guy unfortunately. I had high hopes for The National. I stopped buying it when it became more like a print version of Wings.

Yep, it's so boring and predictable.

[johnbc70]

Typical of the guy unfortunately. I had high hopes for The National. I stopped buying it when it became more like a print version of Wings.

Playing to their audience and selling more, we know many on here lap it up as if it's gospel.

[RyeSloan]

Never saw the broadcast so had a wee gander today thanks to the wee Scotty dug or whatever he's called.

I have to say that the 'silenced ones' look like they have a point.

Clearly the character is meant to be the journo. Infantile was my first thought.

Then thinking about it more it crossed my mind that it was a bit of a play straight out of the authoritarians play book...essentially we have the SNP, the party of government, lampooning a journalist (who has paid them quite a lot of attention, not always favourable) in a party political broadcast. Pretty poor form.

Then of course the wee dug comes out managing to fit in Brexit, nuclear weapons, British nationalism, Scottish unionism and of course a wee mention of the Empire while telling us all that objecting to such low ball manoeuvres is a conspiracy against Independence....

[ronaldo7]

Typical of the guy unfortunately. I had high hopes for The National. I stopped buying it when it became more like a print version of Wings.

I don't think the National would have printed his blog in the full form, if at all. :wink:

[ronaldo7]

Never saw the broadcast so had a wee gander today thanks to the wee Scotty dug or whatever he's called.

I have to say that the 'silenced ones' look like they have a point.

Clearly the character is meant to be the journo. Infantile was my first thought.

Then thinking about it more it crossed my mind that it was a bit of a play straight out of the authoritarians play book...essentially we have the SNP, the party of government, lampooning a journalist (who has paid them quite a lot of attention, not always favourable) in a party political broadcast. Pretty poor form.

Then of course the wee dug comes out managing to fit in Brexit, nuclear weapons, British nationalism, Scottish unionism and of course a wee mention of the Empire while telling us all that objecting to such low ball manoeuvres is a conspiracy against Independence....

Do you really think the SNP would ask for a doppelganger of Dr David Torrance? The PPB would have reached around a couple of thousand people, but our friendly Unionist hacks have done it a favour, it's now reaching the tens of thousands.

The only person who managed to escalate this PPB was David's pal, Alex cole Hamilton. Imagine laying a motion in parliament about it.

The Brit nat media are falling over themselves to make a story out of nothing. As Usual.

[johnbc70]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15866967.Video__SNP_accused_of_Trump_like_attack_o n_critic_in_broadcast/

What's next, NS telling Teresa May she has a big red button on her desk to call the next referendum and she is not afraid to use it.

[xyz23jc]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15866967.Video__SNP_accused_of_Trump_like_attack_o n_critic_in_broadcast/

What's next, NS telling Teresa May she has a big button on her desk to call the next referendum and she is not afraid to use it.

Did you genuflect and bless yourself when you were typing out your favorite politician's name .....? :greengrin
Your OWN First Minister was only mere capitals, obviously couldn't stomach even mentioning her name or as is usual surname,
whereas she who must be obeyed, praise be upon her, got her full name, and capitalized as well! You in for a knighthood by any chance.....:greengrin
Another thing, I'm sure NS will be asked endlessly why she is or isn't calling a referendum anyway.....! Thank god we have fluffy and the 13 earbenders fighting our corner!!! :thumbsup::giruy2: :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15866967.Video__SNP_accused_of_Trump_like_attack_o n_critic_in_broadcast/

What's next, NS telling Teresa May she has a big red button on her desk to call the next referendum and she is not afraid to use it.

"THE SNP have been accused of aping Donald Trump by launching a “dangerous” attack on the freedom of the press in their latest party political broadcast."

This has got to be a wind up, or are the Herald just supporting one of their own. :faf:

Torrance himself, even tweeted about it the other day. I wonder what he said.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/david-torrance-fact-check/

[johnbc70]

Did you genuflect and bless yourself when you were typing out your favorite politician's name .....? :greengrin
Your OWN First Minister was only mere capitals, obviously couldn't stomach even mentioning her name or as is usual surname,
whereas she who must be obeyed, praise be upon her, got her full name, and capitalized as well! You in for a knighthood by any chance.....:greengrin
Another thing, I'm sure NS will be asked endlessly why she is or isn't calling a referendum anyway.....! Thank god we have fluffy and the 13 earbenders fighting our corner!!! :thumbsup::giruy2: :greengrin

Wow must have hit a nerve there!

[One Day Soon]

Wow must have hit a nerve there!

Looks awfy like it.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15866967.Video__SNP_accused_of_Trump_like_attack_o n_critic_in_broadcast/

What's next, NS telling Teresa May she has a big red button on her desk to call the next referendum and she is not afraid to use it.

Ach, the poor wee lamb. How cruel to have a wee laugh at him. Still, on the bright side I suppose him greetin about it will probably help him sell some of those books he's written.

[snooky]

I don't think it was a very good idea for the SNP to lampoon David Torrance (if that's what they did).
While it is tempting to have a pot-shot, the rubber bullet can bounce back on the firer.
I would have thought a sound and mature approach would be a far better way of handling this political midgie. The SNP would, and could, do better if they kept out of the custard pie fight. They should ignore the clown(s) and focus on the real issues in the Big Top.

[RyeSloan]

Do you really think the SNP would ask for a doppelganger of Dr David Torrance? The PPB would have reached around a couple of thousand people, but our friendly Unionist hacks have done it a favour, it's now reaching the tens of thousands.

The only person who managed to escalate this PPB was David's pal, Alex cole Hamilton. Imagine laying a motion in parliament about it.

The Brit nat media are falling over themselves to make a story out of nothing. As Usual.

Seriously? So it was all just a total coincidence...

And of course it's all about the 'Brit bat media' now...a depressingly predictable follow up to another well crafted straw man.

[Moulin Yarns]

Having met David Torrance at the Ed BookFest last year and watching the PPB I can confirm there are some similarities, both have glasses and a beard, but then so have I. :wink:

[ronaldo7]

Seriously? So it was all just a total coincidence...

And of course it's all about the 'Brit bat media' now...a depressingly predictable follow up to another well crafted straw man.

Alex Cole Hamilton has got you, hook line, and sinker.

#imdavey

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Seriously? So it was all just a total coincidence...

And of course it's all about the 'Brit bat media' now...a depressingly predictable follow up to another well crafted straw man.

That does tend to be the go-to position of the more zealous SNP guys on here - attack the messenger if you dont like the message.

Personally i think Torrance is a bit of a welt, and it does seem fairly harmless. However i do agree that it is a worrying approach to politics IF the nats start to ape some of their followers and attack the media because it says things you dont like. Very Trump-esque tactics, unfortunately. Maybe its just the future of political campaigning in the social-media world.

[RyeSloan]

Alex Cole Hamilton has got you, hook line, and sinker.

#imdavey

Ha ha it was your post I read, nothing from Alex Cole Hamilton....

It was a grubby little stunt, simple as that but you appear to support the fact that actually the response to the stunt is the story and should be used to show us all how the echoes of the empire and the biased Brit Nat media are being used to keep us all in our place. As I said, boring predictable.

[ronaldo7]

Ha ha it was your post I read, nothing from Alex Cole Hamilton....

It was a grubby little stunt, simple as that but you appear to support the fact that actually the response to the stunt is the story and should be used to show us all how the echoes of the empire and the biased Brit Nat media are being used to keep us all in our place. As I said, boring predictable.

😁

So, you've made your mind up without having researched the full picture. Not like you bud.

You're a lost cause. 😂

[JeMeSouviens]

That does tend to be the go-to position of the more zealous SNP guys on here - attack the messenger if you dont like the message.

Personally i think Torrance is a bit of a welt, and it does seem fairly harmless. However i do agree that it is a worrying approach to politics IF the nats start to ape some of their followers and attack the media because it says things you dont like. Very Trump-esque tactics, unfortunately. Maybe its just the future of political campaigning in the social-media world.

Seriously? I think it was meant as a gentle wind up, no?

A lot of twisted British knickers on this thread. :wink:

[RyeSloan]

[emoji16]

So, you've made your mind up without having researched the full picture. Not like you bud.

You're a lost cause. [emoji23]

You kindly presented the dug's full and in depth research of the 'full picture' which saved me the effort of spending my days analysing this tawdry little tale...

And which cause am I lost to? If it's the Machiavellian approach to furthering the Indy agenda then you have at least got that right [emoji106]

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Seriously? I think it was meant as a gentle wind up, no?

A lot of twisted British knickers on this thread. :wink:

I was referring to the principle rather than that specific example, as practiced by our friendly hibs.net neighbourhood SNP political education and liaison officer, among others. Hence my capitalised IF... ☺

Ha ha, my union jack, FTP, british bulldog boxers remain firmly untwisted..😊

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You kindly presented the dug's full and in depth research of the 'full picture' which saved me the effort of spending my days analysing this tawdry little tale...

And which cause am I lost to? If it's the Machiavellian approach to furthering the Indy agenda then you have at least got that right [emoji106]

Machiavellian?? What an insult. Macchiavelli was a political genius. What you are referring to is very far from genius...😁

[JeMeSouviens]

I was referring to the principle rather than that specific example, as practiced by our friendly hibs.net neighbourhood SNP political education and liaison officer, among others. Hence my capitalised IF... ☺

Ha ha, my union jack, FTP, british bulldog boxers remain firmly untwisted..😊

Ah, missed the capitalisation. Still, with your keyboard skills, you can hardly blame me. :wink:

[RyeSloan]

Machiavellian?? What an insult. Macchiavelli was a political genius. What you are referring to is very far from genius...[emoji16]

OK OK fair point Mr Machiavelli....let's call them a rather poor facsimile of such cunning then.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ah, missed the capitalisation. Still, with your keyboard skills, you can hardly blame me. :wink:

Touche!

[ronaldo7]

You kindly presented the dug's full and in depth research of the 'full picture' which saved me the effort of spending my days analysing this tawdry little tale...

And which cause am I lost to? If it's the Machiavellian approach to furthering the Indy agenda then you have at least got that right [emoji106]

:faf:

The full picture from the Dug, was only a piece of the jigsaw. Torrance's aids, then came to the party to give the picture a fuller scale.

[ronaldo7]

I was referring to the principle rather than that specific example, as practiced by our friendly hibs.net neighbourhood SNP political education and liaison officer, among others. Hence my capitalised IF... ☺

Ha ha, my union jack, FTP, british bulldog boxers remain firmly untwisted..😊

Special offer from the OO?

[RyeSloan]

:faf:

The full picture from the Dug, was only a piece of the jigsaw. Torrance's aids, then came to the party to give the picture a fuller scale.

Thought everyone had left the party apart from Nicola? [emoji6]

[One Day Soon]

:faf:

The full picture from the Dug, was only a piece of the jigsaw. Torrance's aids, then came to the party to give the picture a fuller scale.

You mean 'aides' right?

[Future17]

Had to chuckle at the positioning of stories on the BBC website today. Top story was minimum alcohol pricing and the next was about Sturgeon drinking champagne from the Calcutta Cup! :-)

[snooky]

Had to chuckle at the positioning of stories on the BBC website today. Top story was minimum alcohol pricing and the next was about Sturgeon drinking champagne from the Calcutta Cup! :-)
Laws for some but not all, as usual. :wink:

[Geo_1875]

The BBC Scotland radio phone in this morning was a hoot. Discussing minimum pricing at 50p per unit and everyone was a bit meh so they decided to go with "What if it was more?" Well that put the cat among the pigeons and got the required response.

[ronaldo7]

The BBC Scotland radio phone in this morning was a hoot. Discussing minimum pricing at 50p per unit and everyone was a bit meh so they decided to go with "What if it was more?" Well that put the cat among the pigeons and got the required response.

Shops shutting all over Scotland. 😂

[JimBHibees]

BBC lackeys bird and Joffre trying to make capital about waiting times in the present horrific weather situation. Absolutely shameless IMO.

[johnbc70]

BBC lackeys bird and Joffre trying to make capital about waiting times in the present horrific weather situation. Absolutely shameless IMO.

What did they say?

[snooky]

National news : Louise Lear (weather) said south west England getting hammered while Scotland still being 'pestered' by snow. :rolleyes: You have to laugh, eh.

[Slavers]

It's ironic how people complain about the BBC bias towards the UK but then have nothing to say when the BBC show the same bias towards the EU. Very hypocritical IMO and totally blinded by their own narrow views.

[Geo_1875]

It's ironic how people complain about the BBC bias towards the UK but then have nothing to say when the BBC show the same bias towards the EU. Very hypocritical IMO and totally blinded by their own narrow views.

Not something I'd say was blindingly obvious. Any examples we could discuss?

[snooky]

It's ironic how people complain about the BBC bias towards the UK but then have nothing to say when the BBC show the same bias towards the EU. Very hypocritical IMO and totally blinded by their own narrow views.

I tend to agree with you HT, even though I bat for that side, I do sense weighted reporting on Brexit matters.

[JimBHibees]

What did they say?

Somehow felt that they had to link the weather and cancelled operations due to weather to waiting times. Embarrassing IMO.

[Slavers]

Not something I'd say was blindingly obvious. Any examples we could discuss?

The entire coverage of brexit is biased towards the EU. It's on the tv every day just switch it on.

Not meaning to be cheeky but only someone who is pro EU themselves can't see how biased the BBC is toward the EU. In fact the whole media circus is pro EU which should be ringing alarm bells for people.

[Slavers]

I tend to agree with you HT, even though I bat for that side, I do sense weighted reporting on Brexit matters.

Yes it's plain to see.

[Hiber-nation]

Incident on a train in Christchurch. Meanwhile in Scotland....

It's bad enough that they continually treat Scotland as a region but to treat it the same as an English town is pitiful. Not just BBC of course....

[snooky]

How slow is the BBC news page for Edinburgh? The latest football report they have is the Hearts v Killie 1-1 draw. I was checking to see how the Jams got on in the cup yesterday. :wink:

[Curried]

A couple of hundred yards down the road from the BBC headquarters in Glasgow and the don't/can't cover this!

http://www.ultras-tifo.net/images/stories/2018/3/Rangers-Celtic/Rangers-Celtic-4.jpg

[snooky]

Move along. Nothing to see here.

What a pathetic news service. True colours eh?

[heretoday]

Well I think the BBC is brilliant and woe betide us if we ever lose it.

[Smartie]

A couple of hundred yards down the road from the BBC headquarters in Glasgow and the don't/can't cover this!

http://www.ultras-tifo.net/images/stories/2018/3/Rangers-Celtic/Rangers-Celtic-4.jpg

Is this worthy of coverage?

"Bunch of huns dress up as twats and sing a few songs before their team loses."

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

A couple of hundred yards down the road from the BBC headquarters in Glasgow and the don't/can't cover this!

http://www.ultras-tifo.net/images/stories/2018/3/Rangers-Celtic/Rangers-Celtic-4.jpg

What story did you think they were missing, its not clear from that picture?

[Colr]

A couple of hundred yards down the road from the BBC headquarters in Glasgow and the don't/can't cover this!

http://www.ultras-tifo.net/images/stories/2018/3/Rangers-Celtic/Rangers-Celtic-4.jpg

They’ll have been heading across their specially built bridge to the Ubi Chip instead.

[snooky]

I've just watched John Sweeney doing an investigatory documentary on the life in current Russia. He was quite good and I must say, seemingly quite brave.

Alas, since Indyref-1, I find it hard to blindly believe anything the BBC tells me as I no longer know if it's the truth or otherwise.
It's kinda like the time I found out there was no Santa Claus and my parents had been lying to me since I was born.

[The Harp Awakes]

I've just watched John Sweeney doing an investigatory documentary on the life in current Russia. He was quite good and I must say, seemingly quite brave.

Alas, since Indyref-1, I find it hard to blindly believe anything the BBC tells me as I no longer know if it's the truth or otherwise.
It's kinda like the time I found out there was no Santa Claus and my parents had been lying to me since I was born.

:agree:

The BBC let themselves down badly in their coverage of indyref1. Quite sad really as many had a lot of respect for their news coverage before that point, which was then lost for good. I guess Turkeys are unlikely to vote for Christmas so maybe their bias was understandable, but still unacceptable.

[Pete]

https://evolvepolitics.com/top-british-qc-has-letter-from-senior-bbc-figure-confirming-bbc-does-code-negative-messages-about-corbyn-into-programmes/

I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that they’re doing it or the denials when the evidence is in front of everyone’s eyes.

[Beefster]

Well I think the BBC is brilliant and woe betide us if we ever lose it.

Me too.

[snooky]

http://indyref2.scot/public-not-interested-in-power-grab-says-bbc-scotland-political-correspondent?hash=1ce09c4e-1bed-4265-8b42-6eaf2b9ad892&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Make of this what you will. :rolleyes:

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://indyref2.scot/public-not-interested-in-power-grab-says-bbc-scotland-political-correspondent?hash=1ce09c4e-1bed-4265-8b42-6eaf2b9ad892&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Make of this what you will. :rolleyes:



A demonstration on Friday that witnessed thousands of people form a human chain around the Scottish Parliament to draw attention to the ‘power grab’ received a mere twenty seven seconds of coverage that evening and was relegated to eigth slot on the programme.



no surprise there

[Beefster]

http://indyref2.scot/public-not-interested-in-power-grab-says-bbc-scotland-political-correspondent?hash=1ce09c4e-1bed-4265-8b42-6eaf2b9ad892&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Make of this what you will. :rolleyes:

I think he’s got a point.

As an aside, I know it whips some SNP supporters into a frenzy (usually resulting in a demonstration that they can moan about receiving no coverage) but the vast majority of us don’t even watch the news on TV.

[blackpoolhibs]

I think he’s got a point.

As an aside, I know it whips some SNP supporters into a frenzy (usually resulting in a demonstration that they can moan about receiving no coverage) but the vast majority of us don’t even watch the news on TV.

Is that true, if so that's sad?

I watch the news at 6 most nights through to 7, although i'm not sure just how much i take in?

Growing up with my parents it was always like this, and i have just carried it on.

[johnbc70]

I think most people could not care less about these things. The biggest selling 'News' papers in Scotland are the Sun and the Dailly Record which I imagine have very little actual news content.

Not bias, just telling the harsh reality.

People are more interested in what Meghan Markle is wearing than where their food is labelled.

[johnbc70]

A demonstration on Friday that witnessed thousands of people form a human chain around the Scottish Parliament to draw attention to the ‘power grab’ received a mere twenty seven seconds of coverage that evening and was relegated to eigth slot on the programme.



no surprise there

Hundreds not thousands, according to the BBC...

[Beefster]

Is that true, if so that's sad?

I watch the news at 6 most nights through to 7, although i'm not sure just how much i take in?

Growing up with my parents it was always like this, and i have just carried it on.

I suspect that most folk under a certain age get most of their news from the Internet, whether it’s Facebook, Twitter or elsewhere.