Printable View
I don't trust them because they're not impartial. Simples.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
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:
Carrie Gracie on BBC pay..." I no longer trust my bosses to give an accurate answer".
https://t.co/h6g7fOi9WM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).
The Ambulance srevice response to the FOI
http://www.scottishambulance.com/The...rs.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."
- 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
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.
You only have to go through the thread to see the evidence provided by many posters.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
Some cracking posts.
Its the culmulative affect of having run so many weak stories, that fuels the growing perception of unbalance in their output.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
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 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
Fwiw, I think the issue is the lack of diversity in the pool they draw their journalists from rather than anything more sinister.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
Propaganda isn't some abstract conspiracy theory,its part of every society.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 😊
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.
You make a fair point, although more pertinent to england than BBCS i would guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
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!
That rings a bell, but was it not looking at print media aswell?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
No think it was the BBC and itv coverageQuote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/...-blackout-must
Here's the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkin...dum-new-report
I think there was also a study on Radio Scotland that made similar findings.
"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".Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
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/201...s-framing.html
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
So youre saying it might be biased... 😊Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
Do you know that is the case, or is it another od your innuendos?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
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."
What is people's obsession on here with stats? It isnt a court of law, its about people's opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
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.