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
Printable View
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
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!
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 impartialQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by piemanpilley
Yes it was. I saw it.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by piemanpilley
What did yo see Colr?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
(And I have no doubt that you probably are.)
Haha! You were the only one I've seen who mentioned 50000!! You were the source of this particular piece of misinformation!Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
:confused:
"Low lifes"? Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by piemanpilley
"A rouge Tory". A brilliant typo! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
Isn't that what the right wing call David Cameron?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
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.
What would you call a group that vandalises a war memorial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
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
Talking of bias, if you post a coherent comment in opposition to SNP policy in the Herald it gets moderated out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Better to read the letters in the Scotsman if you want a fair balance of opinion :fibber:Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
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
Seems our licence fees are put to good use.:rolleyes:
http://t.co/qZ7h15pl8S
Jacuzzi's of cash.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
What he tweeted and what he was quoted in the papers as saying to a journo are rather different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
i think he may have said more than just that, something along the lines of CK being a reluctant member of the No campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lyonhibs
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-33009579
Why are they reporting this as savings when they are obviously cuts in budgets?
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
Did you see the word "cut" in both the main title and the 1st line in the body of the article?? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
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 betterQuote:
Originally Posted by lyonhibs
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lyonhibs
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by lyonhibs
I just wish some would see it for what it was.
:dunno:about the SNP, you'd have to ask them for the fishul position if you're minded to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey09
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
It's nice that he let the clapping go 'just this once' though. :greengrin
I know, it just annoyed me today :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
I added the Wiki part to show that he is not exactly 'a neutral' in reporting circles when it comes to politics.
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/20...nisterial-post
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by snooky
Anybody seen the Beeb's barrel-scraping trailer for Andrew Neill's prog (spoofing 007)?
Embarrassingly bad by any standards.
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/...lection-video/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Jonesy-
What a pathetic and unnecessary attempt at political point scoring.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Jonesy-
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.
That is really odd. I can't recall hearing an interviewer ask a question like that before.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Jonesy-
It probably wasn't in the script given to them by the (insert political party here)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Will be interesting to see ifQuote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
MORE THAN ONE IN TEN SCOTTISH CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES ‘ON THE FINANCIAL EDGE
Is in the papers tomorrow..
Im a bit unclear what this is saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavinho
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.
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
It seems they take what they're getting as read, with a few minor tweeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
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.
You'd think the bastion of Britishness would at least apply the laws of the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
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/...like-a-kipper/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy;[B
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 etcQuote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
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.
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...."Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
They will also offer the SG or whoever the right of reply, so that they can counter.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
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.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.