BBC bias again?

[johnbc70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No worries mate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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-T...df?40888613463

and the week before

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-T...df?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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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-T...df?40888613463

and the week before

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-T...df?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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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



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

PS My health board, NHS Tayside A&E figure is 98.2% . Better than the target and ranked 2nd in Scotland. Scotland as a whole last met the A&E target in August last year.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.