Jump to content

General Politics Thread


Granny Danger

Recommended Posts

Who decides if they have?  Whose going to challenge them if they don't?  What procedures are in place to hold them to account?


It's a multitude of things. If you aren't accurate, fair or balanced you'll be called on it first by your boss, who'll want to know where the defence case quotes are or why you've written it in such a way. Complaints may be made and you'll definitely be pulled up on that.

Or you'll be pulled up by lawyers involved in the case, who could quite properly if the breach is severe bring it up in court or make a complaint. Sheriffs/judges also tend to read about cases they're involved in. On one occasion a High Court judge pulled me into chambers and on another a sheriff had a go in open court from the bench (I hasten to add both of these were on the back of other people's errors). This does your reputation no good. Get a bad reputation and you'll struggle to make or maintain the contacts you need to do the job. There is literally no upside to not giving an accurate account of a case.

Being fair and balanced doesn't mean writing headlines that always fit everyone's viewpoint, however. The headline in this case matches the copy IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I'm a professional who appears in court as part of the job. I have personal experience of court reporters slanting their copy to their editorial line. Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that court reporters are unbiased.

2) Is it common for professional reporters to comment on articles then claim they haven't actually read them?

3) She is on trial for alleged assault. That's the story. As usual, the defence is trying to discredit the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Why is this aspect of the trial the story on this particular occasion?  

I would suggest that the BBC & Record are biased. You are free to disagree with that conclusion.



I'd imagine that aspect of the trial was the story today because that was the main/most interesting point of the day. The defence position should always be reported and it is commonplace to report these precise exchanges as "victim denies lying over allegations". That's the way most trials in any circumstance are reported.

Eg: day 1-murder trial hears witness "saw accused covered in blood"

Day 2 murder witness denies making up "bloodstained attacker" claim

That's certainly how I'd do it and I would guess 99% of my colleagues would too.
1)
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yeh i had a look, decent stuff, but ultimately mate you honestly cant say that the beeb/record havent been biased??


My point is their day one of trial reports took it from the victims perspective. There were no bias complaints on those stories. Today's evidence came from the defence perspective and the headlines reflect that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

 


I'd imagine that aspect of the trial was the story today because that was the main/most interesting point of the day. The defence position should always be reported and it is commonplace to report these precise exchanges as "victim denies lying over allegations". That's the way most trials in any circumstance are reported.

Eg: day 1-murder trial hears witness "saw accused covered in blood"

Day 2 murder witness denies making up "bloodstained attacker" claim

That's certainly how I'd do it and I would guess 99% of my colleagues would too.
1)

So is "Yes campaigner denies lying" the same as "victim denies lying".  The political leanings of the victim should play no part in the story, the charge here is assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

 


My point is their day one of trial reports took it from the victims perspective. There were no bias complaints on those stories. Today's evidence came from the defence perspective and the headlines reflect that.

Do you know what the headline was from the first day?  Remarkably I am struggling to find it on the BBC website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is "Yes campaigner denies lying" the same as "victim denies lying".  The political leanings of the victim should play no part in the story, the charge here is assault.



The political context is the only reason this has garnered any attention at all. It is literally the crux of it. To leave it out would be artificial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, strichener said:

Do you know what the headline was from the first day?  Remarkably I am struggling to find it on the BBC website.

"Labour MP Marie Rimmer on trial over 'referendum assault' " was the BBC headline. Wonder why they put "referendum assault" in quotation marks?

I can't find the Record's report.

By contrast, the Motherwell Times & Dundee Courier led with "Labour MP Marie Rimmer accused of kicking Scottish independence supporter" whilst the Liverpool Echo went for "St Helens MP Marie Rimmer "smirked" after kicking a campaigner, court told"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

 


The political context is the only reason this has garnered any attention at all. It is literally the crux of it. To leave it out would be artificial.

 

The political context is that an elected representative has been accused of assault, yet the BBC and the Record consider the headline news to be the political leanings of a witness against her?

Edit: I pluralised Record :whistle

Edited by lichtgilphead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Journalist's unsuccessful defence of bias angers P&B members"

"There were murmurings of discontent today (yesterday) as a lickspittle hack tried to defend outright bias amongst his peers on the   world's favourite football website...."

For the full story click here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Labour MP Marie Rimmer on trial over 'referendum assault' " was the BBC headline. Wonder why they put "referendum assault" in quotation marks?

I can't find the Record's report.

By contrast, the Motherwell Times & Dundee Courier led with "Labour MP Marie Rimmer accused of kicking Scottish independence supporter" whilst the Liverpool Echo went for "St Helens MP Marie Rimmer "smirked" after kicking a campaigner, court told"



It's in quote marks because it is an unproven allegation at this stage. Again, that's how you do these things. When you are paraphrasing the gist of a criminal case that is yet to be proven it goes in quote marks to show it is not yet proven fact.

The subtle difference in the other headlines is that they have been written by the Press Association centrally and they always go for the most bland headline possible.

The Echo one is pretty good but they've also used quote marks to show it is reported speech and not proven fact.

The big take away from this whole issue (certainty from the stuff I've seen on Twitter) is that an enormous number of people's English comprehension skills go out the window when they don't like the headline in terms of their politics, and I speak as a yes/SNP voter here. Some serious heads gone stuff over a fairly innocuous headline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC must have forgot that rule about quotation marks on something not proven in court when dealing with the Liam Fee case (and probably others).  They did however use them correctly in their headlines if taken words from one or more of those involved in the case.

 

 

Edited by Antiochas III
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last PMQs for Cameron, who is looking incredibly relaxed and jovial. He'll be missed at the despatch box for the Tories, always a good performer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sooky said:

Last PMQs for Cameron, who is looking incredibly relaxed and jovial. He'll be missed at the despatch box for the Tories, always a good performer.

I agree.

Very entertaining today. Even Corbyn's performance has been the best I've seen from him since he became leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics in 2016 - the PM needs to reassure the nation of his love for Larry the cat.

Really good ending for Dave. Nice to also see the Lib Dems joining in on the standing ovation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sooky said:

Politics in 2016 - the PM needs to reassure the nation of his love for Larry the cat.

Really good ending for Dave. Nice to also see the Lib Dems joining in on the standing ovation.

Three cheers for the man with no social conscience and let's welcome his succesor also without a social conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...