Jump to content

BBC bias


Recommended Posts

Catherine Calderwood - caught breaking the guidelines - binned. 
 

Neil Ferguson - caught breaking the guidelines - binned. 
 

Dominic Cummings - caught breaking the guidelines .............
 

Look out for the likes of Hancock, Raab and Gove, who couldn’t wait to stick the boot into Calderwood and Ferguson, claim that no wrong doing has taken place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

The two above are straight reporting what she was told, the Mirror article doesn't claim that he personally was spoken to by the police. The one I quoted is expressing an opinion about possible ramifications.

'sources close to' isn't journalism and it's a well trodden path for Kuenssberg. It isn't her job to get the Governments spin out in the public domain- it is her job to be a journalist.

There is no other way to interpret her tweet on Crerar's story other than jumping to Cummings aid. I like you a lot as a poster but you have a real blind spot with this stuff. 

Edited by Londonwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What chance have you got of a government being held to account when the political editor of the nation's foremost broadcaster is so willing to parrot the government's spin.

Kuenssberg is so far out of her depth, it is scary. You compare her to Andrew Neil, a raging right wing gammon who nevertheless gives all people a grilling.

Tough not to see bias in Kuenssberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

The two above are straight reporting what she was told, the Mirror article doesn't claim that he personally was spoken to by the police. The one I quoted is expressing an opinion about possible ramifications.

This is the series of events that you are passing off as 'straight reporting'

1. Story breaks that the chief advisor to the PM has broken the government's own rules on lockdown and has been spoken to by police as a result

2. BBC Political editor directly contradicts story, saying that 'sources' confirm he was not spoken to by police

3. Police confirm an individual was spoken to in connection with breaking the lockdown rules, entirely consistent with the original story which the BBC political editor rubbished at the behest of 'sources'

4. BBC Political editor brazenly carries on as if no new information has come to light, continuing to report the comments of 'sources' without acknowledging the factual inaccuracy perpetrated by the BBC political editor

If you genuinely don't believe that Laura Kuenssberg's source is Dominic Cummings telling her exactly what to say and that doing this is actually somehow not a gross breach of impartiality on the part of the state broadcaster which sees the one journalist ostensibly most responsible for holding governments to account indulging in direct propaganda as a client journalist, then I am sadly forced to inform you that I am the wallet inspector and I need to see your wallet immediately.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

This is the series of events that you are passing off as 'straight reporting'

1. Story breaks that the chief advisor to the PM has broken the government's own rules on lockdown and has been spoken to by police as a result

2. BBC Political editor directly contradicts story, saying that 'sources' confirm he was not spoken to by police

3. Police confirm an individual was spoken to in connection with breaking the lockdown rules, entirely consistent with the original story which the BBC political editor rubbished at the behest of 'sources'

4. BBC Political editor brazenly carries on as if no new information has come to light, continuing to report the comments of 'sources' without acknowledging the factual inaccuracy perpetrated by the BBC political editor

If you genuinely don't believe that Laura Kuenssberg's source is Dominic Cummings telling her exactly what to say and that doing this is actually somehow not a gross breach of impartiality on the part of the state broadcaster which sees the one journalist ostensibly most responsible for holding governments to account indulging in direct propaganda as a client journalist, then I am sadly forced to inform you that I am the wallet inspector and I need to see your wallet immediately.

 

 

The Mirror story didn't claim the Police spoke to Cummings himself. It was likely one of his parents. The source was clearly Cummings or someone speaking on his behalf, I don't see what's wrong with a reporter asking if he's got anything to say about a breaking story when he's the centre of it. She's the political editor, that's her job. Should she have kept what he said to herself and not passed it on?

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The Mirror story didn't claim the Police spoke to Cummings himself. The source was clearly Cummings or someone speaking on his behalf, I don't see what's wrong with a reporter asking if he's got anything to say about a breaking story when he's the centre of it. She's the political editor, that's her job.

For the love of god.

Is this someone impartially presenting the other side of the story as put forward by their source, or is this someone furiously contesting the content of the story to protest the innocence of their source?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

For the love of god.

Is this someone impartially presenting the other side of the story as put forward by their source, or is this someone furiously contesting the content of the story to protest the innocence of their source?

 

 

And she also tweeted this.

image.png

I'm obviously not going to persuade anyone here, I just think it's a rubbish example of bias when there are so many blatant examples around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mirror story didn't claim the Police spoke to Cummings himself. It was likely one of his parents. The source was clearly Cummings or someone speaking on his behalf, I don't see what's wrong with a reporter asking if he's got anything to say about a breaking story when he's the centre of it. She's the political editor, that's her job. Should she have kept what he said to herself and not passed it on?


This would almost be an acceptable line of argument if she had directly quoted Cummings and was neutrally passing through *his* rebuttal. That’s not what’s happened here. Kuenssberg has written her own rebuttal, defending the PM’s head advisor based on information from “sources”. The information has clearly come from him, but that’s not how it’s presented, and with the government themselves having not released a response, her tweets are the closest there is to an official denial.

That demonstrably shows Kuenssberg working as the governments mouthpiece when the entire premise of her job is to hold the same government to account. That the story didn’t even appear on the 10 O’Clock news is also an utter disgrace, and you can be assured had it been the likes of Corbyn, Abbott, Sturgeon or Blackford it would have been the lead story. It’s quite simply a dereliction of duty.

This should be grounds for resignation for both Cummings and Kuenssberg, but neither will face any repercussions, the bold Laura will get her multi-million pound a year editorial role at the Spectator in a couple of years, and all will be right with the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, J_Stewart said:

 


That the story didn’t even appear on the 10 O’Clock news is also an utter disgrace, and you can be assured had it been the likes of Corbyn, Abbott, Sturgeon or Blackford it would have been the lead story. It’s quite simply a dereliction of duty.

 

 

This seems like its a fairly important distinction; if anyone could find an example of her rapidly jumping on a negative story for a high profile Scottish govt or Labour figure with a blatant "douse the flames" post I'll be astonished. Her doing it with the govt exclusively makes her come across as more of a spokesman than journalist.

Thats not trying to engage in whataboutery, since she shouldnt be doing either, but it shows that she cant be trusted to be impartial.

Between this, her on camera fawning over Boris when stood next to Peston, that photo of her on the bench next to Boris, that cringetastic behind the scenes with Boris tv monster she shat out (edit: i had a wee look since i wasnt sure if Boris was the sole focus, it was that Brexitstorm thing she fronted) and pretending Constance Markiewicz didnt exist in favour of a known Nazi sympathiser I dont give her any credibility whatsoever. She should just go the Jim Traynor route and go for senior position a high profile right wing paper or direct Tory party media relations post at this point, assuming thats not her endgame anyway.

Edited by Thistle_do_nicely
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the love of god.
Is this someone impartially presenting the other side of the story as put forward by their source, or is this someone furiously contesting the content of the story to protest the innocence of their source?
 
 

The alarming thing for me is that its not her story, its not a bbc story either, the mirror got the scoop and despite this instead of digging she responds with the party line to the reporting journalist. Its fucking mental to think that anyone would reasonably believe she isnt a government mouthpiece.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, J_Stewart said:

 


This would almost be an acceptable line of argument if she had directly quoted Cummings and was neutrally passing through *his* rebuttal. That’s not what’s happened here. Kuenssberg has written her own rebuttal, defending the PM’s head advisor based on information from “sources”. The information has clearly come from him, but that’s not how it’s presented, and with the government themselves having not released a response, her tweets are the closest there is to an official denial.

That demonstrably shows Kuenssberg working as the governments mouthpiece when the entire premise of her job is to hold the same government to account. That the story didn’t even appear on the 10 O’Clock news is also an utter disgrace, and you can be assured had it been the likes of Corbyn, Abbott, Sturgeon or Blackford it would have been the lead story. It’s quite simply a dereliction of duty.

This should be grounds for resignation for both Cummings and Kuenssberg, but neither will face any repercussions, the bold Laura will get her multi-million pound a year editorial role at the Spectator in a couple of years, and all will be right with the world.

 

It is not the job of a journalist to hold the government to account.  That is what the opposition parties are for.  A journalist's job is to collect and present news to the audience.

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...