BBC bias

[jakedee]

Okay so an isolated mistake, not propaganda...that would be annoying right enough but it doesn't scream institutional bias on a wide scale does it?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/25/the-guardian-view-on-alex-salmond-versus-nick-robinson-political-not-personal
Interesting article loosely on that subject. Nick Robinson like Neil Lennon getting saved by the mob storming at the gates and demanding he goes lol.

A mistake?

[SANTAN]

3 minutes ago, jakedee said:

8 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Okay so an isolated mistake, not propaganda...that would be annoying right enough but it doesn't scream institutional bias on a wide scale does it?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/25/the-guardian-view-on-alex-salmond-versus-nick-robinson-political-not-personal
Interesting article loosely on that subject. Nick Robinson like Neil Lennon getting saved by the mob storming at the gates and demanding he goes lol.

A mistake?

I've not seen the question or the response but if he claimed Salmond didn't answer the question when he did then Robinson was mistaken...

I'm guessing he didn't think he responded adequately but again I've not seen this incident. 

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I've not seen the question or the response but if he claimed Salmond didn't answer the question when he did then Robinson was mistaken...

I'm guessing he didn't think he responded adequately but again I've not seen this incident. 

Is Robinson lying not a possibility? 

[SANTAN]

Just now, coprolite said:

Is Robinson lying not a possibility? 

Yes of course it is. Which would still come under an isolated incident as opposed to some wider scheme unless of course Robinson had been instructed to lie, which I don't think anyone has claimed yet.

I'm going to go and have to watch this now fs. 

[SANTAN]

Looool

45 seconds in, that you @ICTJohnboy?

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Stormzy

[welshbairn]

11 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Looool

45 seconds in, that you @ICTJohnboy?

 

And this was Nick Robinson's report. A bare faced lie.

 

[NotThePars]

How many isolated incidents qualify as institutional bias?

 

Not really relevant to the current discussion but had to laugh at Kuennsberg on Inauguration Day claiming that Boris and Biden might have a common interest in their "REAL" (her words) desire to tackle climate change. 

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

And this was Nick Robinson's report. A bare faced lie.

 

I've watched it all now, it's such a pish storm in a tea cup. 

I'd understand if he said he didn't answer the question about the RBS because Salmond comprehensively answered that one, the second question though..

What a shite, vague, unimportant question to begin with

"Why should we trust you"

Salmond waffles on whilst not providing much attention (if any) or a direct answer to the trust part of the question. 

What am I missing? 

[SANTAN]

2 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

How many isolated incidents qualify as institutional bias?

 

Not really relevant to the current discussion but had to laugh at Kuennsberg on Inauguration Day claiming that Boris and Biden might have a common interest in their "REAL" (her words) desire to tackle climate change. 

Well we could start with incidents that are outwith journalistic mistakes like editorial decisions or even what you referenced the other day about hiring policy, those are noteworthy, a shite journalist asking a shite question, getting a shite answer is not some smoking gun imo. 

[NotThePars]

2 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Well we could start with incidents that are outwith journalistic mistakes like editorial decisions or even what you referenced the other day about hiring policy, those are noteworthy, a shite journalist asking a shite question, getting a shite answer is not some smoking gun imo. 

Years removed from the Robinson thing you can maybe make that argument but you have to mind it was at the height of the independence referendum when things were arguably nearing a knife-edge and having the Political Editor of the BBC producing what could quite clearly be regarded as doctored footage is understandably going to come across as bias, unconscious or otherwise. I'd say it was intentional given Robinson's background but whatever.

[John Lambies Doos]

Yes, you are probably correct.
When I’m in America, and when people ask where I’m from, I initially say Scottish, so that they can relate to the accent, and also that they have a geographical idea of where in the UK I’m from. 
From their  point of view, they don’t realise that there are 4 nations making up the UK but see  Scotland as a region like Yorkshire , Cornwall, etc.
Similarly, when I speak to Americans in the Uk, and I ask them where they’re from, they’ll say Florida, Michigan, whatever.

I would disagree with that tbh. Most American people I speak to think Scotland is its own independent country. In fact some can't even place where it is, nevermind in UK

[Jeff Venom]

Robinson doubled down on his response too iirc, he knew fine what he was doing.

[SANTAN]

9 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Years removed from the Robinson thing you can maybe make that argument but you have to mind it was at the height of the independence referendum when things were arguably nearing a knife-edge and having the Political Editor of the BBC producing what could quite clearly be regarded as doctored footage is understandably going to come across as bias, unconscious or otherwise. I'd say it was intentional given Robinson's background but whatever.

I can't imagine that one person would have changed their opinion on Scottish Independence because Salmond aparantly refused to answer why he should be trusted but I can see why this would annoy people that trusted Salmond (that went well) 

I can't see this as being part of a wider institutional bias and I think it's an incredibly tenuous stretch to suggest this is, unless Robinson has previous for doing this when referencing Salmond or Indy which I'm unaware of. 

The guardian article I posted before makes a point that's omitted from this thread and that's the obvious idea that pro Indy folk (some of them) will naturally have a bias against such a large British institution. They really need to come with something good to get the benefit of the doubt. As it stands I'd imagine there's more chance of posters in here being bias against the BBC than there is chance of the BBC being actively bias against Indy.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Stormzy

[lichtgilphead]

9 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I can't see this as being part of a wider institutional bias

How about the BBC cutting reaction shots into a video when the reaction shot was taken at a completely different time in the debate?

On November 24th 2010, a debate took place in the Holyrood chamber.  BBC Scotland’s Reporting Scotland ran a news item that evening in which they showed the First Minister apparently shaking his head in mocking fashion following a parliamentary statement by John Swinney.

The item, as can be seen, gave the impression that Swinney’s words were being made fun of by Mr Salmond.

Here is the broadcast as it appeared on Distorting Reporting Scotland

However, the actual footage supplied by official Holyrood cameras showed that the footage aired by the BBC had been manipulated and was not in fact what had taken place.

The clip below shows an unedited recording of the actual moments leading up to Alex Salmond’s shaking of the head:

As can be seen, Salmond wasn’t mocking John Swinney at all, he was in fact mocking the then Scottish Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott.  If you look back at the BBC clip you can just about hear Tavish Scott speaking at the moment Salmond shakes his head, Scott’s voice is drowned out by the BBC Scotland voice-over provided by BBC Political Editor Brian Taylor.

BBC Scotland had presented a wholly different interpretation of events to the one that had actually occurred.  Despite being confronted with clear evidence that they had manipulated the video footage, BBC Scotland never apologised.

But I'm sure that all this was just another innocent mistake.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

How about the BBC cutting reaction shots into a video when the reaction shot was taken at a completely different time in the debate?

On November 24th 2010, a debate took place in the Holyrood chamber.  BBC Scotland’s Reporting Scotland ran a news item that evening in which they showed the First Minister apparently shaking his head in mocking fashion following a parliamentary statement by John Swinney.

The item, as can be seen, gave the impression that Swinney’s words were being made fun of by Mr Salmond.

Here is the broadcast as it appeared on Distorting Reporting Scotland

However, the actual footage supplied by official Holyrood cameras showed that the footage aired by the BBC had been manipulated and was not in fact what had taken place.

The clip below shows an unedited recording of the actual moments leading up to Alex Salmond’s shaking of the head:

As can be seen, Salmond wasn’t mocking John Swinney at all, he was in fact mocking the then Scottish Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott.  If you look back at the BBC clip you can just about hear Tavish Scott speaking at the moment Salmond shakes his head, Scott’s voice is drowned out by the BBC Scotland voice-over provided by BBC Political Editor Brian Taylor.

BBC Scotland had presented a wholly different interpretation of events to the one that had actually occurred.  Despite being confronted with clear evidence that they had manipulated the video footage, BBC Scotland never apologised.

But I'm sure that all this was just another innocent mistake.

I'm sorry you went into all that effort to tell me that the BBC used an out of context clip to reinforce their story. This happens everywhere, I don't think it should be done when using news reports, leave it for Love Island and Big Brother. 

That one seems innocuous in contrast to the time that BBC Scotland used a reaction of McCoist laughing out of context regarding sectarianism. Again this isn't some wide conspiracy theory, unless you have evidence or even reasonable suspicion this was purposefully done to undermine someone or something rather than an editors decision to make the clip look more interesting, I thought it makes Salmond come across more jovial and likeable than usual tbf. 

Just watched the McCoist one again, is this thread going to agree with me that the BBC is definitely bias against Rangers??? (Please dont)

 

[lichtgilphead]

OK, getting away from batshit Old Firm paranoia, here's another example of the BBC misrepresenting facts.

Jeremy Paxman, whilst interviewing Alex Salmond stated "We spoke to the 25 largest companies in Britain and the 25 largest companies in Scotland and not one of them favoured independence.”

Whilst this was technically true, Paxman failed to mention that only 7 firms had responded to the BBC poll. The rest had declined to express a view ‘one way or the other’, whilst two had declared ‘neutrality’ and one leading business said ‘it didn’t care.’

For a change, the BBC actually upheld the complaints received. The head of the BBC’s complaints unit wrote: “The Newsnight team, having now reviewed the material gathered concede that they got this wrong, and that the inference drawn from the results in the question – that the biggest companies were unanimously ranged against independence – was not a valid one.

“I hope you will accept my apologies, on behalf of the BBC, for the mistake.”

As far as I am aware, however, as always, the apology didn't receive anything like the publicity that the original 'mistake' did

[SANTAN]

4 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

OK, getting away from batshit Old Firm paranoia, here's another example of the BBC misrepresenting facts.

Jeremy Paxman, whilst interviewing Alex Salmond stated "We spoke to the 25 largest companies in Britain and the 25 largest companies in Scotland and not one of them favoured independence.”

Whilst this was technically true, Paxman failed to mention that only 7 firms had responded to the BBC poll. The rest had declined to express a view ‘one way or the other’, whilst two had declared ‘neutrality’ and one leading business said ‘it didn’t care.’

For a change, the BBC actually upheld the complaints received. The head of the BBC’s complaints unit wrote: “The Newsnight team, having now reviewed the material gathered concede that they got this wrong, and that the inference drawn from the results in the question – that the biggest companies were unanimously ranged against independence – was not a valid one.

“I hope you will accept my apologies, on behalf of the BBC, for the mistake.”

As far as I am aware, however, as always, the apology didn't receive anything like the publicity that the original 'mistake' did

I'm waiting. 

[lichtgilphead]

28 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

is this thread going to agree with me that the BBC is definitely bias against Rangers??? (Please dont)

 

5 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I'm waiting. 

Make your mind up. 

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

Make your mind up. 

Feel free to adress the points I've raised before you expect me to respond accordingly otherwise this gets tedious for me very quickly.

[lichtgilphead]

I did address your point. In my opinion, the video is "batshit Old Firm paranoia"

Let's get back to the subject of the thread though - the institutional bias of the BBC against the SNP and SNP politicians. So far, we've had lies by Nick Robinson, selective editing of Holyrood TV footage & made-up BBC polls. Are they all innocent mistakes?