This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Nick Watt, Rayner and total bias
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Teddy Eagle  20 Apr 24 10.44pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No pretence is needed. It is. It cannot be anything else. It is bound by its charter to be accurate and factual. Break its charter and Ofcom would be all over it, egged on by the right. That those with particular world views or political beliefs find that means it doesn’t reflect their own views isn’t the least surprising. The reason some people think it isn’t neutral is because they aren’t neutral themselves. Try reading this:- Did the BBC cut the interview short?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
cryrst  The garden of England 20 Apr 24 10.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I am not addressing a story about the left! I am addressing yet another politically biased story about the independence of the BBC. If and when we see a Labour government and their supporters doing much the same, as I am certain they will, then you can expect the same response from me. So labour doing it now doesn’t count then because they aren’t hmg.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 20 Apr 24 11.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Did the BBC cut the interview short? I haven’t heard it. Have you? I thought it was edited when an error was pointed out.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 20 Apr 24 11.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I haven’t heard it. Have you? I thought it was edited when an error was pointed out. No. That's not the reason.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
HKOwen  Hong Kong 20 Apr 24 11.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The BBC apologised for doing it. There is no interpretation.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Apr 24 11.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
So labour doing it now doesn’t count then because they aren’t hmg. What is it that Labour is doing now? Governments tend to get upset with the BBC. Oppositions less so, because they don’t have to actually do anything. They can join in with criticism and keep the detail about their own plans obscure. It’s been so long since we have had a Labour government that it’s easy to forget what I think we will see.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 12.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
It is. That’s exactly what the Telegraph story says happened. It’s just the headline that suggests something else. The report was edited, for “good reasons”. That Labour might have identified them is neither here nor there. Perhaps they had already been recognised internally. We don’t know but it was an editorial decision. Something I suspect happens quite often with many political stories irrespective of which party is involved. That’s partly why editing takes place. To ensure accuracy and avoid mistakes. It’s a wind up. Which I see is still believed by some.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 21 Apr 24 12.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is. That’s exactly what the Telegraph story says happened. It’s just the headline that suggests something else. The report was edited, for “good reasons”. That Labour might have identified them is neither here nor there. Perhaps they had already been recognised internally. We don’t know but it was an editorial decision. Something I suspect happens quite often with many political stories irrespective of which party is involved. That’s partly why editing takes place. To ensure accuracy and avoid mistakes. It’s a wind up. Which I see is still believed by some. Perhaps they hadn't been identified until pressure was applied. But if there were "good reasons" then it must be case closed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 8.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Perhaps they hadn't been identified until pressure was applied. But if there were "good reasons" then it must be case closed. How could any Party apply pressure? The government of the day can by threatening the BBC over its funding but not the Parties. They can point things out if, as I suspect, they are always given an advance copy and invited to comment. Better that legal issues are spotted early than litigated later.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 21 Apr 24 8.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
How could any Party apply pressure? The government of the day can by threatening the BBC over its funding but not the Parties. They can point things out if, as I suspect, they are always given an advance copy and invited to comment. Better that legal issues are spotted early than litigated later. Unless the party concerned point out that soon they will be the ones deciding the licence fee.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 24 8.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No pretence is needed. It is. It cannot be anything else. It is bound by its charter to be accurate and factual. Break its charter and Ofcom would be all over it, egged on by the right. That those with particular world views or political beliefs find that means it doesn’t reflect their own views isn’t the least surprising. The reason some people think it isn’t neutral is because they aren’t neutral themselves. Try reading this:- As has been said before. The BBC may well have a charter of neutrality, but it is skewed by the bias of its employees. Your bias makes you see neutral where there is bias. The BBC's idea of neutral might well be different to someone else's. One simply cannot apply the concept of bias without applying it to ones self and to question what 'neutral' really means.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 9.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Unless the party concerned point out that soon they will be the ones deciding the licence fee. From all I see the BBC doesn’t respond to pressure. It stands firm, so any observations are likely to be objective and factual rather than threatening. If then they are accepted as valid and acted upon that’s the BBC taking their own decision. It’s noticeable that the BBC will often say in a report that the person/organisation being discussed has been approached for their reaction. I don’t see anything unusual here at all.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.