B
Bodd
Miserable git
BBC license removal Bring it on Boris !
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
- Status
Miserable git
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 8,346
- Reaction score
- 963
- Country
What you mean is that you cannot find any evidence to back up your statement, which is proving to be false, do you make habit of this? You boasted about your ability to deliver but its fallen very flat
Have a chomp through this while I find the Wilson report.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/9537730/bbc-anti-brexit-propaganda/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/9537730/bbc-anti-brexit-propaganda/amp/
I'm no signing up to the Telegraph but you can get the jist.. 4 remainers one leaver quite a common theme..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te.../01/bbc-bias-still-skewing-brexit-debate/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te.../01/bbc-bias-still-skewing-brexit-debate/amp/
Another damming aticle off BBC remain bias..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...bc-and-brexit-bbc-bias-by-omission?format=amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...bc-and-brexit-bbc-bias-by-omission?format=amp
Between 2002 and 2014, there were only four left-wing contributors who supported Withdrawal in the Today programme's EU output, adding up to just 417 words. The British National Party (BNP) made more than twice as many appearances on EU matters in this period. This fed the story that only the hard-right backed Brexit.
The BBC almost always painted Brexit as a right-wing policy causing problems and 'splits' within the Conservative Party, while ignoring disagreements and debate elsewhere on the political spectrum.
"The absence of voices offering alternative perspectives in the BBC's coverage led to the creation of a false dichotomy: forward-thinking, progressive, open-minded, anti-racist pro-Europeans set against the bigoted, inward-looking, nationalist, anti-EU faction."
"There was virtually no balancing coverage in terms of the withdrawal case. Support for Brexit was thus routinely painted as being synonymous with racism, xenophobia, small-mindedness, isolationism and intolerance." The BBC painted the leave side as exclusively right-wing, extreme, 'hard-right'. It portrayed the pro-EU camp as entirely moderate, centrist, liberal, socialist and left.
Between September 2002 and June 2015, News-watch monitored Radio 4's Today programme for 324 weeks, amounting to 1,944 editions. There were 232 hours of EU-related feature coverage, and 5,113 guest speakers contributed to the EU debate.
"174 speakers (3.4%) were identifiable advocates of withdrawal (although they were not always given the space to make an overt case for it). Of this group, only five speakers (0.1% of the total EU contributors) were left-wing advocates of Brexit."
Newsbeat is BBC Radio 1's flagship news programme aimed at a young audience. The News-watch survey, covering the ten weeks of the campaign, showed there was a major failure to meet the strict 'broad balance' requirement. There were 1.5 times more Remain than Leave supporters.
News-watch analysed Radio 4's The Brexit Collection, 31 items posted between 11 July and 23 August 2016. It found that "Overall, there were no attempts in any programme to explore the benefits of leaving the EU, but conversely, Brexit came under sustained negative attack. … only 23% of contributors in the programmes as a whole spoke in favour of Brexit, against 58% in favour of Remain …
The BBC almost always painted Brexit as a right-wing policy causing problems and 'splits' within the Conservative Party, while ignoring disagreements and debate elsewhere on the political spectrum.
"The absence of voices offering alternative perspectives in the BBC's coverage led to the creation of a false dichotomy: forward-thinking, progressive, open-minded, anti-racist pro-Europeans set against the bigoted, inward-looking, nationalist, anti-EU faction."
"There was virtually no balancing coverage in terms of the withdrawal case. Support for Brexit was thus routinely painted as being synonymous with racism, xenophobia, small-mindedness, isolationism and intolerance." The BBC painted the leave side as exclusively right-wing, extreme, 'hard-right'. It portrayed the pro-EU camp as entirely moderate, centrist, liberal, socialist and left.
Between September 2002 and June 2015, News-watch monitored Radio 4's Today programme for 324 weeks, amounting to 1,944 editions. There were 232 hours of EU-related feature coverage, and 5,113 guest speakers contributed to the EU debate.
"174 speakers (3.4%) were identifiable advocates of withdrawal (although they were not always given the space to make an overt case for it). Of this group, only five speakers (0.1% of the total EU contributors) were left-wing advocates of Brexit."
Newsbeat is BBC Radio 1's flagship news programme aimed at a young audience. The News-watch survey, covering the ten weeks of the campaign, showed there was a major failure to meet the strict 'broad balance' requirement. There were 1.5 times more Remain than Leave supporters.
News-watch analysed Radio 4's The Brexit Collection, 31 items posted between 11 July and 23 August 2016. It found that "Overall, there were no attempts in any programme to explore the benefits of leaving the EU, but conversely, Brexit came under sustained negative attack. … only 23% of contributors in the programmes as a whole spoke in favour of Brexit, against 58% in favour of Remain …
Bit more to chew on..
The BBC’s biased coverage of the Brexit debate is denying the British public the comfort of knowing the fight was fair – knowledge that may prevent anger from boiling over post-Brexit, says David Hardy.
As the UK’s painful, weary and protracted exit from the EU continues (just), the establishment plot to thwart the withdrawal becomes ever more belligerent, ever more desperate, ever more unhinged. Whatever it may or may not be, Brexit has certainly shone a very disturbing light on British democracy or what has always been assumed to be democracy.
According to Chancellor Phillip Hammond, MPs who respect the outcome of the 2016 Referendum are “extremists.” Several of his conservative colleagues – most notably Nick Boles and Anna Soubry – have threatened to quit the party if democracy is actually upheld. Amber Rudd has started to agitate for a second referendum. The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee has labelled Tory Brexiteers ‘far right’ – a sure sign that the Remain side has lost the intellectual debate.
But these antics are nothing compared to those of the BBC. Leaving aside the Remain-heavy panels of Question Time, Marr and The Daily Politics Show and the very different treatment meted out to the minority of Leave supporters compared to the majority of guests/panellists who support Remain, buoyed by tacit support from government the broadcaster has, over the past few months, morphed from implicit to vocal Remain cheerleader.
Only last week Kirsty Wark of Newsnight shouted over John Redwood, who was attempting to explain the mechanisms and benefits of a UK exit to Word Trade regulations. In what was an unedifying but increasingly common example of BBC partisanship, the Newsnight host was absolutely determined the audience would not hear a WTO rational. It worked too. Mr Redwood’s message got lost in the commotion.
Wark’s performance should not have come as a surprise. Britain’s national broadcaster remains determined to suppress and/or disparage any entity offering a rational explanation of the World Trade organisation – what it does, how it operates and most importantly how the UK could benefit from extended membership.
When was the last time you saw or heard a WTO expert interviewed by the BBC? When has the BBC even bothered to explain the mechanisms of the WTO? When was the last time the broadcaster aired the opinion of Roberto Azevêdo, Director-General of the WTO who has categorically stated that UK transition to WTO regulations will not cause the post-Brexit catastrophe promoted by the BBC? Contrast the lack of visibility of WTO experts on the BBC to the ubiquity of the likes of Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair and Mairead McGuinness Vice President of the European Parliament.
‘There is nothing to fear from trading on WTO terms,’ writes Lord Bamford of JCB. Bamford also notes how his company trades under both EU and WTO regulations. When did you hear the BBC solicit the views of business people such as the JCB chairman?
Instead, it prefers to recycle the rhetoric of Remain. Day in day out, BBC correspondents such as Katya Adler assail their viewers with grim talk of “crashing out” of the bloc and horrifying “No Deal” scenarios. Meanwhile, Emily Maitlis obsessively steers Newsnight guests towards the topic of a second referendum, hoping of course to normalise what is nothing more than a cynical establishment coup to thwart democracy.
Making Brexit – WTO exit – invisible, the last resort of the ‘extremist’ and the ‘far right’ has become BBC policy. Similarly, pushing for a second referendum between Theresa May’s ‘deal’ (Soft Remain) or full Remain has become the Holy Grail of not only the BBC but the majority of the British political class.
The BBC’s biased coverage of the Brexit debate is denying the British public the comfort of knowing the fight was fair – knowledge that may prevent anger from boiling over post-Brexit, says David Hardy.
As the UK’s painful, weary and protracted exit from the EU continues (just), the establishment plot to thwart the withdrawal becomes ever more belligerent, ever more desperate, ever more unhinged. Whatever it may or may not be, Brexit has certainly shone a very disturbing light on British democracy or what has always been assumed to be democracy.
According to Chancellor Phillip Hammond, MPs who respect the outcome of the 2016 Referendum are “extremists.” Several of his conservative colleagues – most notably Nick Boles and Anna Soubry – have threatened to quit the party if democracy is actually upheld. Amber Rudd has started to agitate for a second referendum. The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee has labelled Tory Brexiteers ‘far right’ – a sure sign that the Remain side has lost the intellectual debate.
But these antics are nothing compared to those of the BBC. Leaving aside the Remain-heavy panels of Question Time, Marr and The Daily Politics Show and the very different treatment meted out to the minority of Leave supporters compared to the majority of guests/panellists who support Remain, buoyed by tacit support from government the broadcaster has, over the past few months, morphed from implicit to vocal Remain cheerleader.
Only last week Kirsty Wark of Newsnight shouted over John Redwood, who was attempting to explain the mechanisms and benefits of a UK exit to Word Trade regulations. In what was an unedifying but increasingly common example of BBC partisanship, the Newsnight host was absolutely determined the audience would not hear a WTO rational. It worked too. Mr Redwood’s message got lost in the commotion.
Wark’s performance should not have come as a surprise. Britain’s national broadcaster remains determined to suppress and/or disparage any entity offering a rational explanation of the World Trade organisation – what it does, how it operates and most importantly how the UK could benefit from extended membership.
When was the last time you saw or heard a WTO expert interviewed by the BBC? When has the BBC even bothered to explain the mechanisms of the WTO? When was the last time the broadcaster aired the opinion of Roberto Azevêdo, Director-General of the WTO who has categorically stated that UK transition to WTO regulations will not cause the post-Brexit catastrophe promoted by the BBC? Contrast the lack of visibility of WTO experts on the BBC to the ubiquity of the likes of Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair and Mairead McGuinness Vice President of the European Parliament.
‘There is nothing to fear from trading on WTO terms,’ writes Lord Bamford of JCB. Bamford also notes how his company trades under both EU and WTO regulations. When did you hear the BBC solicit the views of business people such as the JCB chairman?
Instead, it prefers to recycle the rhetoric of Remain. Day in day out, BBC correspondents such as Katya Adler assail their viewers with grim talk of “crashing out” of the bloc and horrifying “No Deal” scenarios. Meanwhile, Emily Maitlis obsessively steers Newsnight guests towards the topic of a second referendum, hoping of course to normalise what is nothing more than a cynical establishment coup to thwart democracy.
Making Brexit – WTO exit – invisible, the last resort of the ‘extremist’ and the ‘far right’ has become BBC policy. Similarly, pushing for a second referendum between Theresa May’s ‘deal’ (Soft Remain) or full Remain has become the Holy Grail of not only the BBC but the majority of the British political class.
Interesting view on how the news was "weighted"..
Robin Aitken: It is down to the people in the editorial ranks of the BBC, the people who inhabit the newsrooms and the programme-making departments. They are very nice people, very highly educated and very pleasant to work with – I know this from my own time at the BBC. Most of them are inclined to the liberal left and – almost to a woman – they sign up to liberal orthodoxies.
On Brexit, polling evidence shows quite clearly that the higher the educational level you attain, the more likely it is that you voted to remain in the EU. What you’ve got in BBC newsrooms are clusters of very highly educated folk who take a virtually unanimous view of Brexit, which is that it’s a thoroughly bad thing and Britain should have voted to remain in the EU.
That’s the starting point. One of the things that’s very noticeable to me is that the selection of stories about Brexit is very heavily weighted towards the negative. So we’ve had an absolute deluge of information, all of it condemning Brexit as foolish, unwise and harmful to economic health.
PODCAST‘Wokeness is elitism masquerading as compassion’SPIKED
A point I often make is that journalism can be completely accurate and yet still unfair. How so? Because if you choose stories which only show a person, entity or institution in a negative light and you disregard any stories that are positive, you can still be accurate but you are being unfair. And that’s what the BBC is on Brexit. It is thoroughly in the Remain camp, it hates the idea of Brexit, it runs against its core principles – or the core principles of the people that work in it. Therefore, it cannot help itself from being anti-Brexit and it shows very clearly, I think.
Robin Aitken: It is down to the people in the editorial ranks of the BBC, the people who inhabit the newsrooms and the programme-making departments. They are very nice people, very highly educated and very pleasant to work with – I know this from my own time at the BBC. Most of them are inclined to the liberal left and – almost to a woman – they sign up to liberal orthodoxies.
On Brexit, polling evidence shows quite clearly that the higher the educational level you attain, the more likely it is that you voted to remain in the EU. What you’ve got in BBC newsrooms are clusters of very highly educated folk who take a virtually unanimous view of Brexit, which is that it’s a thoroughly bad thing and Britain should have voted to remain in the EU.
That’s the starting point. One of the things that’s very noticeable to me is that the selection of stories about Brexit is very heavily weighted towards the negative. So we’ve had an absolute deluge of information, all of it condemning Brexit as foolish, unwise and harmful to economic health.
PODCAST‘Wokeness is elitism masquerading as compassion’SPIKED
A point I often make is that journalism can be completely accurate and yet still unfair. How so? Because if you choose stories which only show a person, entity or institution in a negative light and you disregard any stories that are positive, you can still be accurate but you are being unfair. And that’s what the BBC is on Brexit. It is thoroughly in the Remain camp, it hates the idea of Brexit, it runs against its core principles – or the core principles of the people that work in it. Therefore, it cannot help itself from being anti-Brexit and it shows very clearly, I think.
Not very impartial BBC content either..
Laura Kussenberg article in which she describes a no-deal Brexit as “armageddon”, and a “catastrophe” that will create “turmoil”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45555646
Laura Kussenberg article in which she describes a no-deal Brexit as “armageddon”, and a “catastrophe” that will create “turmoil”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45555646
My orignal point..
IEA releases analysis revealing Brexit bias on flagship political programmes
A new analysis of nearly 600 panellists on two key BBC programmes has found that Leave supporters have been badly under-represented since the referendum.
The Institute of Economic affairs undertook an analysis of the composition of panels for Any Questions and Question Time from June 2016 to December 2017. Whilst on most metrics, there does not appear to be any substantial political or philosophical bias, on one issue a fairly systemic and long-term imbalance is clear: the stance of panellists on Britain’s membership of the EU.
Balancing on the basis of whether panellists voted for Remain or Leave, both programmes favour Remain by about 68% to 32%.
Even if you were to re-categorise Remainers who are now supporting Brexit from the government benches into the Leave column, the balance is still 60% to 40% in favour of Remain.
Key findings:
Of 281 Question Time panellists over the 18 month period, 60% were Remain supporters, 31% Brexit supporters and the remaining 9% ‘Releavers’.
Of 297 Any Questions panellists in the same period, 59% supported remain, 32% supported Brexit, and 10% were ‘Releavers’.
Given the referendum result was 52% for Leave, this cohort does seem to be badly under-represented on both programmes. The analysis looked at 578 panellists across a prolonged period of time, indicating a systemic bias.
The imbalance on the two programmes is substantial, consistent and at odds with public opinion. The analysis reveals a two to one bias in favour of those who voted for Remain.
Brexit is probably the most defining issue of the UK policy debate at present and as such should be vital in balance. For the vast majority of both programmes, Brexit has been the most dominant issue discussed on both programmes. Both shows appear to accept the predominance of Brexit as an issue, but by the selection of panellists seem to attach a low priority to balancing the panel on the topic.
https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analys...porters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/
IEA releases analysis revealing Brexit bias on flagship political programmes
A new analysis of nearly 600 panellists on two key BBC programmes has found that Leave supporters have been badly under-represented since the referendum.
The Institute of Economic affairs undertook an analysis of the composition of panels for Any Questions and Question Time from June 2016 to December 2017. Whilst on most metrics, there does not appear to be any substantial political or philosophical bias, on one issue a fairly systemic and long-term imbalance is clear: the stance of panellists on Britain’s membership of the EU.
Balancing on the basis of whether panellists voted for Remain or Leave, both programmes favour Remain by about 68% to 32%.
Even if you were to re-categorise Remainers who are now supporting Brexit from the government benches into the Leave column, the balance is still 60% to 40% in favour of Remain.
Key findings:
Of 281 Question Time panellists over the 18 month period, 60% were Remain supporters, 31% Brexit supporters and the remaining 9% ‘Releavers’.
Of 297 Any Questions panellists in the same period, 59% supported remain, 32% supported Brexit, and 10% were ‘Releavers’.
Given the referendum result was 52% for Leave, this cohort does seem to be badly under-represented on both programmes. The analysis looked at 578 panellists across a prolonged period of time, indicating a systemic bias.
The imbalance on the two programmes is substantial, consistent and at odds with public opinion. The analysis reveals a two to one bias in favour of those who voted for Remain.
Brexit is probably the most defining issue of the UK policy debate at present and as such should be vital in balance. For the vast majority of both programmes, Brexit has been the most dominant issue discussed on both programmes. Both shows appear to accept the predominance of Brexit as an issue, but by the selection of panellists seem to attach a low priority to balancing the panel on the topic.
https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-analys...porters-on-flagship-bbc-political-programmes/
Just the last post will be enough @crystal ball, how can you read that and still spout the BBC were impartial.
Have good look through the rest as well, I'm at Scouts again tomorrow night but will have a better look on Saturday.
If you want to strip it all down into a list we can go from there.
Have good look through the rest as well, I'm at Scouts again tomorrow night but will have a better look on Saturday.
If you want to strip it all down into a list we can go from there.
- Status
