General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

A Dub in Glasgo

I have seen BBC misinformation (mainly in Scotland) for years now. Remember that infamous Nick Robinson clip of questioning Alex Salmond from the referednum in 2014 and then this from last year? Little things but they are constant.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1072905015789015041

Joe_ Public

liamtech wrote: »

Yes we edited out the

• fact that Boris kept repeating the same old tired slogan of 'Get Brexit Done'
• and the fact that he was rightly ridiculed, and laughed at by the entire audience

This was done for TIME REASONS and DEFINITELY not in a biased way at all

In other news

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1209034/Election-2019-News-BBC-Jeremy-Corbyn-Brexit-Labour-neutral

laughable

I genuinely feel sorry for those young people who went to journalism school, studied hard to get a degree and a job where they might make a difference in the world and then, through desperation and lack of opportunity, ended up on the political desk of the Daily Express where their daily task is to sift through random punters' musings on twitter and the days political talk shows to come up with stories bashing labour. What incredible job satisfaction that must bring!

I watched that segment on jo coburn this morning and it struck me how boring the topic now is, everybody knows corbyns position now and they either like it or they tolerate it, no point in presenters like coburn raking over it anymore. Whether it delivers labour a decisive blow or not, i think corbyn at least put it to bed for now with his neutral stance announcement the other night. The tories will keep banging on about it because that's all they have, but i think it might have already reached maximum peak effect.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The BBC are lying through their teeth, they have form for it

It's hilarious.

Left-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too right-wing".

Right-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too left-wing".

It's a complete joke.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hilarious.

Left-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too right-wing".

Right-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too left-wing".

It's a complete joke.

I accuse the BBC of spreading misinformation. I did not mention left or right wing

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I accuse the BBC of spreading misinformation. I did not mention left or right wing

But both sides claim it for their own.

That's the laughable part.

Both sides can't be right.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hilarious.

Left-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too right-wing".

Right-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too left-wing".

It's a complete joke.

Deleted User wrote: »

But both sides claim it for their own.

That's the laughable part.

Both sides can't be right.

They can both be correct to an extent.

The left-wing bias can be in the entertainment and drama department. So a succession of left-orientated comics can appear on HIGNFY, WILTY or The Mash Report slagging off the right-wing parties/viewpoints. Pretty clear bias in those programs most will admit.
And the drama department could be pushing leftist shows about black disabled immigrant lesbians, not the sort of things nice Tory voters in the home counties pay their license fee for.

Meanwhile the news/politics department can plausibly be accused of having a right-wing bias, via audience make-up, how much of a grilling different politicians get, how the headlines are decided, the bias of the politics editor.

By far the most important of these to be neutral in is the news/politics one.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

But both sides claim it for their own.

That's the laughable part.

Both sides can't be right.

I've heard the claim that if you're annoying both sides, it proves you are neutral and doing a good job, but it's just as likely to prove you are doing a terrible job and are being unprofessional in your reporting.

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

They can both be correct to an extent.

The left-wing bias can be in the entertainment and drama department. So a succession of left-orientated comics can appear on HIGNFY, WILTY or The Mash Report slagging off the right-wing parties/viewpoints. Pretty clear bias in those programs most will admit.
And the drama department could be pushing leftist shows about black disabled immigrant lesbians, not the sort of things nice Tory voters in the home counties pay their license fee for.

Meanwhile the news/politics department can plausibly be accused of having a right-wing bias, via audience make-up, how much of a grilling different politicians get, how the headlines are decided, the bias of the politics editor.

By far the most important of these to be neutral in is the news/politics one.

Fair points.

I think there are two things relevant here. People on both sides allege BBC bias all the the time on shows like Question Time and other political arenas where they dispute the make up of panels as being pro-one side or the other. Thats just tit for tat stuff, all parties go about trying to get activists on shows to ask questions or merely make up the numbers. BBC should be doing a better job of filtering them out but i wouldnt go so far as to suggest it shows an ingrained bias either way.

However, what we are discussing here is a different kettle of fish entirely: actual editing of pieces to make a particular politician look good and editing of other pieces to make another particular politician look bad. On top of that, a senior political editor who is now so closely linked with one party and one politician in particular that it is becoming more and more difficult to take anything she says or reports with any degree of credibility.

Mr.Nice Guy

I like Sturgeon but that was a difficult interview with Andrew Neil. I don't think the SNP's ideas for a currency union and keeping the pound are likely to go down well with Brussels. I think they'd be better off adopting the Euro and will eventually shift towards that, but it's going to be tough to sell politically.

L1011

If Scotland have to join the EU as a new entrant (e.g. post Brexit) rather than split from a pre-92 one they'll have to join the Euro and Schengen anyway.

A Dub in Glasgo

This Tory candidate was caught red handed setting up his mate as an ex Labour voter who now swings to him in the marginal constituency of Ashfield

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1198998239128805377

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hilarious.

Left-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too right-wing".

Right-wing people accuse the BBC of being "too left-wing".

It's a complete joke.

The BBC, deliberately editing an interview with Bojo, to omit his pathetic reiterations that GB can solve all of its problems (climate, economic, political, societal, homelessness) by GETTING BREXIT DONE - while also cutting the crys of laughter and ridicule he received for doing so

How is that not Biased?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

The BBC, deliberately editing an interview with Bojo, to omit his pathetic reiterations that GB can solve all of its problems (climate, economic, political, societal, homelessness) by GETTING BREXIT DONE - while also cutting the crys of laughter and ridicule he received for doing so

How is that not Biased?

The same BBC that interrupted Boris Johnson 45 times during Leader's Question Time, but only a dozen times for Corbyn and the Liberal Democrats.

We can all play these games.

As for Sturgeon, she struggled in that Andrew Neil interview. He's by far the best political interviewer - does his research and asks probing questions; more light than heat.

Joe_ Public

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This Tory candidate was caught red handed setting up his mate as an ex Labour voter who now swings to him in the marginal constituency of Ashfield

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1198998239128805377

Cant believe that guy is still bookies favourite to win that seat, was talking about making poor people live in tents in fields last week. Am betting on the independent candidate to beat him.

Inquitus

Deleted User wrote: »

The same BBC that interrupted Boris Johnson 45 times during Leader's Question Time, but only a dozen times for Corbyn and the Liberal Democrats.

We can all play these games.

As for Sturgeon, she struggled in that Andrew Neil interview. He's by far the best political interviewer - does his research and asks probing questions; more light than heat.

That's because Johnson lies out of his arse constantly and needs to be pulled up on it, rather than any sort of unconscious bias or anything.

Inquitus

Inquitus wrote: »

That's because Johnson lies out of his arse constantly and needs to be pulled up on it, rather than any sort of unconscious bias or anything.

Thanks for falling into my trap.

The point is this: that when the BBC does show a statistical bias, the Left (or you, in this case) argue that "that's because Johnson is lying", yet when other cases of statistical bias is demonstrated, those same people cry blue murder in favour of their own political cause. In other words, you justify your own biases.

You have just proven my point.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

The same BBC that interrupted Boris Johnson 45 times during Leader's Question Time, but only a dozen times for Corbyn and the Liberal Democrats.

We can all play these games.

The only games being played are by Johnson. The reason he was 'interrrupted' was down to his lying or lets be charitable and say non-answers to questions. Bruce even warned the leaders that she would do this

The fact that he was 'interrupted' far more than the others tells you everything but not the way you describe it

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for falling into my trap.

You actually think you are setting traps here :eek:

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The only games being played are by Johnson. The reason he was 'interrrupted' was down to his lying or lets be charitable and say non-answers to questions. Bruce even warned the leaders that she would do this

The fact that he was 'interrupted' far more than the others tells you everything but not the way you describe it

My goodness me.

Imagine if Corbyn was interrupted 45 times and Johnson 12, the Left would indeed be screaming blue murder.

Deny it. That's your right, but I think any fair assessment of the situation would parallel my view.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

My goodness me.

Imagine if Corbyn was interrupted 45 times and Johnson 12, the Left would indeed be screaming blue murder.

Deny it. That's your right, but I think any fair assessment of the situation would parallel my view.

I don't need to imagine anything, I saw and heard the debates for myself... thanks. Johnson waffled, rambled and failed to answer the questions far more than the other leaders therefore logically he would be the one the host had to 'interrupt' the most


This should not be surprising to anyone who watched the four debates

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I don't need to imagine anything, I saw and heard the debates for myself... thanks. Johnson waffled, rambled and failed to answer the questions far more than the other leaders therefore logically he would be the one the host had to 'interrupt' the most


This should not be surprising to anyone who watched the four debates

You didn't answer my question.

If Corbyn was interrupted 45 times, and Johnson 12, are you claiming that Corbyn supporters would have been okay with that?

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

You didn't answer my question.

If Corbyn was interrupted 45 times, and Johnson 12, are you claiming that Corbyn supporters would have been okay with that?

If Corbyn was interrupted far more than Johnson because he waffled, rambled and generally did not answer the questions then there would be little merit in Labour supporters complaining

Not sure why you cannot see this

Joe_ Public

I dont think people would complain if corbyn got a hard interview or was interrupted several times, that goes with the territory. What would get their rag up was that if the footage was tinkered with after to make him look worse than he actually was.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

If Corbyn ...

Does it never occur to you that if you have to defend your support for the Conservatives and Johnson by referring to hypothetical situations involving or attributed to Corbyn, every single time, then the party you idolise must be seriously lacking in any positive attributes.

Does it not bother you that every pledge on the Conservative manifesto has been shown to be indisputably exaggerated, usually within 24 hours of being made public?

Johnson & Co. went to great trouble to magnify the costs of the Labour manifesto before it was published, but Sky totted up the costs of the Tory nursing pledge today and found that they've managed (yet again!) to get their maths wrong: counting a cost of less than £900m when the absolute minimum will come in at £2600m.

With all the public school education and elite university graduates the Tories have to call upon, if they can't get such a simple sum correct, what makes you think that they have the foggiest idea how much it's going to cost to "get Brexit done" or the likely impact it will have on the economy?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Does it never occur to you that if you have to defend your support for the Conservatives and Johnson by referring to hypothetical situations involving or attributed to Corbyn, every single time, then the party you idolise must be seriously lacking in any positive attributes.

Does it not bother you that every pledge on the Conservative manifesto has been shown to be indisputably exaggerated, usually within 24 hours of being made public?

Johnson & Co. went to great trouble to magnify the costs of the Labour manifesto before it was published, but Sky totted up the costs of the Tory nursing pledge today and found that they've managed (yet again!) to get their maths wrong: counting a cost of less than £900m when the absolute minimum will come in at £2600m.

With all the public school education and elite university graduates the Tories have to call upon, if they can't get such a simple sum correct, what makes you think that they have the foggiest idea how much it's going to cost to "get Brexit done" or the likely impact it will have on the economy?

Man, they ALL lie about spending pledges and manifesto commitments; it's part of the role of being a UK party leader.

I don't take any of the commitments seriously. If you think Corbyn is serious about his, then more fool you!

What I do know is this: that Johnson is committed to delivering Brexit and has a more pro-Business prospectus, whereas Corbyn is anti-Capitalist and wishes to prolong Brexit and perhaps preferably allow it to be destroyed.

It's on that primary basis that I support Johnson, not some vague manifesto commitment that will never come to pass.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Man, they ALL lie about spending pledges and manifesto commitments; it's part of the role of being a UK party leader.

I don't take any of the commitments seriously. If you think Corbyn is serious about his, then more fool you!

What I do know is this: that Johnson is committed to delivering Brexit and has a more pro-Business prospectus, whereas Corbyn is anti-Capitalist and wishes to prolong Brexit and perhaps preferably allow it to be destroyed.

It's on that primary basis that I support Johnson, not some vague manifesto commitment that will never come to pass.

We also know that Johnson said "F#ck business"...

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We also know that Johnson said "F#ck business"...

...ah, wow...Johnson is a socialist?

Is that what I'm now expected to believe?

Furthermore, he said that in the context of the Brexit referendum, when clearly business was going to "speak its voice" on the matter.

85% of UK businesses do not trade with the EU, but are levelled with EU regulation at every level. So yes, to a certain extent, in that limited context - and in a somewhat tactless, undiplomatic manner - he was right.

LuckyLloyd

The Labour manifesto is anything but vague. It's maybe ambitious by the low standards of UK politics, but clear and direct in what it intends to do.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

My goodness me.

Imagine if Corbyn was interrupted 45 times and Johnson 12, the Left would indeed be screaming blue murder.

Deny it. That's your right, but I think any fair assessment of the situation would parallel my view.

If Jeremy Corbyn ended every second sentence, with the words 'Get Brexit Done' i would expect the BBC to be just as critical in interrupting him

Boris Johnson made an unadulterated fool of himself in the Question Time debate

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...ah, wow...Johnson is a socialist?

Is that what I'm now expected to believe?

Furthermore, he said that in the context of the Brexit referendum, when clearly business was going to "speak its voice" on the matter.

85% of UK businesses do not trade with the EU, but are levelled with EU regulation at every level. So yes, to a certain extent, in that limited context - and in a somewhat tactless, undiplomatic manner - he was right.

You didn't know he said that?

---

They're levelled with regulation? What do you mean exactly? Where's the problem?

Essentially you want a free-for-all is it?

Is there a particular regulation that is causing such untold hardship for a British company that means they are up against it and not fulfilling their Great British potential?

And if that's the case I'm sure this particular regulation is causing the same stresses in Spain and Denmark, in fact throughout the EU?

This regulation must be stopped

Which ones exactly? Just so I know what you're on about.