Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Whitey Grandad]

The BBC was favourable to the Leave campaign to an unbelievable degree, and their fence sitting was absolutely critical in delivering the 52%.

 

The BBC fell over themselves to give 'equal time' to both sides resulting in countless 'debates' where a genuine economic expert articulating sensible points was given equal weighting to the dribbling of Kate Hoey or Jethro out of Wetherspoons.

 

This happened day after day after day for the six-eight weeks of the campaign. It was pretty obvious to me where that would lead and it did.

 

Anyone tracking the airtime that Farage got cannot possibly accuse the BBC of being biased for Remain.

 

They killed themselves in the pursuit of balance and handed Leave their victory on a plate.

 

Bugger me, we're in total agreement

[aintforever]

I wouldn't expect you to understand it. An experienced economist or expert in the machinery of government or multilateral trade negotiations has a knowledge and an opinion of a far greater than equal worth when compared to Julia Hartley Brewer babbling sh it about German car manufacturers banging the door down.

 

The leave campaign got weeks of that courtesy of the BBC.

 

And you think both arguments carried the same weight because of the amount of air time? Seriously?

 

I get virtually all of my news via the BBC - radio 5 in the car, 2 at work and the website and tv at home. I rarely bother with newspapers. The possible negative effects of Brexit on the economy were made crystal clear, over and over again.

[CB Fry]

And you think both arguments carried the same weight because of the amount of air time? Seriously?

 

I get virtually all of my news via the BBC - radio 5 in the car, 2 at work and the website and tv at home. I rarely bother with newspapers. The possible negative effects of Brexit on the economy were made crystal clear, over and over again.

 

I listen to radio 5 and watch BBC news as well and guess what was made crystal clear to me over and over again?

 

Iain Duncan Smith and Dan Hannan and Tony Parsons rabbiting on about how we can stand on our own two feet etc etc.

 

It's kinda like that the BBC both equal airtime, ain't it?

Edited 22 March, 2017 by CB Fry

[aintforever]

I listen to radio 5 and watch BBC news as well and guess what was made crystal clear to me over and over again?

 

Iain Duncan Smith and Dan Hannan and Tony Parsons rabbiting on about how we can stand on our own two feet etc etc.

 

It's, kinda like that the BBC both equal airtime, ain't it?

 

So you think that prior to a show the BBC should decide who is right then give them more airtime. And it is unfair to give them the same airtime and let the quality of the debate and the person decide who is right.

 

Fairness remoaner style.

[Jonnyboy]

Whilst I agree with what you say, you need to make sure if you post links that people can access them. FT links are always behind a paywall.

 

That's capitalism for you, can't afford it? Tough. Stay uneducated.

[CB Fry]

So you think that prior to a show the BBC should decide who is right then give them more airtime. And it is unfair to give them the same airtime and let the quality of the debate and the person decide who is right.

 

Fairness remoaner style.

 

The BBC put academic/economic experts and consistently paired them against polemicists/political figures/opinion formers/celeb journos. The sensible thing to do would have been independent expert and then two opinion fomers/celeb journos from the two sides. But they never did that.

 

It's a common BBC trait seen a lot on medical matters/climate change/science where actual experts are treated in equal terms with ranting hobby horse pressure groups/newspaper columnists.

 

The roots of the MMR scandal can be placed squarely at this practice where the "on the one hand...but on the other hand" was used in this utterly imbalanced way. All opinions are not equal.

 

There are books about this topic written by experts about this very thing.

 

But Richard Littejohn will tell you it's not true.

 

And both of those positions are, like, equal and that.

[ashnats]

The BBC put academic/economic experts and consistently paired them against polemicists/political figures/opinion formers/celeb journos. The sensible thing to do would have been independent expert and then two opinion fomers/celeb journos from the two sides. But they never did that.

 

It's a common BBC trait seen a lot on medical matters/climate change/science where actual experts are treated in equal terms with ranting hobby horse pressure groups/newspaper columnists.

 

The roots of the MMR scandal can be placed squarely at this practice where the "on the one hand...but on the other hand" was used in this utterly imbalanced way. All opinions are not equal.

 

There are books about this topic written by experts about this very thing.

 

But Richard Littejohn will tell you it's not true.

 

And both of those positions are, like, equal and that.

 

Is there such a thing? Surely any 'independent' expert would be on the remain side, otherwise they couldn't be considered an expert?

[whelk]

The BBC put academic/economic experts and consistently paired them against polemicists/political figures/opinion formers/celeb journos. The sensible thing to do would have been independent expert and then two opinion fomers/celeb journos from the two sides. But they never did that.

 

It's a common BBC trait seen a lot on medical matters/climate change/science where actual experts are treated in equal terms with ranting hobby horse pressure groups/newspaper columnists.

 

The roots of the MMR scandal can be placed squarely at this practice where the "on the one hand...but on the other hand" was used in this utterly imbalanced way. All opinions are not equal.

 

There are books about this topic written by experts about this very thing.

 

But Richard Littejohn will tell you it's not true.

 

And both of those positions are, like, equal and that.

 

Yep and why they go to small right wing minority group with the oh so sensible name the Tax Payers Alliance. It is nothing of the sort yet somehow gets asked for sound bites when a public finance story crops up as if they speak on somebody's behalf.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I wouldn't expect you to understand it. An experienced economist or expert in the machinery of government or multilateral trade negotiations has a knowledge and an opinion of a far greater than equal worth when compared to Julia Hartley Brewer babbling sh it about German car manufacturers banging the door down.

 

The leave campaign got weeks of that courtesy of the BBC.

 

I think you are arguing that the BBC's job is to determine which side should receive the more extensive and favourable coverage. That is quite dangerous. If you want to read what you want to hear you can always buy the newspaper with the appropriate leaning. The job of the BBC is to air the arguments of each side and allow the viewer to decide. If you don't think the British public is clever enough to decide then I am afraid I can only say that is just democracy and probably why have so few referendums.

[aintforever]

The BBC put academic/economic experts and consistently paired them against polemicists/political figures/opinion formers/celeb journos. The sensible thing to do would have been independent expert and then two opinion fomers/celeb journos from the two sides. But they never did that.

 

It's a common BBC trait seen a lot on medical matters/climate change/science where actual experts are treated in equal terms with ranting hobby horse pressure groups/newspaper columnists.

 

The roots of the MMR scandal can be placed squarely at this practice where the "on the one hand...but on the other hand" was used in this utterly imbalanced way. All opinions are not equal.

 

There are books about this topic written by experts about this very thing.

 

But Richard Littejohn will tell you it's not true.

 

And both of those positions are, like, equal and that.

 

No one is independent in politics so the way the BBC did it made perfect sense. If one side offers up the head of the Bank of England and the other some bloke from Wetherspoons then one side already has an advantage before the debate has begun. If they still lose then they obviously have the weaker argument.

 

The idea that the BBC should decide who is independent and who is an expert and who is not in subjects like this is laughable.

[CB Fry]

 

The idea that the BBC should decide who is independent and who is an expert and who is not in subjects like this is laughable.

 

You do understand the BBC do this now, right? Who else do you think decides who appears on the BBC?

 

As I said at the start, I didn't think you'd have the remotest chance of understanding the point.

[hypochondriac]

Not sure why people get so angry about the BBC supposedly being biased. I expect they probably are in some circumstances but I trust myself to seek out other sources as well so I can get a balanced viewpoint. There is always left wing and right wing sources worthy of a read and actually sometimes I have noticed that the BBC will give too much credence to an outlandish view in their desire to present 'the other side'.

[Wes Tender]

In other words: "See the world as I do or my kipper head will explode." You've blown a gasket over the BBC's supposed bias against Brexit without being able to quote a single programme you've actually seen that demonstrates it. And you've demanded that the BBC be stripped of the licence fee - so thousands of people employed at the Beeb ought to be deprived of a living, just to satisfy your Trumpy tantrum.

 

Even funnier, you've now resorted to slavish copying of the ignorant language of your kipper mate. Arguments are 'pony' (he doesn't know a single other rhyming slang word?) and we're all 'snowflakes' (oh, the irony). Don't be such a Schlump - invent your own idiotic idioms. Your method so far seems to consist of dumping a prejudicial pile of crap on this thread and, when challenged, resorting to emergency googling, and then flinging that up on here, even if it means endorsing Jew haters.

 

So I ask for the third time: what have you seen on the BBC that you think was biased against the great lord Brexit?

 

You have made yourself look an idiot by quoting this post. In your zeal to attempt your usual snide put down, you appear to have failed to put the post into any sort of context. Had you taken the trouble to read the post from Moonraker just two above mine, you would realise that I parodied his post by changing just a few select words to change it to the polar opposite viewpoint. So when that has sunk in, you will realise that "pony", and "snowflake" were actually Moonraker's choice of words merely copied by me.

 

Regarding your triumphal insistence that I am somehow incapable of citing a single incidence of BBC bias in the Brexit debate, then egg all over your face again, because I gave a link on post 3800, which was dismissed by Shatlock, much as I predicted it would be. No doubt your own blinkered prejudice will dismiss the source also, but then who cares?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I for one can distinctly recall the BBC's Andrew Neil bending over backwards to give 'Remain' supporters a easy time during the referendum campaign - the pinko bar-steward that he is.

 

So for once we are definitely on to something here

[Johnny Bognor]

According to the lefties at Civitas...

 

Single market benefit 'largely imaginary'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

[Verbal]

The BBC put academic/economic experts and consistently paired them against polemicists/political figures/opinion formers/celeb journos. The sensible thing to do would have been independent expert and then two opinion fomers/celeb journos from the two sides. But they never did that.

 

It's a common BBC trait seen a lot on medical matters/climate change/science where actual experts are treated in equal terms with ranting hobby horse pressure groups/newspaper columnists.

 

The roots of the MMR scandal can be placed squarely at this practice where the "on the one hand...but on the other hand" was used in this utterly imbalanced way. All opinions are not equal.

 

There are books about this topic written by experts about this very thing.

 

But Richard Littejohn will tell you it's not true.

 

And both of those positions are, like, equal and that.

 

This is far closer to the truth. The BBC newsroom includes staff members who kept tabs on the overall balance of views during the Brexit campaign, as they do during elections. The problem is that while the Remain campaign was articulated by politicians representing a political spectrum from centre-left to centre-right, the Leave campaign, even though it was championed by fairly centrist politicians, was agenda-set by far-Right politicians like Farage, Banks and Cummings.

 

This meant that the BBC's application of balance gave a disproportionate amount of airtime to a right-wing cabal who in themselves command very little public support. Extremists were given the same weighting as the liberal centre spectrum, as if the two were somehow equivalent. So the blatherings of kosher kippers Tender and Duckhunter notwithstanding, the BBC's balance was precisely the problem.

 

The BBC are aware of this weakness in the way they think about balance. And they've tried to address it before, when dealing with climate change (when atmospheric scientists were 'balanced' with climate-denial conspiracy theorists).

[aintforever]

You do understand the BBC do this now, right? Who else do you think decides who appears on the BBC?

 

As I said at the start, I didn't think you'd have the remotest chance of understanding the point.

 

No I understand fine, it's your own distorted idea of what's fair you fail to understand.

 

You appear to be of the opinion that some bloke from Weatherspoons' opinion carries the same weight among the general public as the governor of the Bank of England just because they are allowed the same amount of airtime.

[shurlock]

According to the lefties at Civitas...

 

Single market benefit 'largely imaginary'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

 

Well done, Baldrick. See Burrage is peddling his illiteracy to the unsuspecting and impressionable again, even wading into the productivity debate. More proof that the BBC in its literal and fundamentalist quest for balance is willing to grant airtime to any old guff.

 

By the way, Civitas is a centre-right thinktank.

[Johnny Bognor]

Well done, Baldrick. See Burrage is peddling his illiteracy to the unsuspecting and impressionable again, even wading into the productivity debate. More proof that the BBC in its literal and fundamentalist quest for balance is willing to grant airtime to any old guff.

 

Indeed.

By the way, Civitas is a centre-right thinktank.

 

... run by a load of lefties

[Verbal]

You have made yourself look an idiot by quoting this post. In your zeal to attempt your usual snide put down, you appear to have failed to put the post into any sort of context. Had you taken the trouble to read the post from Moonraker just two above mine, you would realise that I parodied his post by changing just a few select words to change it to the polar opposite viewpoint. So when that has sunk in, you will realise that "pony", and "snowflake" were actually Moonraker's choice of words merely copied by me.

 

Regarding your triumphal insistence that I am somehow incapable of citing a single incidence of BBC bias in the Brexit debate, then egg all over your face again, because I gave a link on post 3800, which was dismissed by Shatlock, much as I predicted it would be. No doubt your own blinkered prejudice will dismiss the source also, but then who cares?

 

1. The 'context' of your endorsement of a Jew hater was that you peddled a classic anti-Semitic meme about 'a' controlling Jew.

 

2. As Shylock (your own special choice of misnomer; I wonder why) has said, your googling a 'think tank' consisting of a PR man and an ex-Media Studies student does not constitute evidence of BBC bias. Nor does it explain your apoplexic rage. So what got to you? What BBC programme 'against' Brexit so blew your head off that you thought it a good idea to rip up the licence fee?

 

By the way, if you want me to stop with the Yiddishisms, all you have to do is withdraw your endorsement of a Jew hater. Farshteyn?

[Wes Tender]

1. The 'context' of your endorsement of a Jew hater was that you peddled a classic anti-Semitic meme about 'a' controlling Jew.

 

2. As Shylock (your own special choice of misnomer; I wonder why) has said, your googling a 'think tank' consisting of a PR man and an ex-Media Studies student does not constitute evidence of BBC bias. Nor does it explain your apoplexic rage. So what got to you? What BBC programme 'against' Brexit so blew your head off that you thought it a good idea to rip up the licence fee?

 

By the way, if you want me to stop with the Yiddishisms, all you have to do is withdraw your endorsement of a Jew hater. Farshteyn?

 

The beast is wounded by his earlier incompetence in a post which made him look an idiot and is thrashing about trying to save face by trawling back into the past for any ammunition that he can find.

 

Don't worry, I'm not in an apoplectic raqe about anything, I'm calmly enjoying your discomfort.

 

Where did I say that I called for the abolition of the licence fee? You're making yourself look like a fool again. What I said was:-

 

It might be a mistake for them to dismiss these MPs as swivel-eyed loons when if a majority of them desired it, it is within their powers to abolish their funding from the public purse.

 

Carry on with whatever childish insults you feel you need to make, it will just make you look infantile. I'm not about to lose any sleep over the opinions of some keyboard warrior trying to masturbate his ego.

[shurlock]

 

They f**king hate us.

[Verbal]

The beast is wounded by his earlier incompetence in a post which made him look an idiot and is thrashing about trying to save face by trawling back into the past for any ammunition that he can find.

 

Don't worry, I'm not in an apoplectic raqe about anything, I'm calmly enjoying your discomfort.

 

Where did I say that I called for the abolition of the licence fee? You're making yourself look like a fool again. What I said was:-

 

 

 

Carry on with whatever childish insults you feel you need to make, it will just make you look infantile. I'm not about to lose any sleep over the opinions of some keyboard warrior trying to masturbate his ego.

 

Jeez, all this childish garbage just to wriggle away from a very simple question. For the fifth time, what particular BBC programme was it that you saw and resulted in your BBC-bias-against-Brexit meltdown?

 

It's not a hard question. What's the answer?

[CB Fry]

No I understand fine, it's your own distorted idea of what's fair you fail to understand.

 

You appear to be of the opinion that some bloke from Weatherspoons' opinion carries the same weight among the general public as the governor of the Bank of England just because they are allowed the same amount of airtime.

You only have to listen to any given vox pop from the campaign or now to show which ideas permeated and which didn't.

 

The BBC handed the leave campaign victory by ensuring blithe assertions were given equal ranking editorially versus actual information/analysis.

 

Anyway I remember during the campaign one of the reasons you gave for voting out was because you didn't like the way big business and management consultants were running the country. You're, like, so informed.

[Wes Tender]

Jeez, all this childish garbage just to wriggle away from a very simple question. For the fifth time, what particular BBC programme was it that you saw and resulted in your BBC-bias-against-Brexit meltdown?

 

It's not a hard question. What's the answer?

 

Ah, so you've refrained from insisting that I had called for the abolition of the BBC's licence fee. We're making progress. Now I invite you once again to read the listing of incidents of suggested bias posted on that website I linked to. As you seem to have ignored it, here it is again.http://news-watch.co.uk/category/bbc-bias/

 

I realise that you are dismissive of anything that doesn't suit your leftie agenda, but as I said earlier, who cares?

[shurlock]

Les- why don't you answer the question you were asked...

[Wes Tender]

Les- why don't you answer the question you were asked...

 

Shatlock, we are debating whether the BBC is biased towards Brexit in general terms, i.e. several instances. I have provided a link containing several instances of complaints of alleged bias. If you choose to ignore them, then tough. Verbal has already made himself look a bit of a prat making unsubstantiated claims that I had called for the abolition of the licence fee. Why don't you wait and see whether he chooses to dig himself in any deeper?

[buctootim]

Shatlock, we are debating whether the BBC is biased towards Brexit in general terms, i.e. several instances. I have provided a link containing several instances of complaints of alleged bias. If you choose to ignore them, then tough. Verbal has already made himself look a bit of a prat making unsubstantiated claims that I had called for the abolition of the licence fee. Why don't you wait and see whether he chooses to dig himself in any deeper?

 

No you made a stupid claim you couldn't substantiate. I heard this line about Trump "He thinks his opinions are facts and that facts are just other people's opinions". It applies equally to you.

[shurlock]

Shatlock, we are debating whether the BBC is biased towards Brexit in general terms, i.e. several instances. I have provided a link containing several instances of complaints of alleged bias. If you choose to ignore them, then tough. Verbal has already made himself look a bit of a prat making unsubstantiated claims that I had called for the abolition of the licence fee. Why don't you wait and see whether he chooses to dig himself in any deeper?

 

You were asked which particular programmes you had seen you felt were biased; you weren't asked to provide a link to News-Watch.

Edited 24 March, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

You only have to listen to any given vox pop from the campaign or now to show which ideas permeated and which didn't.

 

The BBC handed the leave campaign victory by ensuring blithe assertions were given equal ranking editorially versus actual information/analysis.

 

Anyway I remember during the campaign one of the reasons you gave for voting out was because you didn't like the way big business and management consultants were running the country. You're, like, so informed.

 

The remain campaign handed leave the victory with their bull**** project fear and by pretending everyday issues people faced because of uncontrolled immigration didn't exist. Blaming the BBC for giving each side equal airtime is just laughable, especially when most of their coverage tended to favour remain anyway.

 

You clearly failed to understand my point about big business, though that's not surprising.

[Wes Tender]

No you made a stupid claim you couldn't substantiate. I heard this line about Trump "He thinks his opinions are facts and that facts are just other people's opinions". It applies equally to you.

 

You mean like all the stupid claims that couldn't be substantiated by Project Fear?

 

I posted a link in the first instance to an article detailing that over 70 MPs had signed a letter complaining of BBC bias against Brexit coverage. But have it you own way; there is no bias whatsoever and all of those MPs signed the letter for no palpable reason at all.

 

But assuming that they felt strongly enough that they had good reason to complain, then I very much doubt that they were compelled to because they each had a single incident in mind. So why can't I equally believe that there have been several instances? It has been a constant drip, drip,drip. You can get your head around that concept, can't you?

[Wes Tender]

You were asked which particular programmes you had seen you felt were biased; you weren't asked to provide a link to News-Watch.

 

Am I not allowed to read the many incidences detailed on News-watch and agree that many of them to varying degrees provide ammunition for complaints about bias? When you provide a link to some article espousing a Project Fear doom and gloom scenario, you presumably would not contend that generally one single opinion in the article painted an accurate picture of the whole thrust of it, would you?

[Verbal]

Am I not allowed to read the many incidences detailed on News-watch and agree that many of them to varying degrees provide ammunition for complaints about bias? When you provide a link to some article espousing a Project Fear doom and gloom scenario, you presumably would not contend that generally one single opinion in the article painted an accurate picture of the whole thrust of it, would you?

 

The funniest thing about this argument is that it's unadulterated Trumpism. Trump is in the habit of quoting other people's nonsense and then saying it must be true because someone else said it. It's a lie based on a transparent dodge.

 

You're doing the same if you complain about BBC bias against Brexit but can't list a single example of a programme you've seen that does that, without resorting to emergency googling of others' opinions, no matter how tainted they might be.

 

So for the sixth time, what programme(s) have you seen that shows that BBC bias against Brexit?

[buctootim]

You mean like all the stupid claims that couldn't be substantiated by Project Fear?

 

I posted a link in the first instance to an article detailing that over 70 MPs had signed a letter complaining of BBC bias against Brexit coverage. But have it you own way; there is no bias whatsoever and all of those MPs signed the letter for no palpable reason at all.

 

But assuming that they felt strongly enough that they had good reason to complain, then I very much doubt that they were compelled to because they each had a single incident in mind. So why can't I equally believe that there have been several instances? It has been a constant drip, drip,drip. You can get your head around that concept, can't you?

 

You made a claim you couldnt substantiate and got proved wrong. You try and justify it by saying other people also told porkies.

 

You claim the BBC must be biased because 11% of MPs signed a letter saying so. The significance of the fact that 89% didn't sign the letter escapes you.

 

It really is like dealing with a six year old.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You made a claim you couldnt substantiate and got proved wrong. You try and justify it by saying other people also told porkies.

 

You claim the BBC must be biased because 11% of MPs signed a letter saying so. The significance of the fact that 89% didn't sign the letter escapes you.

 

It really is like dealing with a six year old.

 

I think that you underplay the significance of 72 MPs signing a letter - an unprecedented step. You fail to put it into the context of a house of parliament that overwhelmingly supported a remain vote.

 

Why do you not compare it to other 'letters' signed by MPs. 105 MPs signed a letter to block the extradition the hacker Lauri Love. By your logic 545 MPs must have supported it.

 

Wes cites a piece by News Watch which demonstrates examples of perceived bias of the BBC which is dismissed because it came from a right wing source. Who exactly is going to raise the issue of Brexit bias - the Lib Dems? The Fabian Society?

[shurlock]

I think that you underplay the significance of 72 MPs signing a letter - an unprecedented step. You fail to put it into the context of a house of parliament that overwhelmingly supported a remain vote.

 

Why do you not compare it to other 'letters' signed by MPs. 105 MPs signed a letter to block the extradition the hacker Lauri Love. By your logic 545 MPs must have supported it.

 

Wes cites a piece by News Watch which demonstrates examples of perceived bias of the BBC which is dismissed because it came from a right wing source. Who exactly is going to raise the issue of Brexit bias - the Lib Dems? The Fabian Society?

 

What's your point? There were more than twice as many MPs who supported leave than who signed the letter.

 

Underplay the significance of kipper special pleading and malcontents with an existential axe to grind against the BBC? Damn right, I am

 

#storminateacup

Edited 24 March, 2017 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

You made a claim you couldnt substantiate and got proved wrong. You try and justify it by saying other people also told porkies.

 

You claim the BBC must be biased because 11% of MPs signed a letter saying so. The significance of the fact that 89% didn't sign the letter escapes you.

 

It really is like dealing with a six year old.

 

It didn't take long for the juvenile insults to surface, did it?

 

Where have I been proved wrong?

 

I have already indicated that the number of MPs complaining is unprecedented but of course I am not in the least bit surprised that you belittle the significance of the numbers.

 

A little more thought from you would lead you to realise that coming up with a percentage figure based on a binary position is naturally going to be flawed in a situation like this one. Naturally as this complaint was about bias against Brexit, then it follows logically that it is highly unlikely that there will be complaints from the Remoaner MPs whose position is favoured by the bias and who constitute a majority in the House. I'm surprised that this hadn't occurred to somebody as super-intelligent as you believe yourself to be.

[shurlock]

It didn't take long for the juvenile insults to surface, did it?

 

Where have I been proved wrong?

 

I have already indicated that the number of MPs complaining is unprecedented but of course I am not in the least bit surprised that you belittle the significance of the numbers.

 

A little more thought from you would lead you to realise that coming up with a percentage figure based on a binary position is naturally going to be flawed in a situation like this one. Naturally as this complaint was about bias against Brexit, then it follows logically that it is highly unlikely that there will be complaints from the Remoaner MPs whose position is favoured by the bias and who constitute a majority in the House. I'm surprised that this hadn't occurred to somebody as super-intelligent as you believe yourself to be.

 

MPs supported Brexit -160

MPs signed the letter -72

 

You couldn't even muster a majority if you tried, little kipper

[Wes Tender]

I think that you underplay the significance of 72 MPs signing a letter - an unprecedented step. You fail to put it into the context of a house of parliament that overwhelmingly supported a remain vote.

 

Why do you not compare it to other 'letters' signed by MPs. 105 MPs signed a letter to block the extradition the hacker Lauri Love. By your logic 545 MPs must have supported it.

 

Wes cites a piece by News Watch which demonstrates examples of perceived bias of the BBC which is dismissed because it came from a right wing source. Who exactly is going to raise the issue of Brexit bias - the Lib Dems? The Fabian Society?

 

I had written my post before yours but was called away and then posted it not having seen yours. It is all typical stuff from them, dismissing anything they disagree with as being from an unreliable source and getting in the childish digs about the lack of intelligence of anybody who opposes their views.

[Wes Tender]

MPs supported Brexit -160

MPs signed the letter -72

 

You couldn't even muster a majority if you tried, little kipper

 

45% of pro-Brexit MPs were concerned enough to sign a letter complaining about BBC bias against Brexit. Don't you think that significant, little leftie?

[shurlock]

Edit

[buctootim]

45% of pro-Brexit MPs were concerned enough to sign a letter complaining about BBC bias against Brexit. Don't you think that significant, little leftie?

 

Nope. Only 60 Tory MPs. Bigger numbers than that voted against their own leader / Government leader six times in the past five years. The BBC must be doing something right for the large majority of Tory MPs. Maybe they're too right wing?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

What's your point? There were more than twice as many MPs who supported leave than who signed the letter.

 

Underplay the significance of kipper special pleading and malcontents with an existential axe to grind against the BBC? Damn right, I am

 

#storminateacup

 

Umm pointing out that just because somebody does not sign a letter you cannot assume that they do not believe it and that 72 MPs is a lot.

 

Anyway here is a classic BBC bias story

 

https://order-order.com/2010/04/19/labour-candidate-is-bbc-bias-complaints-judge/

[buctootim]

Anyway here is a classic BBC bias story

 

https://order-order.com/2010/04/19/labour-candidate-is-bbc-bias-complaints-judge/

 

 

Certainly is. You have picked a seven year old story about a journalist whose job was a fact checker not complaints. He had the temerity to stand for his local council - which incidentally is a constitional right.

Edited 24 March, 2017 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Ten seconds research on Google will show you that many on the left are equally convinced that the BBC is biased against them too - indeed variations on this hackneyed story are as old as the hills. A number of MP's signing some letter is proof only of what they happen to think on the day and not emperical evidence of anything.

 

In my experience, and for all its faults, the BBC is nevertheless still one of the least partisan broadcasting organisations in the world. If some on here find themselves becoming upset with the manner of the Corporation's reportage then this is probably because the truth has a habit of hurting methinks. It is not the role of the BBC to please politicians and if those who are peddling especially weak arguments come a cropper every now and then this is a good thing for the health of our democracy.

 

It seems to me that the real problem with good old "aunty" is that she is often TOO balanced in her reporting.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Certainly is. You have picked a seven year old story about a journalist whose job was a fact checker not complaints. He had the temerity to stand for his local council - which incidentally is a constitional right.

 

I did refer to it as 'classic' but if you want something a little more up to date;

 

https://order-order.com/2016/05/16/proof-remain-campaign-is-paying-bbc/

 

https://order-order.com/2015/04/21/bbc-website-balance-is-a-joke/#_@/VaLD4yVAgssXlA

 

The Guardian has the lowest circulation nationally of all the big newspapers nationwide but manages to top the charts at the BBC.

 

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/foi-request-reveals-the-guardian-is-most-popular-newspaper-at-the-bbc/

[buctootim]

I did refer to it as 'classic' but if you want something a little more up to date;

 

https://order-order.com/2016/05/16/proof-remain-campaign-is-paying-bbc/

 

https://order-order.com/2015/04/21/bbc-website-balance-is-a-joke/#_@/VaLD4yVAgssXlA

 

The Guardian has the lowest circulation nationally of all the big newspapers nationwide but manages to top the charts at the BBC.

 

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/foi-request-reveals-the-guardian-is-most-popular-newspaper-at-the-bbc/

 

Laughable. You are criticising the BBC on the word of a blog run by a man with four convictions for alcohol offences, been charged with contempt of court, tried to smear both Tory and Labour politicians and failed at a third rate university.

Edited 24 March, 2017 by buctootim

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Laughable. You are criticising the BBC on the word of a blog run by a man with four convictions for alcohol offences, been charged with contempt of court, tried to smear both Tory and Labour politicians and failed at a third rate university.

 

I have to say that is a pretty odd response. Do you think Private Eye should not have been taken seriously because Peter Cook liked a drink? What has university got to do with it either - Richard Branson only got one o level so what!

 

Why don't you respond to the stories reported by the most read political blog?

[Verbal]

The Guardian has the lowest circulation nationally of all the big newspapers nationwide but manages to top the charts at the BBC.

 

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/foi-request-reveals-the-guardian-is-most-popular-newspaper-at-the-bbc/

 

Actually this is evidence, on your own argument, of strong right-wing bias at the BBC.

 

As The Guardian is one of only a handful of national papers that are left of centre, it's not surprising that they come out on top (only marginally ahead of The Times).

 

Add the left-of-centre newspaper purchases (Guardian + Observer + Mirror +Sunday Mirror + People), you get 147,232.

 

Add the centrist, centre-right and right-wing papers, you get 442,339.

 

Hey presto, from the same figures as the ones you have, an overwhelming anti-left and centre-left readership.

 

I expect you'll be on the phone to the Beeb to complain about such appalling bias.

[buctootim]

I have to say that is a pretty odd response. Do you think Private Eye should not have been taken seriously because Peter Cook liked a drink? What has university got to do with it either - Richard Branson only got one o level so what!

 

Why don't you respond to the stories reported by the most read political blog?

 

Private Eye has a long and creditable history of exposes. Paul Staines has a history of failure and being on the wrong side of the law. Selling photos to the media of William Hague's aide in a gay bar is the quality of the man.

Edited 24 March, 2017 by buctootim