Poor David Attenborough

[jayne lee wilson]

But by the time that went out the Guardian had already covered the matter on Wednesday and named the firms.

...which doesn't mean any direct line of reaction or causation......
Don't succumb to the temptation to criticise the BBC at every opportunity. The Wretched Government will do that anyway and they have the power to do so, far more destructively, and we need the BBC to fight on as an Independent News Service, good as Sky still are.

I'll mention it once more: the Press Previews on BBC/Sky News at 2230 and 2330 every night, are at least as searching, analytical and important as Newsnight ever was (and still tries to be), from all Political and ideological sides, and essential viewing now.

Remember the Mafia line: "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"....
I always listen closely when there is a Telegraph (the only Paper to stand by Paterson**) or Mail journalist on there...

(**even Tim Stanley, a highly intelligent commentator I usually disagree with, but have much respect for; he is at least always worth listening to.)

[oddoneout]

...which doesn't mean any direct line of reaction or causation......
Don't succumb to the temptation to criticise the BBC at every opportunity. The Wretched Government will do that anyway and they have the power to do so, far more destructively, and we need the BBC to fight on as an Independent News Service, good as Sky still are.

I'll mention it once more: the Press Previews on BBC/Sky News at 2230 and 2330 every night, are at least as searching, analytical and important as Newsnight ever was (and still tries to be), from all Political and ideological sides, and essential viewing now.

Remember the Mafia line: "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"....
I always listen closely when there is a Telegraph (the only Paper to stand by Paterson**) or Mail journalist on there...

(**even Tim Stanley, a highly intelligent commentator I usually disagree with, but have much respect for; he is at least always worth listening to.)

It wasn't intended to be criticism so much as puzzlement.

[Joseph K]

The BBC is strongly biased in favour of the government. It's part of the propaganda wing of the wretched government. Even fleeting points of contact with it revealed this - I recall headlines from a few years ago on radio 3 casually mentioning "Margaret Hodge (who is Jewish)" because of course, her ethnicity only had relevance so as to add to the deluge of the Grand Lie that Labour had an antisemitism issue. The fact that they couldn't help being so insidious on a medium that one might not suppose to be on the face of it biased demonstrates the depth of the problem.

[Bryn]

The BBC is strongly biased in favour of the government. It's part of the propaganda wing of the wretched government. Even fleeting points of contact with it revealed this - I recall headlines from a few years ago on radio 3 casually mentioning "Margaret Hodge (who is Jewish)" because of course, her ethnicity only had relevance so as to add to the deluge of the Grand Lie that Labour had an antisemitism issue. The fact that they couldn't help being so insidious on a medium that one might not suppose to be on the face of it biased demonstrates the depth of the problem.

Ironically, when she 'led' Islington Council, her nickname around those to her left was Margaret Hoxha, after Enver Hoxha, the then head honcho in Albania. Hoxha was, among his other peccadillos, known for trying to eradicate Islam and Judaism in Albania. He failed, of course.

[jayne lee wilson]

The BBC is strongly biased in favour of the government. It's part of the propaganda wing of the wretched government. Even fleeting points of contact with it revealed this - I recall headlines from a few years ago on radio 3 casually mentioning "Margaret Hodge (who is Jewish)" because of course, her ethnicity only had relevance so as to add to the deluge of the Grand Lie that Labour had an antisemitism issue. The fact that they couldn't help being so insidious on a medium that one might not suppose to be on the face of it biased demonstrates the depth of the problem.

I disagree about the "strong bias"...surely more apt to the Telegraph.

Most independent News Organisations, especially government- funded ones, tread a difficult line - far harder under this appalling administration. It was by no means just the BBC that reported upon anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Did they really "add to the deluge" or simply report it as they should?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54731222

I still can't see any of the current news reports on the BBC Site as anything other than truthful and "balanced"...loaded term though that has become, of course....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56926219

see "watch/listen" here.....(and other links)...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics

Anything significant left out from the last few days...?

[Joseph K]

I disagree about the "strong bias".... Most independent News Organisations, especially government- funded ones, tread a difficult line - far harder under this appalling administration. It was by no means just the BBC that reported upon anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Did they really "add to the deluge" or simply report it as they should?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54731222

They added to the deluge. Take the Panorama hatchet job, for example: https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.c...-semitism.html

Also, I struggle to see how the EHRC can be considered independent when one takes into consideration things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...phobia-inquiry

See also: https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/po...ricated-crisis

I still can't see any of the current news reports on the BBC Site as anything other than truthful and "balanced"...loaded term though that has become, of course....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56926219

see "watch/listen" here.....(and other links)...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics

Anything significant left out from the last few days...?

I'm not sure about the last few days, but the BBC failed to the report the small issue of the human cost of austerity: https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.c...ing-death.html

[french frank]

They added to the deluge.

Perish the thought, but it could be argued that you're actually making their point quite convincingly …

[jayne lee wilson]

They added to the deluge. Take the Panorama hatchet job, for example: https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.c...-semitism.html

Also, I struggle to see how the EHRC can be considered independent when one takes into consideration things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...phobia-inquiry

See also: https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/po...ricated-crisis




I'm not sure about the last few days, but the BBC failed to the report the small issue of the human cost of austerity: https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.c...ing-death.html

Just because the EHRC comes to a decision you disagree with doesn't prove, or begin to prove, their lack of independence.

As for the social and individual damage caused by Austerity, Newsnight and News24 have had many films and reports from various towns and communities around the UK reporting on exactly that and the dreadful UC, and still other problems deprivations caused by Brexit.
After the film, they always say that "we asked the government to contribute to the studio discussion but no-one was available" then the debate continues with a member of those communities and political figures from various sides.

That is how "balance" has to operate. Neither the BBC or Sky could possibly include polemical pieces like the angry blogger. This goes into vast detail about Labour Party Political infighting, which again wouldn't work on a BBC or other national news program, people would just switch off mentally or actually; it does itself make many accusations which are almost impossible for any reader to prove or disprove, and the pasted quote in Point 12 doesn't support the rhetorical exaggeration of the point itself, not to mention being slanderously unfair to Nik Cohen.

But those mainstream news reports about Benefits and Brexit have been very hard-hitting within that necessary framework - and reach a far wider audience.

I think the lurid parallel drawn with the 9/11 attacks is unnecessary and unpleasant, and draws too much on conspiracy rhetoric.
Again, more likely to make me move swiftly on, should I come across it inadvertently...

As I said, the costs of various social and other policies have been reported upon frequently on the BBC, the Guardian and elsewhere, having been all too clear to me and many others for some time, especially those of us who have been carers, with lengthy and exhausting experience of the NHS and the Benefits system.
The reports are all-too-true to my experiences...

****
OK! Any Questions (R4 20:00) should be interesting tonight shouldn't it? Lots to have a good row about this week....
As The Alamo continues outside, time to check on the Cats....

[Joseph K]

Perish the thought, but it could be argued that you're actually making their point quite convincingly …

What point would that be?

Just because the EHRC comes to a decision you disagree with doesn't prove, or begin to prove, their lack of independence.

True. But if you read the article linked to from the NLR you'll find out what does prove their lack of independence.

As for the social and individual damage caused by Austerity, Newsnight and News24 have had many films and reports from various towns and communities around the UK reporting on exactly that and the dreadful UC, and still other problems deprivations caused by Brexit.
After the film, they always say that "we asked the government to contribute to the studio discussion but no-one was available" then the debate continues with a member of those communities and political figures from various sides.

That is how "balance" has to operate. Neither the BBC or Sky could possibly include polemical pieces like the angry blogger.

So the BBC runs individual case studies, but refuses to cover something in the BMJ that counts the total human loss of life involved. Is counting considered polemical these days? or running a story from the BMJ 'polemical'?

I think the lurid parallel drawn with the 9/11 attacks is unnecessary and unpleasant, and draws too much on conspiracy rhetoric.

The comparison is there just through numbers of lives lost. Why do you find the comparison unnecessary or unpleasant? There is nothing even remotely like conspiracy rhetoric in the article, just how the BBC omitted to cover a study by the BMJ.

[french frank]

What point would that be?

The point that they are allegedly 'reporting': that the very existence of a such a problem is denied by many within the party.

[Joseph K]

The point that they are allegedly 'reporting': that the very existence of a such a problem is denied by many within the party.

No, you're wrong. Above I stated it was a Grand Lie that Labour had (of course, it has magically gone away now) an antisemitism issue - of course what is an 'issue' can be argued about, but since antisemitism is less prevalent in the Labour party (or at least was) than in the General Public, I do not consider my statement wrong. https://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.c...nt-you-to.html

[jayne lee wilson]

What point would that be?




True. But if you read the article linked to from the NLR you'll find out what does prove their lack of independence.




So the BBC runs individual case studies, but refuses to cover something in the BMJ that counts the total human loss of life involved. Is counting considered polemical these days? or running a story from the BMJ 'polemical'?




The comparison is there just through numbers of lives lost. Why do you find the comparison unnecessary or unpleasant? There is nothing even remotely like conspiracy rhetoric in the article, just how the BBC omitted to cover a study by the BMJ.

The angryblogger's last paragraph is just exaggeration...

"So next time you hear anyone droning on about how RT is just Russian propaganda, you don't need to disagree with them, but you really should explain that the BBC runs propaganda for the UK state, and remind them of how the BBC didn't even bother to report the fact that Tory austerity has such an obscene death toll when RT actually did".

The BBC News Reports are patently not propaganda by any definition of the term (this is conspiracist rhetoric), as anyone who watches both BBC and Sky News everyday knows. And worse still, as I showed above, they did report these things and their very locally individualised effects; I am a current victim, with a debilitating heart condition that has yet to be properly diagnosed or treated; which has become worse due to lack of attention after the first occurrence in February.

I don't need an estimated death toll to tell me any of that; nor do the BBC need to offer such a headcount, however carefully calculated. It is, especially with that exhaustively, insensitively reshown image of the flaming twin towers, in fact sensationalist tabloidesque reporting in itself.

I see the angryblogger wants to do good, of course he does, to tell the truth he persists in attempting to uncover; of course the BBC, like every News Organisation, gets it wrong sometimes; but I do think the constant attacks on the BBC are exaggerated, especially with those terms I've specified, such as "Propaganda for the UK State " or "Strongly biased" in the government's favour; I just don't see the evidence for this, each day I live, read, watch, and listen.

[Katzelmacher]

whether you love or hate boris, this image is just wrong in so many ways.

https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1455333192769081350

update: For balance, there are photos of an unmasked (but wide awake) da, e.g. https://twitter.com/chardgrills/stat...46705546141698

please stop using the brand name!