If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The ever-increasingly scathing tone of John Humphrys's remarks on Toady: this morning, for instance, as we were taken to Swindon (of all places) where, we were assured, in the kind of set-up that is becoming more and more customary at the BBC nowadays, that because Chuka Ummuna had said it, if voters didn't return a labour MP at the next general election, Jeremy Corbyn clearly hadn't got a cat-in-hell's chance of ever becoming PM.
"And that seemed to be the last word" he concluded when someone actually said yes they supported Jeremy.
Does anybody on here still sincerely believe in BBC impartiality?
The ever-increasingly scathing tone of John Humphrys's remarks on Toady: this morning, for instance, as we were taken to Swindon (of all places) where, we were assured, in the kind of set-up that is becoming more and more customary at the BBC nowadays, that because Chuka Ummuna had said it, if voters didn't return a labour MP at the next general election, Jeremy Corbyn clearly hadn't got a cat-in-hell's chance of ever becoming PM.
"And that seemed to be the last word" he concluded when someone actually said yes they supported Jeremy.
Does anybody on here still sincerely believe in BBC impartiality?
The ever-increasingly scathing tone of John Humphrys's remarks on Toady: this morning, for instance, as we were taken to Swindon (of all places) where, we were assured, in the kind of set-up that is becoming more and more customary at the BBC nowadays, that because Chuka Ummuna had said it, if voters didn't return a labour MP at the next general election, Jeremy Corbyn clearly hadn't got a cat-in-hell's chance of ever becoming PM.
"And that seemed to be the last word" he concluded when someone actually said yes they supported Jeremy.
Does anybody on here still sincerely believe in BBC impartiality?
certainly not.
During the national anthem Corbyn issue, there was a report on 5 Live re Corbyn's non singing, followed by one highly critical comment from a tory mp.
no balance, no defence , nothing, just criticism.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
certainly not.
During the national anthem Corbyn issue, there was a report on 5 Live re Corbyn's non singing, followed by one highly critical comment from a tory mp.
no balance, no defence , nothing, just criticism.
While I'm not a bit surprised if he is keeping a wide berth from interviewers, with their "and when did you stop beating your wife?" kinds of questions, you can already figure out the conclusions that will be thereby ascribed.
How would we recognize it if we thought we'd seen it?
Not flippant, a serious question...
As it is, broadcasters would only appear to consider balance when it is offered over a series of programmes, and unless there is some time limit within which the opponent's pov has to be presented, this appears to be treated ad hoc. On matters of current import, one would at least hope that a spokesperson with an alternative, if not opposite viewpoint, could be brought on the same programme and be given as near as dammit equal time to offer comment. This in my view would amount to recognition.
Comment