Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Les -more spectacular non-sequiturs. The BBC believes its role is to challenge and hold government to account, as epitomised by the Paxmans of this world or the Fourth Estate. Now that Brexit is the policy of the day, its being duly scrutinised. The more far-reaching the policy action, the more intense the scrutinty.

 

Haranguing the 'media' for not being 'optimistic' enough is straight out of the authoritarian playbook (of course, we have a docile, privately-owned print press that's all too happy to do the government's bidding). If you think the BBC should keep schtum, I'd suggest democratic accontability is not your cup of tea, little kipper.

Shatlock, you seem to be confusing political debating programmes with News programmes, little leftie.

I'm all for political debate where in the interests of impartiality both sides of the argument are examined during political programmes like Newsnight, Question Time, Marr, etc., with equal participation being accorded where the sides are reasonably matched for public support, as they were in the Referendum. But even in that scenario there have been reasonable criticisms aimed against the BBC for the imbalance of numbers on each side, time allocation favouring one side, choice of speakers, etc. This is what constitutes bias

But where that bias is not acceptable is in the reporting of the main news.

The privately owned media is of course permitted to choose whichever position they like and there are several publications which do not do the governments bidding, such as the Guardian, the Mirror and the Not Independent for example. But as you well know, it is not acceptable for the BBC as our national broadcaster to adopt a politically biased stance, even though most of their journalists lean leftwards politically, as indeed you do.

If you think the BBC should keep schtum, I'd suggest democratic accontability is not your cup of tea, little kipper

Of course, nowhere did I call for the BBC to keep "schtum", only to be more balanced. I would suggest that you believe that democratic accountability should not apply to our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

Shatlock, you seem to be confusing political debating programmes with News programmes, little leftie.

 

I'm all for political debate where in the interests of impartiality both sides of the argument are examined during political programmes like Newsnight, Question Time, Marr, etc., with equal participation being accorded where the sides are reasonably matched for public support, as they were in the Referendum. But even in that scenario there have been reasonable criticisms aimed against the BBC for the imbalance of numbers on each side, time allocation favouring one side, choice of speakers, etc. This is what constitutes bias

 

But where that bias is not acceptable is in the reporting of the main news.

 

The privately owned media is of course permitted to choose whichever position they like and there are several publications which do not do the governments bidding, such as the Guardian, the Mirror and the Not Independent for example. But as you well know, it is not acceptable for the BBC as our national broadcaster to adopt a politically biased stance, even though most of their journalists lean leftwards politically, as indeed you do.

 

 

 

Of course, nowhere did I call for the BBC to keep "schtum", only to be more balanced. I would suggest that you believe that democratic accountability should not apply to our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

I would suggest you believe that democratic accountability should not apply to our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

What on earth are you talking about, Les? You're all over the place.

What on earth are you talking about, Les? You're all over the place.

It's a simple enough concept, Shatlock, or perhaps you're being deliberately thick.

Many on both sides living in lalaland it seems. An overwhelming consensus around what Brexit means? Yet more #pony spouted by the kippers on this thread.

 

 

British voters, including many who voted for Remain, want to see freedom of movement ended when the UK leaves the EU.

 

With a week to go until prime minister Theresa May triggers Article 50 and begins the formal Brexit process, a survey of 2,322 British voters carried out between early February and early March 2017 found that there is widespread support for a clean break on freedom of movement.

 

Yet when it comes to free trade, voters would rather the prime minister opt for a “softer” Brexit, with 88 per cent of Leave voters and 91 per cent of Remain supporters saying they wish to maintain free trade with the EU, and retain many of the perks of membership.

 

Two-thirds of Leave voters (67 per cent) and 83 per cent of Remain voters, for example, want the UK to keep EU regulations which set minimum standards for water quality at beaches. A similar majority think British mobile phone companies should have to adhere to EU regulations that limit the cost of calls made while abroad, and support requiring British-owned airlines to follow EU rules on compensating passengers who have experienced delays.

 

Furthermore, 55 per cent of Leave voters think the UK should make a financial contribution to those EU programmes in which it is participating and think the UK should continue to participate in EU-wide university research programmes.

 

The survey highlights the remarkable consensus among Leave and Remain voters who wish to, as Theresa May put it, “have the cake and eat it”. “For the most part, Remain and Leave voters are not at loggerheads on the kind of Brexit they would like to see,” says John Curtice, senior research fellow at NatCen and author of the report.

 

Even a majority of Remain voters agree (58 per cent) agree with 82 per cent of Leave voters who want potential EU migrants to Britain to be treated in the same way as non-EU migrants.

 

 

“Many Remain voters would like to see an end to the less popular parts of Britain’s current membership of the EU, while many Leave voters would like to retain the seemingly more desirable parts, such as free trade, cheap mobile phone calls and clean beaches,” Mr Curtice says.

 

“This is perhaps typical of the pick and mix attitude to the EU that has characterised much of Britain’s relationship with the institution during its 44 years of membership so far.”

 

This position is however untenable, as Donald Tusk made clear in the weeks leading up to the referendum and in its aftermath.

 

In the event, the UK faces the choice of accepting freedom of movement as a condition of free trade, 44 per cent of Conservative supporters feel the trade-off would be worthwhile, while 55 per cent would not be willing to go through with the deal. In contrast, 63 per cent of Labour voters would be in favour of making such a concession.

 

According to Mr Curtice, “the stance taken by the UK government of wanting to end freedom of movement but maintain free trade fits well with the views of most Conservative voters. But it also means that they are also the group that are most likely to be disappointed if they were to come to the conclusion that the government has failed to achieve that objective. Theresa May could be faced with political difficulties at home if she struggles to achieve her key objectives in Brussels.”

 

https://www.ft.com/content/3086af7e-0e42-11e7-b030-768954394623

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39335904

 

Many MPs are complaining that the BBC is biased towards the Remain position and is not going to be doing us any favours when it comes to negotiating the best possible deal in the forthcoming couple of years following on from the triggering of Article 50 on 29th.

 

 

 

That isn't what they have been doing and as a result, they are not at all trusted. As long as they remain true to their charter to report news without bias, there is no reason to question their continued funding from the public purse. But the accusations of bias towards their reporting during the Referendum Campaign and in the ensuing 9 months have provoked a growing clamour for their public funding to cease. Despite their prominent role in the project fear strategy in the run up to 23rd June, they continue to report anything negative that they can get their hands on, whilst simultaneously doing their best to ignore any positive news that has come about, unless they prefix it as being "despite Brexit".

 

Is it too much to expect that during the massively important negotiations of the next couple of years, that our national broadcasting service attempts to report the process and the future prospects of our country fairly and with some degree of optimism?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/03/21/bbcs-bias-against-brexit-could-do-real-harm-britain/

Got any actual examples of this persistent BBC bias? Give us a list of news items, with dates, that have shown this bias.

I bet you a boxful of shekels you can't stand this up.

The Daily Mash is the authoritative voice, especially the last paragraph:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/jubilant-brexiters-****ting-themselves-20170321124592

Got any actual examples of this persistent BBC bias? Give us a list of news items, with dates, that have shown this bias.

 

I bet you a boxful of shekels you can't stand this up.

I'll raise him 1000 Tola Rothschilds.

There are several websites devoted to incidents of BBC bias. A simple few minutes Googling will show many complaints covered by them with dates, times, programmes etc. I'm sure that all you blinkered lefties will dismiss them all as being irrelevant, their content made up lies.

But here is a report with a bit more substance to it, specifically criticising the BBC's coverage of data provided by Think Tanks and their bias towards those from the left.

http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-BBCBiasOliverLathamfc.pdf?utm_source=Press+%26+Political+Only&utm_campaign=bdafa69cb1-FTT_chown_lawson&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f3445a366-bdafa69cb1-303547657

And another one backing it up

https://iea.org.uk/blog/bbc-bias-by-presentation-a-case-study-of-think-tanks

Good article by Janan Ganesh in the FT. I bet Les laughs when a bird lands on centre court at Wimbledon.

There are medical students who glide through every stage of their training bar the bedside manner. They know the human body and its processes but cannot manage patient expectations or break bad news.

 

The three men in charge of Brexit, that elective operation on Britain’s body politic, evoke the opposite — and the worst — type of doctor. What they lack in core competence they redress with tongues of purest silver.

 

Pressed for detail on his work by MPs last week, David Davis, the minister for exit, left them vaguer. It hurts to inform you that diplomats find him well-briefed next to Liam Fox, whose trade portfolio is a phantom thing until Britain leaves the EU, and Boris Johnson, who has not let his rise to foreign secretary disrupt his work as a jester for the kind of Tories who laugh when a bird lands on centre court at Wimbledon.

 

But then look at what these ministers have achieved as manipulators of public debate. Over the past year, the terms on which Britain will leave have been talked down on such a fine gradient that even vigilant observers of politics are only semi-conscious of how far the country has been led.

 

As an opening pitch, voters were told that Britain could retain single-market membership without its corollary burdens. Norway and Switzerland have tried for the same Utopia but our superior size would clinch it. When Leavers were disabused of this dream, they spoke of “access” to the market and zero barriers for traded goods. German exporters, blessed with supernatural lobbying powers that somehow failed to soften European sanctions on Russia, would persuade the EU of the mutual interest in such an arrangement.

 

When even this diminished plan ran into trouble, when it became clear that Britain’s desire for bilateral dealmaking power could not be accommodated inside the customs union, Leavers fell back on a formal trade relationship with the EU instead. Britain would do business with Europe as Canada does, as if geography had been abolished and the access terms enjoyed by a nation 4,000km away would serve for a nation whose physical and economic orientation is to the continent.

 

That seemed to be the last recourse. But now ministers are trying to normalise the idea of total exit without a trade pact. Mr Johnson says this would not be “by any means as apocalyptic as some people like to pretend” (roll up, roll up for a future that stops short of apocalypse) and Mr Davis describes it as “not harmful”. Economists disagree with him but politicians are allowed to question their record of clairvoyance.

 

What they are not allowed is a pardon for a solid year’s worth of promissory slippage: from single market membership to a commodious niche in the customs union to a trade deal to absolute severance. Even if they are right that Britain can prosper in its principal market as a World Trade Organization member, this was never their vision. At every stage, they overpromise. At every stage, reality finds them out. At every stage, they spin the new bottom-line as something they half-expected all along and as nothing to fear. If the sun melted the northern hemisphere, they would hope to finesse these isles out of the generalised inferno with a bespoke deal. This is the kind of confidence that arouses the opposite of confidence in others. It is the confidence of a lost tour guide who cannot be seen to scrutinise a map in front of paying holidaymakers.

 

If these ministers erred in different ways at different times, they could hope to improve through practice. But they consistently err on the side of optimism. The problem is not technical incompetence so much as a mystical belief that the EU will unpick its fundamental principles to accommodate Britain, that the whole world will make exceptions for the nation of Shakespeare and the spinning jenny. If these men were shocked that the EU turned out to be a tough interlocutor with interests of its own, imagine their first contact with the American industrial lobby or the Indian state.

 

On March 29, the government will file Article 50 and begin talks that have no precedent in sweep or complexity. If we are now inured to the prospect of the very hardest of exits, that is some feat by Leavers. There is an art to the gradual normalisation of previously extreme ideas. In the hands of a good politician, you cannot tell you are being let down. It is just that you would rather be in the hands of statesmen. Seeing these ministers talk their way out of old promises leaves you with a sense of sinuous political skill but also smallness — of a trio pulling themselves up to their full height to look at the monumental work of exit straight in the ankles.

https://www.ft.com/content/35dc3b9a-0d4f-11e7-b030-768954394623

There are several websites devoted to incidents of BBC bias. A simple few minutes Googling will show many complaints covered by them with dates, times, programmes etc. I'm sure that all you blinkered lefties will dismiss them all as being irrelevant, their content made up lies.

 

But here is a report with a bit more substance to it, specifically criticising the BBC's coverage of data provided by Think Tanks and their bias towards those from the left.

 

http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-BBCBiasOliverLathamfc.pdf?utm_source=Press+%26+Political+Only&utm_campaign=bdafa69cb1-FTT_chown_lawson&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f3445a366-bdafa69cb1-303547657

 

And another one backing it up

 

https://iea.org.uk/blog/bbc-bias-by-presentation-a-case-study-of-think-tanks

What's this to do with Brexit?

By the way you couldn't have picked a worse study to make your irrelevant point, Les. Everyone I know who work in a thinktank has dismissed this analysis, other than using the arbitary right-left labels to take the p i$$ out of each other.

Data mining -or cherrypicking Les that falls at the first hurdle of replication- is not good empirical research. Being statistically illterate not to mention clueless how the media works, you're of course none the wiser.

https://www.ft.com/content/d3ac9ce7-2339-34a6-83b4-42904287d797

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/09/02/bias-at-the-bbc-really-replicating-the-cps-analysis-of-bbc-onlines-coverage-of-think-tanks/ecome

While Mark Carney is (as usual) perfectly correct when he warns against reading too much into any single month's numbers, today's unexpected inflation spike to 2.3% may nevertheless indicate that a trend is becoming established now of increasing price inflation coupled with falling wage growth - the latter number a (annualised) 2.6% according to the ONS.

Should this trend continue just a little longer (and there seems little reason to doubt this) then inflation will soon overtake wage growth. The inevitable outcome of that unwelcome development is that our people can expect to become poorer over time - in real terms. A further knock-on effect may well be a negative impact on our hitherto unexpectedly resilient level of GDP growth. Not a pretty picture. There is no doubt at all that much of the increase in inflation can be laid at the door of Brexit and the resultant currency devaluation that immediately followed the referendum.

So two years before we have even left the EU, Brexit already looks set to make our people poorer than they might otherwise have been. If we also crash out of the Single Market in 2019 and are reduced to "WTO rules" trading with our primary export market - a very real possibility given the governments hard line approach to the problem - then I suspect the UK economy risks entering into "you ain't seen nothing yet" territory.

What's this to do with Brexit?

 

By the way you couldn't have picked a worse study to make your irrelevant point, Les. Everyone I know who work in a thinktank has dismissed this analysis, other than using the arbitary right-left labels to take the p i$$ out of each other.

 

Data mining -or cherrypicking Les that falls at the first hurdle of replication- is not good empirical research. Being statistically illterate not to mention clueless how the media works, you're of course none the wiser.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/d3ac9ce7-2339-34a6-83b4-42904287d797

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/09/02/bias-at-the-bbc-really-replicating-the-cps-analysis-of-bbc-onlines-coverage-of-think-tanks/ecome

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.

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.

Is that behind a paywall as well? I thought it was from a blog piece, so publicly accessible? You'll see Ive been cutting and pasting entire FT articles above -probably in violation of copyright, just for you;)

BBC bias and statistical nonsense

 

One of my perennial moans about Britain is the lousy state of its badly funded thinktanks: there are noble exceptions, but too few. This weekend, the Centre for Policy Studies published a piece arguing that the BBC was not impartial in its choice of stories nor its presentation of them; leftier thinktanks, it reckoned, get more coverage than rightier ones and an easier ride. I claim no expertise in that. I was more interested by the maths: the conclusions may well be right, but the analysis is bizarre.

 

The work relies upon a ranking of how left- or rightwing thinktanks are, which is drawn from the number of mentions of those thinktanks in articles in the Guardian (for the left) and the Telegraph (on the right). There are many, many things wrong with the analysis.

 

First, it raises a red flag about itself: it uses the word “algorithm”. Away from finance, and especially in politics, that is almost always a sign that someone somewhere is bluffing. This may be the apogee of that rule: This algorithm was then used to search the archives of The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian newspaper and count the number of articles that featured the names of each thinktank I wonder if the CPS has an intern that they call “The Algorithm”.

 

Second, this type of listing misunderstands how journalism works. There are a lot of odd assumptions embedded in the CPS paper, some of which I won’t go into. The most important point that needs making is that even if a reporter writes for a newspaper with a particular perspective, they will often seek quotes from the opposing side of the argument. Even rightwing newspapers call lefties a lot.

 

Take the National Union of Teachers, whose executive committee is one of the few places you can find real-life communists in Britain. Over the past two years, according to Factiva, it was mentioned roughly the same number of times in the Guardian as in the Telegraph. Yet the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which is way off to the NUT’s right, is much more prevalent in the Guardian. Those two would be the wrong way round in a CPS list.

 

Third, the Guardian is not just a leftwing newspaper, it is also more interested in public services, simply covering items that the Telegraph would never touch. If a thinktank proposed privatising social work, for example, you can bet the Guardian would cover it. The Telegraph? Perhaps not. To help overcome that, perhaps the CPS could pick a sector and then stick by it (although the NUT/ATL example suggests that won’t work, either).

 

You don’t really need to take my word for this – the result is a very bizarre ranking. The technocrats at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research are now to the right of the Adam Smith Institute. The Centre for European Reform, a liberal place, is on the hard left – although to the right of the hippies at Chatham House. Nigel Lawson’s thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is to the left of the Fabians.

 

(Chris Hanretty, a recent FT contributor from the University of East Anglia, has, in less scattergun fashion, poked further holes in the list here.)

 

But there’s more.

 

After The Algorithm had collated the total number of mentions for each thinktank in each newspaper, someone else then ran a regression through them: this is a simple statistical process which should reveal how closely related the total number of BBC articles mentioning each think-tank was related to the number of articles mentioning them on the Guardian and the Telegraph and the confidence one should place in the weighting.

 

This creates further problems.

 

First, consider what the numbers are saying and what they are not saying. Take the Sutton Trust (an institution not on the list). It advocates vouchers for poor children to get private school places. That is a view associated with the right. It also works in support of “contextual admissions” at universities – looking beyond grades – which is seen as leftier. So assume the Guardian writes up an admissions story, citing the Trust. Assume the Telegraph writes in support of the vouchers. What if the BBC only wrote up the former story – but did it twice? What if the BBC reported neither, but cited the Trust in two unrelated news stories? You get one story in the Guardian, one in the Telegraph and two at the BBC. What would a regression tell us? To ascertain bias, you need to look at content. I doubt the strong showing of the NUT in the Telegraph reveals a hidden Spartacist agenda at that newspaper.

 

To go through the boilerplate problems, too: it is a regression with 40 observations; look at the lousy/missing variables; look at the confidence intervals; and the Guardian and Telegraph coefficients don’t look significantly different from one another. Perhaps none of this matters. Perhaps I am being precious. But, if you want to study bias at the BBC, there is really no way to avoid reading stuff, rather than just counting it.

https://www.ft.com/content/d3ac9ce7-2339-34a6-83b4-42904287d797

There are several websites devoted to incidents of BBC bias. A simple few minutes Googling will show many complaints covered by them with dates, times, programmes etc. I'm sure that all you blinkered lefties will dismiss them all as being irrelevant, their content made up lies.

 

But here is a report with a bit more substance to it, specifically criticising the BBC's coverage of data provided by Think Tanks and their bias towards those from the left.

 

http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-BBCBiasOliverLathamfc.pdf?utm_source=Press+%26+Political+Only&utm_campaign=bdafa69cb1-FTT_chown_lawson&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f3445a366-bdafa69cb1-303547657

 

And another one backing it up

 

https://iea.org.uk/blog/bbc-bias-by-presentation-a-case-study-of-think-tanks

As your bete juif, Shylock, has pointed out, neither of these supposed studies has anything to do with Brexit.

So where are your specific examples of BBC programmes demonstrating bias in covering Brexit? Surely you must have them, given your threat-in-your-head about abolishing the licence fee.

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.

****ing hell, people quoting the FT as if they're some sort of neutral organisation. They are up there with the Clegg's, Majors and millers of remainiacs. They were the biggest cheer leader for us joining the Euro and even called William Hague immature for opposing it, when leader of the opposition.

**** me if I wanted to read Ganesh's pony I'd buy the FT, how does posting his opinion change anything? Unless he signs up and pays his £5, what's the ****ing point. I want to read other posters opinions not leftie hacks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As your bete juif, Shylock, has pointed out, neither of these supposed studies has anything to do with Brexit.

 

So where are your specific examples of BBC programmes demonstrating bias in covering Brexit? Surely you must have them, given your threat-in-your-head about abolishing the licence fee.

http://news-watch.co.uk/category/eu-referendum/

Fill your boots. I indicated that there were websites solely devoted to BBC bias, so spend a little time reading. I realise that Remoaners like you and Shatlock don't accept any criticism of your beloved EU and will use your usual MO of dismissing any anti-EU source and accepting as verbatim any pro-EU source.

The two links were also about BBC bias, but you and him seem to be incapable of joining up the dots to conclude that the bias is not only in favour of leftie politics generally, but also the Remoaner position too.

News-watch Les, that veritable, truth-seeking organisation that almost exclusively does consultancy for overtly political, right-wing thinktanks?

Really can't you do any better than this? Not chastened by yesterday's car crash on here? On second thoughts, those are silly questions

News-watch Les, that veritable, truth-seeking organisation that almost exclusively does consultancy for overtly political, right-wing thinktanks?

 

Really can't you do any better than this? Not chastened by yesterday's car crash on here? On second thoughts, those are silly questions

As I predicted, Remoaners like you will naturally be dismissive of any source that opposes your sycophantic arse-licking of the EU.

As for your closing sentence, then no; of course I'm not chastened. Severely patronised perhaps, but then I bow to your prowess in that department, you really are in a league of your own there.

Another Wes mega fail. The BBC is required to ensure that all significant points of view are represented and that overall coverage is unbiased. However it is impossible to ensure that all significant points of view are represented in every interview, segment or programme, particularly when you often do not know in advance what an interviewee will say. Therefore Parliament and most people with a faintest clue recognise that it is appropriate for the BBC to aim to be balanced over time.

Does that mean that somebody would be able to carve out segments in isolation and cry "bias!" ? Sure. Does that mean that overall the BBC is biased? not at all.

Anyone who truly believes BBC Brexit coverage isn't biased isn't being honest with themselves.

Another Wes mega fail. The BBC is required to ensure that all significant points of view are represented and that overall coverage is unbiased. However it is impossible to ensure that all significant points of view are represented in every interview, segment or programme, particularly when you often do not know in advance what an interviewee will say. Therefore Parliament and most people with a faintest clue recognise that it is appropriate for the BBC to aim to be balanced over time.

 

Does that mean that somebody would be able to carve out segments in isolation and cry "bias!" ? Sure. Does that mean that overall the BBC is biased? not at all.

A typical response from you, beginning by claiming the failure of an opposing opinion from the offset. Nice work, undone by the ensuing argument from you.

We all know that the BBC is required by its charter to be balanced in its presentation of all significant points of view and not to be biased to any one position. That there has been, as far as I am aware unprecedented Parliamentary support to a letter condemning the BBC's bias towards one side of the Referendum debate is indicative that a significant number of MPs consider that there is a solid case to be made for that complaint.

Why is it impossible to ensure that all significant points of view are represented in every interview? Basically the Referendum question covered only two main positions, to stay in the the EU or to leave it, so at the very least, equal time and representation should be accorded to those arguing each position and if any emphasis was granted to one position over the other, it should reflect the leave position which won a majority.

The Beeb is to be excused because they don't know what an interviewee might say? What complete and utter tosh! I even know on here what the likes of you, Shatlock and Verbal will say. Are you suggesting that the BBC programme producers cannot produce a balanced debate on the basis that do not have any idea of what Blair, Major, Farage, Johnson, Lawson, Minor Fart, Rees-Mogg, Hannan, etc, would say? Are their programme researchers incapable of ascertaining their previous stance on the matters that will be raised in the interview by their employee? Are their programme producers then unable to instruct their presenter to allocate equal time to each person's opinion?

Frankly, I didn't expect this level of absurdity from you.

The MPs, who included 60 from the Conservative Party, accused the corporation of portraying the UK as a "xenophobic" nation that regrets the vote to leave the EU.

 

They say that the corporation has failed to "break out of pre-referendum pessimism" and accept the "economic good news" the UK has enjoyed since the referendum.

On the first point, when there are vox poluli interviews, then it ought to be easy when collating them to ensure that there are as many holding one opinion as another, but often there isn't.

On the second point, I agree completely. I don't recall hearing much at all about the economic good news, but plenty of items continuing the doom and gloom scenario prevalent during the Referendum. campaign.

A typical response from you, beginning by claiming the failure of an opposing opinion from the offset. Nice work, undone by the ensuing argument from you.

 

We all know that the BBC is required by its charter to be balanced in its presentation of all significant points of view and not to be biased to any one position. That there has been, as far as I am aware unprecedented Parliamentary support to a letter condemning the BBC's bias towards one side of the Referendum debate is indicative that a significant number of MPs consider that there is a solid case to be made for that complaint.

 

Why is it impossible to ensure that all significant points of view are represented in every interview? Basically the Referendum question covered only two main positions, to stay in the the EU or to leave it, so at the very least, equal time and representation should be accorded to those arguing each position and if any emphasis was granted to one position over the other, it should reflect the leave position which won a majority.

 

The Beeb is to be excused because they don't know what an interviewee might say? What complete and utter tosh! I even know on here what the likes of you, Shatlock and Verbal will say. Are you suggesting that the BBC programme producers cannot produce a balanced debate on the basis that do not have any idea of what Blair, Major, Farage, Johnson, Lawson, Minor Fart, Rees-Mogg, Hannan, etc, would say? Are their programme researchers incapable of ascertaining their previous stance on the matters that will be raised in the interview by their employee? Are their programme producers then unable to instruct their presenter to allocate equal time to each person's opinion?

 

Frankly, I didn't expect this level of absurdity from you.

 

 

 

On the first point, when there are vox poluli interviews, then it ought to be easy when collating them to ensure that there are as many holding one opinion as another, but often there isn't.

On the second point, I agree completely. I don't recall hearing much at all about the economic good news, but plenty of items continuing the doom and gloom scenario prevalent during the Referendum. campaign.

72 MPs is 11% of the total. 11% felt the BBC was biased - not even a full set of the swivel eyed loons.

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:

The killing last August of a well-liked Polish man, ‘Arek’ Jóźwik, after a late night fracas in a pizza parlour in Harlow sent the BBC newsgathering operation into overdrive. It was the end of the silly season and only ten weeks after the referendum. The BBC, of course, was then, as now, hell-bent on finding and giving maximum exposure to every possible reason why the Brexit vote was a catastrophic mistake. To the Corporation, which for years has also been on a mission to downplay the impact of immigration on the UK and to label opponents as at best xenophobic, at worst racist, this was a story that ticked every box. They dived into reporting the crime with grim, hyperbolic relish.BBC1 man-on-the spot Daniel Sandford gave most prominence in his feature for the BBC1 bulletins on August 31 to that the alleged crime – prematurely said by him to be a ‘murder’ – was being investigated as a frenzied attack by a gang of six local youths triggered by race hate stirred up by the referendum vote. To ram home the message about the race-hate dimension, Sandford carefully collected and edited quotes from the Polish ambassador and Robert Halfon, the local MP. To be fair, he also mentioned that police were considering other options, such as ‘youths looking for trouble’, but there was no doubt which reason for the attack he thought was more likely.

And later that evening, on BBC2’s Newsnight, correspondent John Sweeney’s outro to his feature about the death was a quote from a friend of Mr Jóźwik, who declared that Nigel Farage had ‘blood on his hands’. Fast forward to the present. It has since emerged that Mr Jóźwik’s death was not murder at all. Nor, say the police, was race-hate involved, and nor was the crime committed by a frenzied gang of youths. Instead, a sole 15-year-old youth has been charged with manslaughter. He has indicated a plea of ‘not guilty’ at a preliminary hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court and has been released on conditional bail until his trial, which is expected to be in July.

It has also emerged since Sandford’s report in August that police are now convinced that a rise in the reporting of race hate crimes during the summer – heavily stressed by the BBC after June 23 and undoubtedly part of the reason the facts of the Harlow killing were so heavily exaggerated – was not linked at all to the referendum, but was the result of better and easier self-report procedures.

Brexiter violence...

And by angry I mean angry. The Metropolitan Police is just one of a number of forces to report a sudden surge, post-referendum, in Brexiter violence directed in particular at East Europeans.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/28/hate-crime-horrible-spike-brexit-vote-metropolitan-police

 

Once the court cases have been concluded, we'll also be able to draw some conclusions about the killings of Jo Cox and two Polish nationals in the run-up and aftermath of the vote.

 

Brexiter rage, turning to physical assault, is clearly something that will have to be tackled.

What a total muppet....

As Jean-Claude Junker said at the time:

"We Europeans can never accept, never, Polish workers being harassed, beaten up or even murdered in the streets of Essex." He added: "The free movement of workers is as much a common European value as our fight against discrimination and racism."

Another total muppet....

...and finally, the BBC stoking it up at the time:

Harlow 'hate crime' murder: Arek Jozwik's family devastated - 31 August 2016

72 MPs is 11% of the total. 11% felt the BBC was biased - not even a full set of the swivel eyed loons.

I believe that I described the number as significant; significant because the number was unprecedented. And of course it is not necessarily just 11%, that is the number who bothered to sign the letter. It's not up to you to judge it though, it is up to the BBC. 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.

I see that you make no defence of the ludicrous arguments you made in the rest of your post.

...and finally, the BBC stoking it up at the time:

Sun stoking it up https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1713078/moments-after-photo-of-teenage-gang-was-taken-an-innocent-polish-man-arek-jozwik-was-beaten-to-death/

Telegraph stoking it up

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/30/teenagers-held-in-murder-investigation-after-polish-man-dies-in/

Remoaner bastards

Sun stoking it up https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1713078/moments-after-photo-of-teenage-gang-was-taken-an-innocent-polish-man-arek-jozwik-was-beaten-to-death/

 

Telegraph stoking it up

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/30/teenagers-held-in-murder-investigation-after-polish-man-dies-in/

 

Remoaner bastards

GM not stoking it up

More official evidence on the rise of Brexiter violence:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...igures-confirm

Brexiter violence??? You are a total w@nker for linking hate crimes/violence to people that voted to leave the EU. The Home Office stated in a press briefing, that "the increase was largely a result of more people reporting hate crime and better police recording. "

Like I said, a total w@nker....

GM not stoking it up

Im referring to the supposed BBC bias. They reported what the police told them- just as the rest of the media did. There was no bias and no stoking.

Im referring to the supposed BBC bias. They reported what the police told them- just as the rest of the media did. There was no bias and no stoking.

Total ******. The police told them:

The widespread media are reporting this as a hate crime, but that is no more than one line of many inquiries that we're following. We must not jump to conclusions - let us do the investigation and get the facts right.

That didn't stop the tossers at the BBC from using the headline hate crime.

Anyone who truly believes BBC Brexit coverage isn't biased isn't being honest with themselves.

Has there ever been an unbiased media outlet ?

Total ******. The police told them:

 

 

That didn't stop the tossers at the BBC from using the headline hate crime.

You're full of it. The BBC reported exactly the same as the right wing media did. The one with the blinkers and bias is you

"This is the gang of ‘wild animals’ accused of beating a man to death for speaking Polish just moments before deadly attack" The Sun

"Family man, 40, 'beaten to death by a gang of teens' as brother claims he was killed after 'they heard him speaking in Polish' " Daily Mail

"Harlow 'hate crime' murder: Arek Jozwik's family devastated" BBC News

"Teenagers held in murder investigation after Polish man dies in suspected 'hate crime' " Daily Telegraph

You're full of it. The BBC reported exactly the same as the right wing media did. The one with the blinkers and bias is you

 

"This is the gang of ‘wild animals’ accused of beating a man to death for speaking Polish just moments before deadly attack" The Sun

 

"Family man, 40, 'beaten to death by a gang of teens' as brother claims he was killed after 'they heard him speaking in Polish' " Daily Mail

 

"Harlow 'hate crime' murder: Arek Jozwik's family devastated" BBC News

 

"Teenagers held in murder investigation after Polish man dies in suspected 'hate crime' " Daily Telegraph

Has there ever been an unbiased media outlet ?

No, never has been, never will be , and it's impossible to be. Which is what makes the BBC charter such a joke.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The quitters wouldn’t know bias if it bit them on the arse, their real gripe is that a world renowned broadcaster will not demean itself by following the rabid right wing press in demonising everything EU. Wes’s demand for optimism in their reporting is nothing more than a simple demand for bias in favour of the quitters charter. No news media is 100% reliable or accurate but to claim some institutional bias because there articles do not spout quitters propaganda is yet another example the quitters myopic view of the world. Most quitters posts are just a load of old pony from a bunch of snowflakes who favour autocracy over democratic debate.

Another div quoting News-Watch -well its Trident what do you expect.

If the emotive, breathless tone wasn't a dead giveaway of the organistion's prejudices, its unsubstantiated claims are. Where, for example, is evidence that the spike in hate crimes had "nothing at all" to do with Brexit but was the result of better self-reporting procedures?

Let's see: who to believe -a two man, right-wing media advocacy group or the National Police Chiefs’ lead on hate crime who, speaking in front of the Select Committee, attributed the post-referendum spike to a combination of factors: ""One, increased awareness, two, people reporting stuff that pre-referendum they wouldn't have reported because they weren't aware to do it, or just hadn't got the courage, and thirdly then, the prevalence of increased actual offending". Of course nobody is saying Brexit is singularly responsible –in part because anti-immigrant feeling pre-existed the referendum.

Regarding the incident in question, the BBC didn't say the death was racially motivated as a consequence of Brexit.

In full, “the fear is that this was a frenzied racist attack triggered by the Brexit referendum. But while detectives aren’t ruling that out, it may be that Akadiusz Jozwik wasn’t targeted because of his race, but simply because he was there when a group of youths was looking for trouble. People in the Stow shopping precinct said that teenagers had been causing havoc here all summer, and not just harassing Polish people. But worrying it could be a hate crime, the local MP made this appeal”.

Much ado about nothing, then. Well certainly not in proportion to News-Watch's sweeping allegations.

Of course, as the right-wing media at the time also reported the same as the BBC -often in much less qualified, tentative terms, I guess on Trident's addled logic, they’re helmets too.

Takes one to know one, I guess

The Remoaners wouldn't know bias if it hit them in the arse, their real denial is that a world renowned broadcaster would demean itself by following the rabid left-wing press in demonising everything Brexit. My demand for optimism in their reporting is only a simple request for some balance to the bias they show towards the Remoaners' position. No news media is 100% reliable or accurate, but to deny that there is institutional bias at the BBC although their articles spout Remoaner propaganda is yet another example of the Remoaners' blinkered view of the World. Most Remoaner posts are just a load of old pony, from a bunch of snowflakes who favour our country being governed by a supranational body instead of our own democratically parliament.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

The Remoaners wouldn't know bias if it hit them in the arse, their real denial is that a world renowned broadcaster would demean itself by following the rabid left-wing press in demonising everything Brexit. My demand for optimism in their reporting is only a simple request for some balance to the bias they show towards the Remoaners' position. No news media is 100% reliable or accurate, but to deny that there is institutional bias at the BBC although their articles spout Remoaner propaganda is yet another example of the Remoaners' blinkered view of the World. Most Remoaner posts are just a load of old pony, from a bunch of snowflakes who favour our country being governed by a supranational body instead of our own democratically parliament.

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?

The BBCs pro remain stance was obvious to me both before and after the result.

The BBCs pro remain stance was obvious to me both before and after the result.

#clincher

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?

The BBC has an inbuilt institutional bias against Brexit which inevitably influences its coverage. The positive economic news has been greeted with the inevitable 'despite Brexit' while the constant negative rumblings from the EU are highlighted and the opportunities it presents subdued. It is unprecedented that so many MPs, not just from one party, draft a letter to raise this issue of BBC bias.

Do you not think that it is rather telling that one of the authors of the letter was a former BBC Journalist who voted Remain. Verbal I think you might be being naïve.

The BBC has an inbuilt institutional bias against Brexit which inevitably influences its coverage. The positive economic news has been greeted with the inevitable 'despite Brexit' while the constant negative rumblings from the EU are highlighted and the opportunities it presents subdued. It is unprecedented that so many MPs, not just from one party, draft a letter to raise this issue of BBC bias.

 

Do you not think that it is rather telling that one of the authors of the letter was a former BBC Journalist who voted Remain. Verbal I think you might be being naïve.

What does "inbuilt institutional bias" mean in ordinary English? Is it like asbestos in the walls?

#guff

What does an inbuilt institutional bias in mean in ordinary English. Is it like asbestos in the walls?

 

#guff

It means that they probably did not have meetings about how to be biased it just came about because most of the people in the newsroom backed remain. I think that the Macpherson report first coined the phrase suggesting that the Met's processes were not racist but it was institutionally racist. I am surprised somebody of your intellectual stature cannot grasp that.

#clincher

Why can't you just be honest? Some parts of the media are obviously pro Brexit, I have no problem admitting that, the BBC clearly has a pro remain stance. Just because you remoaners lost, get over it.

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.

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.

So by giving equal time they favoured leave. **** me I have heard it all now.

So by giving equal time they favoured leave. **** me I have heard it all now.

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.