1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

The BBC - it really isn't good enough.

Discussion in 'News' started by Jonntyboy, Jun 6, 2020.

  1. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    How much lower can they sink? Using death to make political capital. They just keep on and on. And this is supposed to be a trusted, impartial national broadcaster - the best in the world. Maybe it was, once.

    What a shame that we have now to dig around all kinds of websites so we can have a vague stab at an educated guess as to what really might be happening out there...

  2. lindenlea

    lindenlea Star commenter

    OK this is a knock the BBC thread but before it all goes Opinion let me say that Jane Garvey, Jim Al Kahlili , Evan Davies, Justin Webb, Martha Kearney, Paul Lewis, Winifred Robinson and many more have the voices that keep me sane.
    ridleyrumpus, steely1 and geminiteach like this.
  3. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    Good point.

    Guido Fawkes will be my go-to place for trusted and impartial news in the future. Guido should be appointed the new national broadcaster and all those leftie traitors to the people at the BBC locked up somewhere the sun don't shine.
  4. jonnymarr

    jonnymarr Occasional commenter

    Did you actually watch the programme before falling for the Guido Fawkes propaganda?

    Nick Watt, discussing the accuracy of the stats immediately after this widely circulated ( not initially by the BBC ) graphic was shown:
    "But it is important to add a few words of caution. There is a two-week lag between the UK and France and Italy, that had the highest death rates in the EU. You have to be very careful about comparing deaths between two countries which obviously compile them in a different way and that UK overnight figure, 359, that's for the deaths registered in that period not deaths that actually took place in that period.'

    All very balanced and grown up from the BBC and in accordance with their remit - discussing the validity of the stat and casting doubt on what we can/can't read into it. That's in complete contrast to Mr Staines and his so-ironic-it's-untrue 'fake-news-busting' Guido Fawkes website.

    There are countries ( like Spain ) who seem to be playing fast and loose with their stats, That is not ok, but then neither is the UK government being entirely frank and honest with us either. The ONS has lambasted the government for its partial use of stats to hide its failings. They have not / are not handling this crisis well and the strategy is becoming Trumpian - blame the media for fake news and bias and get your attack dogs to launch ad hom attacks via social media on anyone who dares question them.
    Andy13uk and crocked like this.
  5. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    Yep. I try to watch as much political stuff on the BBC as I can, which isn't much, but probably enough to give me an idea of where they are coming from.

    Which is, like the rest of the left and the Guardian-readers, from a position where anything they can find to use, abuse, twist or slant in order to attack the government (which has certainly made mistakes - as has every other government) will be gratefully received and promoted.

    If you honestly can't see that, then there is really no point discussing it further. I suppose we all refuse to see what we don't want to see in some cases...
  6. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    I agree about Winifred Robinson. She comes over on R4 as one of the most competent and fair interviewers they have. Paul Lewis is also generally good, IMO.
    lindenlea likes this.
  7. jonnymarr

    jonnymarr Occasional commenter

    So fingers in ears then? If you watched it, why impugn the impartiality of the BBC when nothing of the sort happened and spread nonsense from someone with a known bias like Guido Fawkes and try to pass it off as 'objective' reporting? To be perfectly honest, I think you've embarrassed yourself with this thread. If you can't see that, then you're right - there is no point discussing it further.
  8. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    Ignoring the sarcasm, which I appreciated and enjoy :) I'll make a serious point.

    Don't do that. Using a single source will not give you an unbiased selection of news. GF is generally well-written, but is biased towards the conservatives.

    However, one advantage is that it offers links to many other sites where you can read quite a good variety of interesting articles on many topics, not all political.

    Another is that it has a fairly regular habit of coming up with items and facts that puncture the self-important - which most people would probably enjoy reading - and it often shows up the hypocrisy of the left - e.g. stories about the social distancing rule being broken by those on the left as well as on the right - stories which were generally, of course, ignored by the BBC and the Guardian, who naturally only wanted to go after Dom Cummings.

    So I suggest that it should be just one of several news sources, of the right and the left, for everyone. It's a good thing to get a variety because you have more chance of finding some kind of balanced idea of what actually may be happening. I watch both CNN and Fox, I read Vox and GF, I listen to the World Service - the BBC's best by far - and read the SCMP, I dip into websites from the Morning Star, to the Daily Telegraph, the TImes, the Express and the Mirror.

    I confess I don't often read the Guardian though. I don't mind honest left-wing views, but I detest the hypocrisy of champagne socialists. Like this one... I'd put money on her reading The G!
  9. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    So, you can't see the bias? Or perhaps don't want to see it? Either way, as I said, there's no point discussing it further. I will never convince you. You will never convince me.
  10. jonnymarr

    jonnymarr Occasional commenter

    Seriously, what bias?
    Emily M says, 'It's a startling statistic' and the correspondent replies with, in effect, 'Yes, but hang on...' and reels off the reasons why you need to treat such stats with caution. They then go on to discuss why some ( predominantly Tory MPs it should be noted ) have questioned the travel quarantine restrictions when we are one of the countries with relatively high infection rates and deaths and others in Europe are much lower - a seemingly incongruous decision.
    Read the transcript I provided. Re-watch the show. It's still there on iplayer. There is no bias here.
    Guido Fawkes / Mr Staines on the other hand screams 'Fake News' when he is the one spreading the fake news and suggesting this is another example of BBC bias when it is nothing of the sort.
    I have nothing against you personally ( obviously ) but I do think we have a duty to stand up for objectivity and the thread you started clearly did not do that. Yes, of course I agree that the left-of-centre press get it wrong sometimes - the readiness to believe & report on the second of the so-called Dominic Cummings 'sightings' was both ridiculous and unprofessional. Why the Observer/Mirror saw fit to publish that uncorroborated nonsense I'll never know. If nothing else it undermined the bits that were true. However, a Guido Fawkes social media post being used as 'evidence' of how low the BBC have sunk / that they're biased and trying to make political capital out of Covid deaths? [ your words ] Come off it.
    sxhudson likes this.
  11. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    And in case anyone doesn't believe in BBC left-liberal bias and won't take my word for it - very wise! - listen to someone who has spent 50 years within it.

  12. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    Liberal bias at the BBC I'll grant. Left? Nope. Look at the hatchet job they did on Jeremy Corbyn.
  13. jonnymarr

    jonnymarr Occasional commenter

    That's your answer? If so, it would be this.

    The stat they presented was 'true' in that these were indeed the death figures reported country-by-country - Newsnight did not invent them. They were being discussed on social media during the day. This was a legitimate topic for Newsnight to tackle ( if only to get to some truth about how reliable or not they were ) EM started by saying the figures looked 'startling' but then immediately NW gave lengthy caveats as to why they were not reliable and should be treated with caution. Both Emily Maitlis and Nick Watt did their jobs. I'm genuinely surprised you can't see that. It's as if the mere fact that they discussed it at all offends you. I mean, how dare they?

    Some people then went on to ignore the caveats rightly given in the programme and (wilfully?) mis-represented that segment of Newsnight. Criticise those people by all means, eg David Lammy MP on QT who did not explain it fully - which was a mistake on several levels - and gave Nadhim Zahawi an opportunity to use it to discredit the rest of his (valid) point by using the spurious argument of 'if we cheated the figures like Spain do...' conveniently neglecting to mention that the other EU27 members do not cheat the figures like Spain do...

    ... but if you criticise government opponents for mis-using it, in the spirit of fairness you'll also have to criticise your 'source' Guido Fawkes, because Mr Staines has flagrantly misrepresented the reporting on the BBC and you've passed it on, adding your own 'outrage' for good measure. I sincerely hope you might re-consider with hindsight whether that was the right thing to do.
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2020
  14. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    agathamorse likes this.
  15. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

  16. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    I don't consider very much the envelope; it's the message that is important. The doctor to whose article I linked could have been detailing his evidence and making his points on Mumsnet for all I care.

    But if you have evidence that his argument was false, no doubt you'll let us have it.

    (And if you really believe that the BBC is unbiased, that is your right and I'm happy for you.)
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
    agathamorse likes this.
  17. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    Oh I believe the BBC is biased, I just think the idea that the bias is anti-government is laughable.

    As for the doctor he's speculating based on very little evidence. His speculation that a lot of the deaths attributed to the virus are actually due to lockdown is unevidenced and doesn't explain the age disparity in the excess death figures which match the pattern of deaths provably from covid-19.
    jonnymarr likes this.
  18. jonnymarr

    jonnymarr Occasional commenter

    1. Readers of this thread will make up their own mind about that.

    2. What exactly do you think the doctor in the Spectator is saying? He's not claiming 'overcounting' he's calling for clarity ( re-read it carefully )

    Well, not false, because he's not claiming what you appear to be claiming he is, but if you think we're overcounting covid in the excess death figures, think again.

    June 5th:
    Office for National Statistics (ONS) statisticians said undiagnosed cases were a 'likely explanation' for many of the 13,000 excess deaths not directly linked to Covid-19
    agathamorse likes this.
  19. Ivanhoe

    Ivanhoe New commenter

    Given the choice between reading your posts and listening to and watching BBC shows, I know what I would choose.
    Marisha, DonutBoy99 and BillyBobJoe like this.
  20. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    That suits us both then, as you won't be being asked to read or listen to anything that you disagree with and therefore can avoid any chance of being offended, and I won't feel the need to simplify my posts to allow for any possible inability to grasp the salient points.
    agathamorse likes this.

Share This Page