UKIP Given A Place On The Leaders' Debates For UK GE

[HenryLB]

So you do accept his findings then? That the BBC weren't fair and impartial and that their reporting of the referendum campaign was biased towards one side?

I accept he has uncovered some very anodyne - and likely inconsequential and unintentional - facets of the BBC's coverage.

This is quite different to the picture painted by a lot of people in the Yes campaign, who seem to think they were up against a Pravda-style assault on their civil liberties coordinated by a state broadcaster in league with David Cameron, the City of London, and Satan himself. That every item the BBC put out was composed of a tissue of lies and only stopped just short of claiming that Alex Salmond was a paedophile and independence a certain descent into penury.

That a lot of these people are middle-aged white men who previously failed to find bias anywhere in the BBC's output is worth remarking on, but not directly relevant.

 

[Shades]

I accept he has uncovered some very anodyne - and likely inconsequential and unintentional - facets of the BBC's coverage.This is quite different to the picture painted by a lot of people in the Yes campaign, who seem to think they were up against a Pravda-style assault on their civil liberties coordinated by a state broadcaster in league with David Cameron, the City of London, and Satan himself. That every item the BBC put out was composed of a tissue of lies and only stopped just short of claiming that Alex Salmond was a paedophile and independence a certain descent into penury.That a lot of these people are middle-aged white men who previously failed to find bias anywhere in the BBC's output is worth remarking on, but not directly relevant.

So "Yes", then.

 

[Dub]

I accept he has uncovered some very anodyne - and likely inconsequential and unintentional - facets of the BBC's coverage.

This is quite different to the picture painted by a lot of people in the Yes campaign, who seem to think they were up against a Pravda-style assault on their civil liberties coordinated by a state broadcaster in league with David Cameron, the City of London, and Satan himself. That every item the BBC put out was composed of a tissue of lies and only stopped just short of claiming that Alex Salmond was a paedophile and independence a certain descent into penury.

I'm thinking that you are taking comments made by YES campaigners with a pinch of salt whilst simulaneously building these comments up in your mind to the dizzying heights you mention just so that you can rail against them.

That a lot of these people are middle-aged white men who previously failed to find bias anywhere in the BBC's output is worth remarking on, but not directly relevant.

It isnt remotely worth remarking on unless you can show how anyone could see bias in the BBCs coverage of the referendum before there was a referendum.

 

[HenryLB]

So "Yes", then.

I suppose. But since nobody knows who he is and his findings are utterly inconsequential, I guess the matter of degree remains of some importance.

 

[HenryLB]

I'm thinking that you are taking comments made by YES campaigners with a pinch of salt whilst simulaneously building these comments up in your mind to the dizzying heights you mention just so that you can rail against them.

I'm thinking you're building up minuscule facets of the coverage to suggest the BBC operated a concerted, biased campaign designed to favour a No vote. Sorry, but I don't think that occurred.

It isnt remotely worth remarking on unless you can show how anyone could see bias in the BBCs coverage of the referendum before there was a referendum.

It's interesting though. The BBC was a favourite of liberal Scottish males of a certain age just a few months ago. Now it's an apparently depraved organisation in hock to big business and political paymasters. Something changed, and I doubt it was the corporation.

 

[Dub]

I'm thinking you're building up minuscule facets of the coverage to suggest the BBC operated a concerted, biased campaign designed to favour a No vote. Sorry, but I don't think that occurred.




It's interesting though. The BBC was a favourite of liberal Scottish males of a certain age just a few months ago. Now it's an apparently depraved organisation in hock to big business and political paymasters. Something changed, and I doubt it was the corporation.

Touche on point 1

As to point 2 - The BBCs presentation of the referendum campaigns was biased and this was seen by more than the people who fit your demographic in Scotland. However, nobody is saying that the BBC has suddenly become a depraved monster, rather that it did not act in a fair way when reporting on the referendum.

 

[HenryLB]

Touche on point 1

As to point 2 - The BBCs presentation of the referendum campaigns was biased and this was seen by more than the people who fit your demographic in Scotland. However, nobody is saying that the BBC has suddenly become a depraved monster, rather that it did not act in a fair way when reporting on the referendum.

Fair enough. Although I do think some people are actually suggesting the BBC acted if not like a depraved monster, at least maliciously, and with malice aforethought.

My point about the demographic is, I admit, not that germane. But aesthetically speaking I find it a bit odd that this is (for some people) the crime of the century, a vicious assault on human rights. When most of those people are frankly relatively well off. And suddenly something doesn't go their way and it's like the sky fell in.

 

[Shades]

Fair enough. Although I do think some people are actually suggesting the BBC acted if not like a depraved monster, at least maliciously, and with malice aforethought. My point about the demographic is, I admit, not that germane. But aesthetically speaking I find it a bit odd that this is (for some people) the crime of the century, a vicious assault on human rights. When most of those people are frankly relatively well off. And suddenly something doesn't go their way and it's like the sky fell in.

When the state broadcaster, funded by the viewers, doesn't give those people the information without favour then it's a pretty serious issue. It was a referendum on the future governance of the country. People were entitled to get the information they needed to make an informed decision in a fair and balanced manner from the BBC.

 

[KevR14]

Jeez, frankly having difficulty believing your view here Henry.

The first time the frame of our settlement is challenged at such a profound level and you think there is no problem here, move along.

The BBC were biased as per his report. Subjectively, I believe it is utterly biased in favour of the Union, and the establishment.

As for the demographic reference - you've got nothing here. Other than bateman a about face once having worked there.

 

[HenryLB]

When the state broadcaster, funded by the viewers, doesn't give those people the information without favour then it's a pretty serious issue. It was a referendum on the future governance of the country. People were entitled to get the information they needed to make an informed decision in a fair and balanced manner from the BBC.

I'd say they largely got it. The fact that you didn't agree with it doesn't make it seriously unbalanced. Nor does a piffling few bits about Alex Salmond occasionally being mentioned in person or "No" arguments getting to go first.

 

[HenryLB]

Jeez, frankly having difficulty believing your view here Henry.

The first time the frame of our settlement is challenged at such a profound level and you think there is no problem here, move along.

I don't think there's no problem here. There is no problem here, at least as you identify it. Because anything short of a complete endorsement of independence would have seemed 'unbalanced' to you.

The BBC were biased as per his report. Subjectively, I believe it is utterly biased in favour of the Union, and the establishment.

His report shows the most anodyne of "bias", hardly enough to merit the word. Plus he's a supporter of independence himself so I'd wonder about his data (although he seems like a good guy).

In my opinion the BBC were caught on the hop by the referendum, and surprised by the dimensions it assumed and the engagement it created. But then so were quite a lot of the people who voted in it.

They then responded as they always do. A bit clunkily, with a generally liberal but rather lumpen and journalistically old fashioned methodology. They didn't particularly understand what was going on, or they did so late. But as I say so did a lot of the people involved. When they did assume a 'line' on it what were they to do? Indications were that half the country thought independence a bad idea, so even if they were just supposed to reflect opinion as it was, they didn't do anything egregiously wrong by reflecting exactly that opinion.

As for the demographic reference - you've got nothing here. Other than bateman a about face once having worked there.

What's bateman a about face?

 

[southfieldhibby]

I'd say they largely got it. The fact that you didn't agree with it doesn't make it seriously unbalanced. Nor does a piffling few bits about Alex Salmond occasionally being mentioned in person or "No" arguments getting to go first.

I found it quite telling this week, on the day The SNP agreed to their 1st female leader and 1st minister of Scotland, an opportunity for The BBC to do a detailed doc on her rise to the post of most powerful person at Holyrood and what do they do? Show a doc on Jackie Birds 25 years as a TV presenter instead.

Standard.

 

[HenryLB]

I found it quite telling this week, on the day The SNP agreed to their 1st female leader and 1st minister of Scotland, an opportunity for The BBC to do a detailed doc on her rise to the post of most powerful person at Holyrood and what do they do? Show a doc on Jackie Birds 25 years as a TV presenter instead.

Standard.

A "detailed doc" takes quite a bit of time to make. Since she was only floated as such a couple of days ago you might give them more than 48 hours to knock something together.

 

[southfieldhibby]

A "detailed doc" takes quite a bit of time to make. Since she was only floated as such a couple of days ago you might give them more than 48 hours to knock something together.

Salmond announced he was ditching a month ago.It was pretty obvious to most that Sturgeon was going to replace him, unless anyone can suggest another option superior within The SNP?

The BBC (in Scotland, not sure if news of Salmond resigning has hit London yet) knew well in advance of 48 hours, to suggest otherwise betrays your intelligence.

 

[Dub]

Salmond announced he was ditching a month ago.It was pretty obvious to most that Sturgeon was going to replace him, unless anyone can suggest another option superior within The SNP?

The BBC (in Scotland, not sure if news of Salmond resigning has hit London yet) knew well in advance of 48 hours, to suggest otherwise betrays your intelligence.

It's pretty clear to me that our 'enry views the world through london centric eyes and to be honest I think you are wasting your fingertips trying to convince him that you might even remotely be correct in what you say.

You're a middle age, white scottish male and therefore your views are prejudiced against the BBC :laff:

 

[HenryLB]

Salmond announced he was ditching a month ago.It was pretty obvious to most that Sturgeon was going to replace him, unless anyone can suggest another option superior within The SNP?

The BBC (in Scotland, not sure if news of Salmond resigning has hit London yet) knew well in advance of 48 hours, to suggest otherwise betrays your intelligence.

So because the BBC were not painstakingly creating a detailed documentary on someone who might become the next leader of the SNP in the months running up to her potential assumption of power they are biased?

Even if they started the day Salmond relinquished power, the amount of research and interviews required would be prohibitive in that time. Imagine trying to set up talks with the key figures in her life, direct interviews that pretended she had become leader (which is now against the BBC code of practice I believe), talk to her in depth, write, record and edit the whole thing in a few weeks.

It's just about possible, but not exactly redolent of bias that they didn't do it. Especially given that she was only actually confirmed yesterday.

 

[KevR14]

I don't think there's no problem here. There is no problem here, at least as you identify it. Because anything short of a complete endorsement of independence would have seemed 'unbalanced' to you.



His report shows the most anodyne of "bias", hardly enough to merit the word. Plus he's a supporter of independence himself so I'd wonder about his data (although he seems like a good guy).

In my opinion the BBC were caught on the hop by the referendum, and surprised by the dimensions it assumed and the engagement it created. But then so were quite a lot of the people who voted in it.

They then responded as they always do. A bit clunkily, with a generally liberal but rather lumpen and journalistically old fashioned methodology. They didn't particularly understand what was going on, or they did so late. But as I say so did a lot of the people involved. When they did assume a 'line' on it what were they to do? Indications were that half the country thought independence a bad idea, so even if they were just supposed to reflect opinion as it was, they didn't do anything egregiously wrong by reflecting exactly that opinion.




What's bateman a about face?

Henry, that's incredibly presumptuous in the first instance. In my opinion the BBC was heavily biased. Secondly you impugn my integrity to suggest that unless it was full Independence I would've seen it as biased.

I've given no suggestion of my view prior to entering this thread. I'm sure your anonymity is for a reason but you know what, it stinks. If you have a view and you believe in it, man up, come out and say hello, stop hiding.

Professor Robertson came out for Indy after he received a great deal of pressure not least from the BBC to his institution.

The BBC were a disgrace in their dealings with pro-indy supporters. They did not respond "clunkily" they responded as the slick news management organisation they are. Further they shaped opinion, as they always do and the sheer size of their organisation enables them to mediate facts via editorialising heavily.

Derek Bateman was a former employee of the BBC. As you knew i'd guess.

You're wrong "Henry" but not only that you've been rude. Absolutely no need for that whatsoever. It's gratuitous, unless....

 

[KevR14]

It's pretty clear to me that our 'enry views the world through london centric eyes and to be honest I think you are wasting your fingertips trying to convince him that you might even remotely be correct in what you say.

You're a middle age, white scottish male and therefore your views are prejudiced against the BBC :laff:

Yes, you're not wrong. In my albeit brief exchange I've found him to be rude, arrogant and needlessly secretive. Still, keyboard warriors, what can you do?

 

[southfieldhibby]

So because the BBC were not painstakingly creating a detailed documentary on someone who might become the next leader of the SNP in the months running up to her potential assumption of power they are biased?

Even if they started the day Salmond relinquished power, the amount of research and interviews required would be prohibitive in that time. Imagine trying to set up talks with the key figures in her life, direct interviews that pretended she had become leader (which is now against the BBC code of practice I believe), talk to her in depth, write, record and edit the whole thing in a few weeks.

It's just about possible, but not exactly redolent of bias that they didn't do it. Especially given that she was only actually confirmed yesterday.

This either devils advocate stuff or a reasonable reflection on London-centric opinion not taking into consideration the abilities of BBC Scotland and their pretty significant poole of journalists/historic recordings.

To use a bit of whatifery, say Salmond had eaten one too many pies at Tynecastle and snuffed it.Would The BBC not be able to create some kind of indepth doc on his life and his successor within the same time frame?

 

[HenryLB]

It's pretty clear to me that our 'enry views the world through london centric eyes

Either that or I actually have some idea of how TV is made. One of the two ;)

and to be honest I think you are wasting your fingertips trying to convince him that you might even remotely be correct in what you say.

Explain to me how you would have gone about commissioning and making this "detailed documentary" in the time they had.

I suspect that accusations of bias could have been made if the BBC had started to make something about an unconfirmed potential leader weeks ago. The organs of the state mobilising to support the coronation of an unelected FM before it was even confirmed? Doesn't look good does it?

You're a middle age, white scottish male and therefore your views are prejudiced against the BBC :laff:

I didn't say that. I said that it's instructive watching people who are basically pretty privileged get all shirty when things suddenly don't go their way. Purely because they assume the language of the oppressed at a speed which is frankly amusing.

You've just done it there, in fact.

- - - Updated - - -

This either devils advocate stuff or a reasonable reflection on London-centric opinion not taking into consideration the abilities of BBC Scotland and their pretty significant poole of journalists/historic recordings.

To use a bit of whatifery, say Salmond had eaten one too many pies at Tynecastle and snuffed it.Would The BBC not be able to create some kind of indepth doc on his life and his successor within the same time frame?

It's neither. As I said to Dub I'd see bias far more quickly in a state broadcaster seemingly endorsing the appointment of an unelected First Minister weeks before any official announcement.

On Salmond, it depends what you mean by in depth. But it's different anyway, as he is an incumbent and significantly more noteworthy so I suspect some sort of "living obit" is kept warm. But a proper retrospective? It wouldn't be simple in the time frame, but it would be easier because more archive would be available (essentially the 'rise to power' bit is probably just an edit. With Sturgeon it's a research/shoot/edit job) and due to the circumstances more resources would be given to it.

It also wouldn't include anything except a passing mention of Sturgeon because it would be about him, not her.

 

[Dub]

Either that or I actually have some idea of how TV is made. One of the two ;)



Explain to me how you would have gone about commissioning and making this "detailed documentary" in the time they had.

I suspect that accusations of bias could have been made if the BBC had started to make something about an unconfirmed potential leader weeks ago. The organs of the state mobilising to support the coronation of an unelected FM before it was even confirmed? Doesn't look good does it?



I didn't say that. I said that it's instructive watching people who are basically pretty privileged get all shirty when things suddenly don't go their way. Purely because they assume the language of the oppressed at a speed which is frankly amusing.

You've just done it there, in fact.

In which case you will know that news isnt made its reported as fact and it's leanings depend on who is doing the reporting. The BBC has a duty to be unbiased which I'm sure you will agree is right and proper. Except they werent when it came to reporting the referendum.

Also, I have no idea how long it takes to make a documentary but as Southfield says, if [for example] Salmond had died suddenly, the bbc would have been able to put a documentary or biopic about him well within 48 hours. If they can do it when someone pegs it they can do it for a living person surely so perhaps it is the will they lack and not the expertise or the time.

 

[KevR14]

In which case you will know that news isnt made its reported as fact and it's leanings depend on who is doing the reporting. The BBC has a duty to be unbiased which I'm sure you will agree is right and proper. Except they werent when it came to reporting the referendum.

Also, I have no idea how long it takes to make a documentary but as Southfield says, if [for example] Salmond had died suddenly, the bbc would have been able to put a documentary or biopic about him well within 48 hours. If they can do it when someone pegs it they can do it for a living person surely so perhaps it is the will they lack and not the expertise or the time.

It takes an hour to do a piece in conversation with someone. I do it around four hours a week. Tv is not that complicated particularly when you have 100's of millions of 's in the pot. Claims otherwise are a vanity. I know of two people right now who are doing Referendum documentaries on a shoestring.

 

[HenryLB]

Henry, that's incredibly presumptuous in the first instance. In my opinion the BBC was heavily biased. Secondly you impugn my integrity to suggest that unless it was full Independence I would've seen it as biased.

Okay. In that case I apologise for making an assumption. Although I have to say it seems fairly reasonable.

At what point short of endorsement of your views would you consider the BBC to have adequately exhibited 'balance'?

I've given no suggestion of my view prior to entering this thread.

I was going on what you say in this thread.

I'm sure your anonymity is for a reason but you know what, it stinks. If you have a view and you believe in it, man up, come out and say hello, stop hiding.

What are you on about? Your name is KevR14 as far as I know. I am conversing with two people called Dub and Southfield Hibby. I have a feeling that if I check the phone book none of you are going to be listed.

So I'm not sure my "anonymity" is an automatic indication of bad faith, especially given everyone I'm talking to is also anonymous.

Professor Robertson came out for Indy after he received a great deal of pressure not least from the BBC to his institution.

Did they mass outside it shouting and waving pitchforks? Or did they just phone him up and ask him?

The BBC were a disgrace in their dealings with pro-indy supporters. They did not respond "clunkily" they responded as the slick news management organisation they are.

Not according to the piece 1875 showed me a couple of weeks ago. Stuart Cosgrove and some other dude rattled on almost exclusively about how their bias was shaped by their traditional "big footprint" style being inadequate for the scenario. I rather agree.

Further they shaped opinion, as they always do and the sheer size of their organisation enables them to mediate facts via editorialising heavily.

I think the truth is almost the exact opposite. The sheer size of the organisation prevents them from mediating a clear message.

I suppose you might say their size affords them a certain reach. But I repeat, what were they to do? Half - indeed over half - the electorate thought that there were significant risks in independence. Are you suggesting they should not have reflected this?

Derek Bateman was a former employee of the BBC. As you knew i'd guess.

I still have no idea what a "bateman a about face" is. Or indeed the relevance of this to what I wrote.

You're wrong "Henry" but not only that you've been rude. Absolutely no need for that whatsoever. It's gratuitous, unless....

What do you mean "Henry"? My name is Henry, "KevR14"

I struggle to pick up the rudeness you're alluding to. I haven't called you names (as you have with me) or hypocritically accused you of doing something which I'm doing myself (responding anonymously).

If you are offended by my assumption of your views on bias then as I say I'm sorry, and I invite you to provide more detail.

 

[Smurf]

I found it quite telling this week, on the day The SNP agreed to their 1st female leader and 1st minister of Scotland, an opportunity for The BBC to do a detailed doc on her rise to the post of most powerful person at Holyrood and what do they do? Show a doc on Jackie Birds 25 years as a TV presenter instead.

Standard.

I was cringing and thought I'd been drugged when that Jackie Bird programme came on Scotland 2014.... I mean seriously WTF?!?

The announcement and coverage of Sturgeon winning has been flat and subdued? I hope when she becomes First Minister she is given the justified recognition and coverage by the beeb.

 

[KevR14]

Okay. In that case I apologise for making an assumption. Although I have to say it seems fairly reasonable.

At what point short of endorsement of your views would you consider the BBC to have adequately exhibited 'balance'?



I was going on what you say in this thread.



What are you on about? Your name is KevR14 as far as I know. I am conversing with two people called Dub and Southfield Hibby. I have a feeling that if I check the phone book none of you are going to be listed.

So I'm not sure my "anonymity" is an automatic indication of bad faith, especially given everyone I'm talking to is also anonymous.



Did they mass outside it shouting and waving pitchforks? Or did they just phone him up and ask him?



Not according to the piece 1875 showed me a couple of weeks ago. Stuart Cosgrove and some other dude rattled on almost exclusively about how their bias was shaped by their traditional "big footprint" style being inadequate for the scenario. I rather agree.



I think the truth is almost the exact opposite. The sheer size of the organisation prevents them from mediating a clear message.

I suppose you might say their size affords them a certain reach. But I repeat, what were they to do? Half - indeed over half - the electorate thought that there were significant risks in independence. Are you suggesting they should not have reflected this?



I still have no idea what a "bateman a about face" is. Or indeed the relevance of this to what I wrote.



What do you mean "Henry"? My name is Henry, "KevR14"

I struggle to pick up the rudeness you're alluding to. I haven't called you names (as you have with me) or hypocritically accused you of doing something which I'm doing myself (responding anonymously).

If you are offended by my assumption of your views on bias then as I say I'm sorry, and I invite you to provide more detail.

My name is Kevin Robertson, Henry. What's yours?

 

[HenryLB]

In which case you will know that news isnt made its reported as fact and it's leanings depend on who is doing the reporting. The BBC has a duty to be unbiased which I'm sure you will agree is right and proper. Except they werent when it came to reporting the referendum.

Also, I have no idea how long it takes to make a documentary but as Southfield says, if [for example] Salmond had died suddenly, the bbc would have been able to put a documentary or biopic about him well within 48 hours. If they can do it when someone pegs it they can do it for a living person surely so perhaps it is the will they lack and not the expertise or the time.

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on the first point. I do actually think there was a sort of unconscious and structural bias. But calculated and acute? Sorry, I don't see it.

See my answer to Southfield above. You're talking about two quite different things. And you're suggesting they send in a large number of researchers, producers and crew onto a project to make a doc about someone who hasn't even been selected yet. That would have me asking questions about the impartiality of their processes, personally.

 

[southfieldhibby]

I was cringing and thought I'd been drugged when that Jackie Bird programme came on Scotland 2014.... I mean seriously WTF?!?

The announcement and coverage of Sturgeon winning has been flat and subdued? I hope when she becomes First Minister she is given the justified recognition and coverage by the beeb.

I see her roadshow sold out* in hours, 20,000 tickets for 4/5 venues.
*no actual money was involved, but you get the idea.

I had an MSP in the shop a couple of days ago, they expect membership of The SNP to top 130,000 in a fortnight.He told me there's piles and piles of applications still being sifted thru.

Get on board Kenny.

 

[Gareth]

Did they mass outside it shouting and waving pitchforks? Or did they just phone him up and ask him?

Just on that point, i saw the letter/report the BBC send to the profs bosses and it was a pretty clear attempt to silence him. He's lucky his bosses stood up to it as not all in HE would.

 

[HenryLB]

It takes an hour to do a piece in conversation with someone. I do it around four hours a week. Tv is not that complicated particularly when you have 100's of millions of 's in the pot. Claims otherwise are a vanity. I know of two people right now who are doing Referendum documentaries on a shoestring.

You're not asking for conversation pieces, but in-depth interviews with specific people, some of who will be hard even to trace and diarise. This requires a degree of manpower to carry out and research. Archive needs to be organised. It then needs to be edited, scripted and voiced, then graded and onlined.

And with respect (genuinely, because I also know lots of doc makers who work on pittance budgets) the sort of thing you are asking the BBC to put out - a professional, in-depth doc - is not achievable in a matter of days. The final product your acquaintances create may be as good as a BBC factual piece, but I guarantee it will take them a long time to make if it is.

And that's without my observation about starting something like this before an official announcement. Is it redolent of journalistic integrity to begin making a documentary about the rise to power of an unelected official before they have even announced their candidacy?

- - - Updated - - -

Just on that point, i saw the letter/report the BBC send to the profs bosses and it was a pretty clear attempt to silence him. He's lucky his bosses stood up to it as not all in HE would.

I'd really like to see it. Do you have a link or were you party to it in a private capacity?

 

[Gareth]

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on the first point. I do actually think there was a sort of unconscious and structural bias. But calculated and acute? Sorry, I don't see it.

Are they that easily differentiated? Journalists predominantly from very privileged backgrounds working for a British institution rally to the support of a threat to both. I don't think the head of news or whatever send a diktat but in some ways that makes it even worse as it means the whole institution behaved as expected, a kind of media panopticon.

See my answer to Southfield above. You're talking about two quite different things. And you're suggesting they send in a large number of researchers, producers and crew onto a project to make a doc about someone who hasn't even been selected yet. That would have me asking questions about the impartiality of their processes, personally.

While I don't see this as a major issue, there was a documentary a couple of months ago that featured Sturgeon quite heavily. I imagine much on her background etc had to be cut so much of the data would already be there.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd really like to see it. Do you have a link or were you party to it in a private capacity?

It was in a private capacity but you get a good flavour of it here
http://www.newsnetscotland.scot/index.php/scottish-opinion/8679-uws-academic-responds-to-bbc-scotland-criticism-of-indy-news-study

 

[HenryLB]

My name is Kevin Robertson, Henry. What's yours?

The Kevin Robertson!!?

I'm not going to give you my full name, although it probably wouldn't be hard to work out. 1875 I think knows it, and possibly StevieC.

I fail to see why my not doing so is suspect. Nobody else apart from you and Gareth has even given their first name. And I know you've been on the internet before, so you must have some notion of how it usually works

 

[Gareth]

. Nobody else apart from you and Gareth has even given their first name. And I know you've been on the internet before, so you must have some notion of how it usually works

Ahh, but how do you know this isn't some clever alias?
Getting to that time on a Friday I'm afraid

 

[Smurf]

I see her roadshow sold out* in hours, 20,000 tickets for 4/5 venues.
*no actual money was involved, but you get the idea.

I had an MSP in the shop a couple of days ago, they expect membership of The SNP to top 130,000 in a fortnight.He told me there's piles and piles of applications still being sifted thru.

Get on board Kenny.

Sorry Mark I just do not see at all why Scotland would be a better country independent. Therefore I cannae get on board!

 

[southfieldhibby]

Sorry Mark I just do not see at all why Scotland would be a better country independent. Therefore I cannae get on board!

Keep up Kenny!

Being an SNP member isn't about independence just now, it's about backing the only party positioned to look after Scotlands interests within the union.The two (current) main UK parties are focused on The UK as a whole, not it's constituent parts.

 

[Smurf]

Keep up Kenny!

Being an SNP member isn't about independence just now, it's about backing the only party positioned to look after Scotlands interests within the union.The two (current) main UK parties are focused on The UK as a whole, not it's constituent parts.

Circumstances have meant that I've had time on my hands this week so I watched live everything Scotland related in the House of Commons. There's honestly a fear amongst the SNP MP's that extra devolution is coming our way... Also why would I want to join a political party that in Holyrood has centralised all it can?

 

[southfieldhibby]

Circumstances have meant that I've had time on my hands this week so I watched live everything Scotland related in the House of Commons. There's honestly a fear amongst the SNP MP's that extra devolution is coming our way... Also why would I want to join a political party that in Holyrood has centralised all it can?

I'm just pulling yer chain mate, there's no place in my party for nouveau tories like you

I've not watched any of the debate this week, but I'm impressed by what you've been able to glean, which is more than any msm outlet have...they're been talking about West Lothian alot, not much else?

 

[Smurf]

I'm just pulling yer chain mate, there's no place in my party for nouveau tories like you

I've not watched any of the debate this week, but I'm impressed by what you've been able to glean, which is more than any msm outlet have...they're been talking about West Lothian alot, not much else?

That's the irony in all of this Mark. Having watched the debates I was surprised at the BBC spin that it was all EVEL... Not what I watched or heard!! Yrs

 

[HenryLB]

Are they that easily differentiated? Journalists predominantly from very privileged backgrounds working for a British institution rally to the support of a threat to both. I don't think the head of news or whatever send a diktat but in some ways that makes it even worse as it means the whole institution behaved as expected, a kind of media panopticon.

Interesting point. I think it does matter quite a lot though, because if there was genuine 'malice aforethought' that would be far more sinister and would suggest a relationship between British state and broadcaster that would unsettle almost anyone.

I also think it implies a difference of degree. The bias I saw was sort of watery and of a procedural kind. Not nearly as invasive as one would presumably see with a 'diktat'.

And most journalists at the BBC are not from very privileged backgrounds in the sense that they would be threatened by Scottish independence IMO.


[qoute]While I don't see this as a major issue, there was a documentary a couple of months ago that featured Sturgeon quite heavily. I imagine much on her background etc had to be cut so much of the data would already be there.

I'm amazed. I thought they were ignoring her? :rascal:

It was in a private capacity but you get a good flavour of it here
UWS academic responds to BBC Scotland criticism of indy news study

Thanks for the link. I haven't time to read the whole lot, but I can't see the attempt to silence him. Copying it to his boss is not that odd in the context of an official and lengthy response to a report like this.

Most of the bits I read in the BBC's criticism seem well-argued and valid. I note that the professor shows his hand when he claims to be purposely ignoring the news, but then admonishes the bbc for ignoring the considerable online debate. I would have thought he should be ignoring it too!

 

[KevR14]

Just on that point, i saw the letter/report the BBC send to the profs bosses and it was a pretty clear attempt to silence him. He's lucky his bosses stood up to it as not all in HE would.

[emoji106]good man. A more decent individual it would be hard to find.

 

[KevR14]

The Kevin Robertson!!?

I'm not going to give you my full name, although it probably wouldn't be hard to work out. 1875 I think knows it, and possibly StevieC.

I fail to see why my not doing so is suspect. Nobody else apart from you and Gareth has even given their first name. And I know you've been on the internet before, so you must have some notion of how it usually works

It's a very common name, so there are at least four other Kevin Robertson's I know of. But yes, I'm the one who established this site in its embryonic form with Bobby. If those two men of merit know you, then that's good enough for me. I don't agree with you Henry, not remotely. Still, all folk can really do is become the media, which I'm now doing. I didn't like bullshit being pedalled by the old regime on dot net, hence me and Bobby set the Bounce up. So it goes on.

Good luck to you.

Kevin