Let’s talk about BBC

[PurplePenguin]

Always?

"Sir Christopher Chope, Sid the Sexist, Roger Mellie and Gina Martin thank you for joining us.

Now Gina - you have been campaigning for the Government to introduce changes to the law that would allow prosecution of men who attach cameras to their shoes to take pictures up Women's skirts. You say it is invasive, demeaning and an invasion of privacy.

Over now to Sir Christopher who blocked the law, Roger and Sid for the pro-up skirting side of the argument.
Sid and Roger - you say it's just bloody women being over sensitive and there is no harm in taking pictures of their knickers or genitals without consent? Sir Christopher, presumably you are also in agreement?"

I feel like that's a decent example. Instead of assuming why Sir Chrisopher objected to the legislation, you could actually ask him/ find it out and then use that as the basis of the discussion. In this case, he claims a long standard objection to sneaking through legislation without debate on Friday afternoons. He says governments should put it through properly if they want it. Apparently, there are cases where he has allowed legislation to sneak through, so he could be asked about this apparent contradiction.

 

[First Aspect]

I always think it is valuable to hear the case for the defence.

Yes, but if you need a flat rather to do that in a debate about the configuration of the earth, objectivity can include noting that the majority of people accept that the earth is three dimensional.

The BBC doesn't do this.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Yes, but if you need a flat rather to do that in a debate about the configuration of the earth, objectivity can include noting that the majority of people accept that the earth is three dimensional.

The BBC doesn't do this.

Have you seen a flat earth debate on the BBC? Is it a topical matter?

 

[First Aspect]

Have you seen a flat earth debate on the BBC? Is it a topical matter?

It's a tropical matter, or how else do you explain the different climates?

 

[icowden]

I always seem to remember how it was once explained to me: If one group is arguing that it is currently raining whilst another vehemently disagreeing claiming it isn't raining then it is not a reporter's job to present both parties but instead to look out of the window and tell us if it is raining or not.

A far more succinct way of putting it than my mini play, but which illustrates the point I was trying to make. In a news discussion about an upskirting law being brought in, balance is not ensuring that the perverts side of the argument is heard!

This tends to be where BBC balance can be too extreme. That and the Jeremy Vine show.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I think I'm the outlier. I like to hear other people's points of views, and that even includes views on the upskirting bill.

 

[First Aspect]

.

I think I'm the outlier. I like to hear other people's points of views, and that even includes views on the upskirting bill.

You aren't you are just agreeing in a contrary way. It is very Rick Casey. You should probably change your password.

The BBC are at it today, with "conflicting accounts of what happened" in Minneapolis. As a point of fact, there are not conflicting accounts, because there are a plethora of self consistent videos of it.

There are conflicting *explanations* of why the woman was shot. But to suggest there is some doubt over the actual event is inviting a Rumsfeldian situation where there can be some facts that are alternatives to the facts.

 

[laurentian]

I think I'm the outlier. I like to hear other people's points of views, and that even includes views on the upskirting bill.

I think it was on here a few weeks ago when I saw a quote from Emily Maitlis on a podcast who said (words to the effect) that, during the Brexit debate, it took the BBC 5 minutes to find 60 economists who thought the economic outcome of Brexit would be disastrous but days(?) to find one who didn't. They gave equal airtime to both in order to appear "balanced".

I also like to hear the other point of view. It may be a point of view but the above doesn't look like balance to me.

 

[Pblakeney]

A far more succinct way of putting it than my mini play, but which illustrates the point I was trying to make. In a news discussion about an upskirting law being brought in, balance is not ensuring that the perverts side of the argument is heard!

This tends to be where BBC balance can be too extreme. That and the Jeremy Vine show.

The Jeremy Vine show is different as it's whole point of existence is to generate outrage.
Get two extreme opinions and the outraged on either side will phone in. (My wife watches it 😢)

 

[PurplePenguin]

.
You aren't you are just agreeing in a contrary way. It is very Rick Casey. You should probably change your password.

The BBC are at it today, with "conflicting accounts of what happened" in Minneapolis. As a point of fact, there are not conflicting accounts, because there are a plethora of self consistent videos of it.

There are conflicting *explanations* of why the woman was shot. But to suggest there is some doubt over the actual event is inviting a Rumsfeldian situation where there can be some facts that are alternatives to the facts.

I'm just different to you, that's all. I'm not an expert on every subject.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I think it was on here a few weeks ago when I saw a quote from Emily Maitlis on a podcast who said (words to the effect) that, during the Brexit debate, it took the BBC 5 minutes to find 60 economists who thought the economic outcome of Brexit would be disastrous but days(?) to find one who didn't. They gave equal airtime to both in order to appear "balanced".

I also like to hear the other point of view. It may be a point of view but the above doesn't look like balance to me.

I don't think interviewing two economists is ever likely to be useful. Not least, because you are likely to get three opinions.

 

[First Aspect]

I'm just different to you, that's all. I'm not an expert on every subject.

That's because you don't understand how a forum works.

 

[Stevo 666]

.
You aren't you are just agreeing in a contrary way. It is very Rick Casey.

I thought it was Rick Chasey with the silent 'p' rather than the silent 'h'?

 

[Psamathe]

I suspect he'll retire like John Simpson, if he's made to feel unwelcome. He's 66 now.

And with more than enough understanding and experience to be authoring many specialist non-fiction books.

 

[Pross]

The Jeremy Vine show is different as it's whole point of existence is to generate outrage.
Get two extreme opinions and the outraged on either side will phone in. (My wife watches it 😢)

Your wife watches a radio show?

I don't really understand why Radio 2 has his show. They have Radio 4 and Radio 5 for news and current affairs including chances for audience participation. I don't listen to Radio 2 much these days since their best presenters moved in the equality farce a few years ago but when I did it would get switched over or off at midday when Vine came on. In general, the quality of radio goes down once members of the public are invited to air their views (or phone in to pick a song whilst driving up for a weekend drinking prosecco in the Lake District - seriously, in this age of easy streaming why would anyone bother calling to request a song and bore us all with their weekend plans whilst giggling about consuming copious amounts of sparkling wine?)

Anyway, there goes my New Year's Resolution to be less grumpy!