briantrumpet
Timewaster
Is the BBC now carrying party branding/colouring on chryons for all the political parties?
Let’s talk about BBC
- Thread starter Beebo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Some useful background/thoughts:
https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/why-did-bbc-breakfast-give-reform
"This is one of those editions of this newsletter where you might find yourself asking, “Why are you making such a big deal of this when there are so many other things going on?” There’s war in Iran, the ongoing fallout from Peter Mandelson’s sacking, Keir Starmer’s future, and a litany of other issues that I might cover here, but a small detail can provoke big questions.
While BBC News uses political party logos frequently, they are usually placed alongside those of their rivals or within bigger graphics that put them in context. Here, Reform’s logo was presented with the text of their proposals alone on the screen. In effect, it turned the segment into a miniature party political broadcast."
briantrumpet
Timewaster
First Aspect
Legendary Member
I was annoyed also. I think it's the most reform friendly way of saying that if 500 people come across one month, and 500 the next month, the number of migrants has increased.
Not ideal when in the same piece they talk about the rate of crossings.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
And, beyond that, on a national scale, these numbers are trivial. But, hey, let's keep everyone's 'legitimate concerns' bubbling away, as it keeps them tuning in.
CXRAndy
Epic Member
Have the crossings stopped?
Therefore the numbers are increasing. It doesn't matter whether its 100 or a 1000 a month. They all need to be deported back to France or their original country
icowden
Pharaoh
Not only that but crossings normally start to increase in April due to er... better weather for doing crossings.
Ian H
Shaman
I’ve been hearing so much anger and disappointment from frontline workers about the BBC investigation into fraudulent asylum claims. One of the most damning responses has come from one of the experts they interviewed, solicitor Ana Gonzalez. It’s really worth reading her response in full:
https://bsky.app/profile/natashawalter.bsky.social/post/3mka7galuek23
https://bsky.app/profile/natashawalter.bsky.social/post/3mka7galuek23
briantrumpet
Timewaster
I'd just seen that. The BBC pieces seemed to have been designed to enrage the xenophobes.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
I'm not just posting this because it agrees with my point about a good journalist not just repeating what they've been told, but actually making the effort to sift out untruths fed to them. This is from a one-time BBC journalist who thinks that Kuenssberg was a catastrophe, because she didn't sift at all, just repeated what she'd been told, but lays the blame at the managers for thinking that that's what her job was.
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/...l-editor-was-a-catastrophic-systemic-failure/
"She did what her bosses expected of her – as we all do. It should have been at least in part an analytical role, trusted to hold power to account. Yet, if the role had been conceived in this fashion, she would never have been awarded it in the first place. That is a systemic failure, and is the fault of BBC managers who didn’t think it was the BBC’s job to call out political mendacity.
Britain’s wrecked political system is one of the consequences of their failure to see that our national broadcaster needed to challenge political liars, rather than to amplify them.
That cohort of timid managers has now mostly moved on. The appointment of Kuenssberg’s successor will tell us a lot about the direction their successors now want to take.
There’s plenty of courage and integrity in the BBC’s journalism, as has been brilliantly demonstrated by its coverage of the war in Ukraine. It’s time for the BBC’s managers to show their mettle and embrace some of these same qualities in their coverage of domestic politics."
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/...l-editor-was-a-catastrophic-systemic-failure/
"She did what her bosses expected of her – as we all do. It should have been at least in part an analytical role, trusted to hold power to account. Yet, if the role had been conceived in this fashion, she would never have been awarded it in the first place. That is a systemic failure, and is the fault of BBC managers who didn’t think it was the BBC’s job to call out political mendacity.
Britain’s wrecked political system is one of the consequences of their failure to see that our national broadcaster needed to challenge political liars, rather than to amplify them.
That cohort of timid managers has now mostly moved on. The appointment of Kuenssberg’s successor will tell us a lot about the direction their successors now want to take.
There’s plenty of courage and integrity in the BBC’s journalism, as has been brilliantly demonstrated by its coverage of the war in Ukraine. It’s time for the BBC’s managers to show their mettle and embrace some of these same qualities in their coverage of domestic politics."
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Oops.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
BBC's first go at a headline in a very sensitive matter. Then the mathematically correct one (the facts of which were contained in the article under the first headline). The name of the third man was Ishmail Hussein.
Dorset Boy
Well-Known Member
C R
Legendary Member
Did he travel with the purpose of attacking jewish people? The third victim has hardly been mentioned, why is that?
Very convenient that this is used as a further excuse to stifle protests about the situation in Gaza, but actual anti semitic activity by the far right is allowed to fester.
