Let’s talk about BBC

[Psamathe]

"Chris Mason: ...​

Where is the "balance" on this matter?

To me, those two (Mason & balance) in the same sentence. Realistic expectation?

 

[Pblakeney]

To me, those two (Mason & balance) in the same sentence. Realistic expectation?

Not the same sentence but point taken. No.

 

[briantrumpet]

Is Chris Mason writing the headlines for the BBC website now?

 

[briantrumpet]

If Burnham releases the official report, will the BBC feel duty bound to roll out another Brexit champion to deny the findings?

 

[briantrumpet]

Justin Webb is at it too. The Justin Webb who sees the positive side of Donald Trump too.

 

[C R]

Justin Webb is at it too. The Justin Webb who sees the positive side of Donald Trump too.

View attachment 17729

To be fair, Webb kept asking the minister to mention the evidence, the minister had ample opportunity to do so, and yet he didn't.

 

[briantrumpet]

To be fair, Webb kept asking the minister to mention the evidence, the minister had ample opportunity to do so, and yet he didn't.

The complaints I've seen is about his not challenging Zia Yusuf blaming asylum seekers for all the problems with the NHS.

 

[C R]

The complaints I've seen is about his not challenging Zia Yusuf blaming asylum seekers for all the problems with the NHS.

The bit you reposted seems to refer to this morning's interview with an FCO minister.

 

[briantrumpet]

The bit you reposted seems to refer to this morning's interview with an FCO minister.

Ah, yes, OK.

 

[secretsqirrel]

To be fair, Webb kept asking the minister to mention the evidence, the minister had ample opportunity to do so, and yet he didn't.

Maybe Webb just asked a question that shouldn’t be answered.

 

[C R]

Maybe Webb just asked a question that shouldn’t be answered.

If the government can't divulge the information they have about Russian interference, then they shouldn't make a song and dance about having evidence of the interference. Otherwise they leave themselves open to questions like this morning that lead to the "you don't really have any evidence" conclusion.

 

[secretsqirrel]

If the government can't divulge the information they have about Russian interference, then they shouldn't make a song and dance about having evidence of the interference. Otherwise they leave themselves open to questions like this morning that lead to the "you don't really have any evidence" conclusion.

Burnham can’t crack open a debate with “I have a sneaky feeling…”

That is also evasive.

 

[C R]

Burnham can’t crack open a debate with “I have a sneaky feeling…”

That is also evasive.

But surely, he knows that after he says that the Russians influenced the referendum there are going to be people asking for the evidence. Being evasive about the evidence just gives ammunition to reform. You either go the whole hog, i.e. say that the Russians interfered and show the evidence or don't say anything. Anything else just helps reform.

 

[Psamathe]

If the government can't divulge the information they have about Russian interference, then they shouldn't make a song and dance about having evidence of the interference. Otherwise they leave themselves open to questions like this morning that lead to the "you don't really have any evidence" conclusion.

Also, if we know how the interference was undertaken we can guard ourselves about being influenced by it. eg bit like making the public aware that the e-mail you just received from a Nigerian Princess multi-billionaire wanting your help might not be completely genuine. The more people are aware about things the better they can guard against it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If the government can't divulge the information they have about Russian interference, then they shouldn't make a song and dance about having evidence of the interference. Otherwise they leave themselves open to questions like this morning that lead to the "you don't really have any evidence" conclusion.

Could it be that to show the evidence would also show how they got it and compromise further monitoring or searches?