O/T:- Banks

[keldsyke]

At last, Alison Rose has done the right thing although again the resignation statement stinks of arrogance. More to follow please along with the rights of freedom of speech not to be assessed and acted on by Banks and Large corporations (or Governments)

Anyone else see the Irony in the 'BBC Verify' campaign launched recently and the inaccuracy of what they reported, you couldn't make it up.

[Newish Pie]

At last, Alison Rose has done the right thing although again the resignation statement stinks of arrogance. More to follow please along with the rights of freedom of speech not to be assessed and acted on by Banks and Large corporations (or Governments)

Anyone else see the Irony in the 'BBC Verify' campaign launched recently and the inaccuracy of what they reported, you couldn't make it up.

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

[keldsyke]

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

They used to be held in high esteem by me, and as someone who lived and worked in the EU I would always be the first to praise them to fellow Europeans, but what with Saville, Bashir etc coverups and particularly how they report with bias I don't trust them at all, but you are right it applies to I'm guessing nearly every news organisation and how they want to push their narrative.

[Magpies1959]

There is no doubt the BBC's narrative has changed in recent years, as no way would it have been tagged 'Auntie Beeb', if it was run then as it is now. I used to love the BBC, sport in particular, when you were not hit round the head with supposed balance and diversity. When thinking of watching the BBC news these days I always plump for re runs of Jackanory in the end.

[Elite_Pie]

So far its not going bad

Nice to see your judgement is as good as it's always been!

[jackal2]

I genuinely want to know how Brexit has benefited us. You didn't tell me. I know there are many for and against arguments on the internet, but you can say that for almost any subject. All you've said is that "it will take a long time". I don't recall that being in the leave manifesto.

Apologies for the delayed reply, Elite, I'm only here sporadically at present!

You're right that the internet carries varied opinion on any subject, but I referred you to the wide range of opinion on how Brexit has benefited us or will benefit us rather than arrogantly assuming that you were specifically/just interested in my own specific take. My view is actually incredibly straight-forward and has little to do with immigration, economic advantages or disadvantages, public funding or who lied about what.

The reason I consider that Britain benefits from Brexit is because I just fundamentally don't accept that we are 'European' and so I believe we should never have joined its political framework, frankly regardless of the supposed 'advantages' or 'disadvantages' people might argue this offers us at any given point in time. Therefore, I believe our identity as a nation benefits from now being "not" part of the European Union. It's as fundamental as that.

Others may disagree either with my choice to vote for Brexit, or my particular reason for doing so, but that's why I referred to the whole range of opinion out there. I can't really speak for anyone else and it's not my job to judge the validity or otherwise of their views, but I recognise there a many!

I think the 3 main pledges that clinched the vote were these:

1. Let's take control of our borders and stop illegal immigrants.
2. Why should we send millions to the EU when we could give it the NHS?
3. Let's rid ourselves of EU shackles and strike a load of great new trade deals which will leave us all much better off.

All very appealing, but how many have happened? None of them. Not one. None even close.

I suppose my view comes closest to the first part of reason three (i.e. Let's rid ourselves of the EU shackles), but with regard to the other reasons you raise, and several more besides, I agree with you that Britain has not yet 'exploited' (if that's the word) Brexit to anything like it's fullest potential. For that I blame a partially inept and forever shape-shifting Government and, as referenced earlier, anti-Brexit forces (some of whom are inside said Government!) who were always going to do their everything within their very considerable power to prevent the benefits of Brexit from being delivered quickly or fully. That doesn't surprise me. Anyone who voted for Brexit should have known that these dark forces would not suddenly admit defeat, pack up and go home. Winning a Brexit vote was only ever going to be a step in a particular direction.

That does not however mean the Brexit decision was "wrong" or has "failed". From my viewpoint, anything that (at least significantly) removed us from the tanglehairs of the EU represents an automatic and immediate benefit, even if not a full or complete one to date. If there was another Brexit vote in the future - and for precisely the reasons stated above I wouldn't be at all surprised - then I'd vote exactly the same way for exactly the same personal reason and hope many others would too.

[SwalePie]

Isn't it fascinating how the BBC is held to far higher standards than any other news organisation? To some extent that's entirely correct, because it's the national broadcaster. But the BBC also reports critically on itself, which other news organisations don't. It would be nice to see other media organisations held to anything approaching the same standards.

I struggle to see what the BBC has done that's so awful here. They reported a story in good faith based on what they took to be good information, which turned out to be incorrect. They then apologised. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The BBC covers criticism of the BBC... it reports on itself as a new story. The billionaire press will only publish tiny corrections that no-one will ever see, and only when forced.

This ^

[jackal2]

Fair play for acknowledging the monstering that Corbyn got. I also think he's a man of great integrity and consistency who's generally been on the right side of history. But being an effective opposition campaigner is one thing, leading a modern political party is another.

However... try as I might, I can't see any equivalent treatment meted out to anyone on the right. Perhaps I am being myopic... obviously I see things through the lens of my own beliefs, prejudices and expectations... but I really can't think of anyone on the right who's been aggressively smeared in the way that Corbyn was.

In terms of unfair treatment on a personal level, I think the attacks on Corbyn were off the scale, so in that sense you're maybe correct that few other politicians have been subjected to the something literally 'equivalent', but let's take, for example... Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The very mention of Jacon Rees-Mogg's name gets a lot of liberals and lefties frothing at the mouth, and through their lens it's perhaps impossible to expect them to have any sympathy for him, but whatever you think of Jacon Rees-Mogg's arguments and opinion, I've never seen or heard him be anything other than calm, patient and immensely courteous in making his case, despite sometimes facing some of the rudest and most hostile characterisation and interviewing I've ever seen directed at any right-wing politician. A couple of interviews with James O'Brien on LBC spring to mind as particularly outrageous examples, but I've seen several other interviews where the treatment of Jacob has not been dissimilar to that meted out to Corbyn.

Of course politically, Jeremy and Jacob could hardly be more polar opposites, but they are actually very similar in the way they seek to politely explain their views, and yet because they are both politicians with views well outside the centrist tram lines, they certainly get the 'hounds of hell' treatment.

Of course, Jacob has one advantage over Jeremy in that he has now found a news/opinion channel which is positively welcoming to him, and Jeremy never really had that (the late Russia Today, maybe? ), but nobody should be subjected to outright rudeness, constant interruption, character assassination and scorn just for expressing views that are assertively Socialist or Conservative. They should be respected for articulating a particular perspective, engaging the public, and giving people choice.

[Newish Pie]

They used to be held in high esteem by me, and as someone who lived and worked in the EU I would always be the first to praise them to fellow Europeans, but what with Saville, Bashir etc coverups and particularly how they report with bias I don't trust them at all, but you are right it applies to I'm guessing nearly every news organisation and how they want to push their narrative.

Saville and Bashir are really good examples. And, to be clear, I'm not saying that everything the BBC has ever said or done is great, and I've got plenty of criticisms of my own about their false balance reporting, the fawning treatment of the Johnson maladministration, and the platforming (without declarations of interest) of the Tufton Street cranks as neutral experts.

But with Saville... the BBC has its share of responsibility. But so does the NHS, social services, the Royal Family, and the Conservative Party. By all means blame the BBC, but not at the expense of diverting attention away from what really let him offend with impunity... his links to the broader establishment, which is much wider than the BBC. And let's not pretend that all the critics who want to pin the blame for Saville solely on the BBC care one jot about his victims... they're much more interested in using anything to bash the BBC.

See also: recent reporting on the conduct of a prominent newsreader. As I understand it, the billionaire paper reporting the story had a denial but chose not to include it. That's a worse offence against basic journalistic standards than anything that the BBC have done re Farage. Doesn't matter whether you believe that denial, whether you believe there's more to that story or not.

Compare with: the relative non-reporting about the conduct of another TV personality on a so-called "news" channel whose employers have not only failed to suspended him, but given him a platform to blame "dark forces" for it all. If the BBC behaved like that, we'd rightly never hear the end of it. I've no idea whether any of these allegations are true, but they've been bubbling under for a while, and it seems to me that suspension and investigation would be the normal course of action.

Bashir's behaviour was reprehensible, and the fact that it was about 24 years ago now doesn't make it any better. But if we're going back that far, we have far, far worse behaviour from the billionaire press. The hounding of Diana, the phone hacking scandals, the reporting of Hillsborough, homophobia, racism, the treatment of people with mental health problems, and so on. Much more recent behaviour - the smearing of judges as traitors, attacks on lawyers, stories about Carrie Johnson being pulled because Downing Street doesn't like them.

I'd also add Cliff Richard to the BBC's list of shame, and I'm sure someone's mentioned that recently.

But... if you add up the total list of media scandal, misstep, misjudgement, and misbehaviour... the BBC is very far from top of the league table of bad behaviour. And that's quite right. We should all continue to hold the BBC to the highest of standards... but it's time that at lest some standards were applied to the billionaire press too.

And we see selective criticism for what it really is.

[Newish Pie]

There is no doubt the BBC's narrative has changed in recent years, as no way would it have been tagged 'Auntie Beeb', if it was run then as it is now. I used to love the BBC, sport in particular, when you were not hit round the head with supposed balance and diversity. When thinking of watching the BBC news these days I always plump for re runs of Jackanory in the end.

It's really hard to know how to respond to this post.

Some people who object to "balance and diversity" are really objecting to seeing anything over than an overwhelming majority of straight white men on their screens. But I'm not going to assume that's what you mean. But if that's not what you mean, what do you mean?

(And I'll be honest here... I'm a Guardian-reading, university-educated, Labour Party member Remainer, but I found it difficult to get used to women commentating on football. I was probably hyper-critical because I noticed them more. I don't blame anyone else for thinking/feeling the same thing. But... in my defence, I've got used to it now. Some female commentators and pundits annoy me... but then, so do some male commentators and pundits. Especially the endless parade of Kopites)