The BBC at it again - EU referendum

[Scuffers]

WTF?

We have several 24/7 rolling news channels, you really think they are stuck for airtime?

Tower hamlets has been going on for years...

[rs1952]

Scuffers said:

WTF?

We have several 24/7 rolling news channels, you really think they are stuck for airtime?

Tower hamlets has been going on for years...

But very few, or at least not enough, people are interested

[Scuffers]

rs1952 said:

But very few, or at least not enough, people are interested

Total tosh.

[rs1952]

Scuffers said:

rs1952 said:

But very few, or at least not enough, people are interested

Total tosh.

I like a well-reasoned and thought-out discussion.

Do you know anybody I could have one with?

[Scuffers]

rs1952 said:

I like a well-reasoned and thought-out discussion.

Do you know anybody I could have one with?

Get real, and you never know...

[anonymous-user]

If we're talking about supposed 'media bias' how can anyone seriously quote breitbart?

So far the BBC (ok the news app) seems to have been pretty impartial.
Lord Bamford says he's for leaving, it's reported.
Deutsche bank say they'd reconsider and it's reported.
Airbus say they're in favour of staying and it's reported.

Basically when important businesspeople have commented on the issue it's gone up prominently regardless of which side they are on.

[don4l]

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Well they manipulated the election very well this this will be a walk in the park.

The trouble is not Europe, not the population, not trade, it's the encroaching, hidden, undemocratic policy making.

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 20th May 14:21

Yes, because without the BBC and the MSM conspiracy, UKIP would have won plenty more seats and Farage would be telling Cameron what to do!

Get over it!

No.

The problem is that most EU laws don't come from the European Parliament. They come in the form of "directives" from the unelected "commission". The people that we elect have very little say at all in the laws that get imposed on us.

The WEEE directive costs my small company £1000.00 a year. As far as I can see, MEP's had no input at all.

The RoHS directive closed down one of our North Wales suppliers(with the loss of 80 jobs). Again, MEP's had no input.

[Zod]

don4l said:

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Well they manipulated the election very well this this will be a walk in the park.

The trouble is not Europe, not the population, not trade, it's the encroaching, hidden, undemocratic policy making.

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 20th May 14:21

Yes, because without the BBC and the MSM conspiracy, UKIP would have won plenty more seats and Farage would be telling Cameron what to do!

Get over it!

No.

The problem is that most EU laws don't come from the European Parliament. They come in the form of "directives" from the unelected "commission". The people that we elect have very little say at all in the laws that get imposed on us.

The WEEE directive costs my small company £1000.00 a year. As far as I can see, MEP's had no input at all.

The RoHS directive closed down one of our North Wales suppliers(with the loss of 80 jobs). Again, MEP's had no input.

Did yourespond to the wrong post?

In any case, you are wrong about Directives. The Government spends huge amounts of time lobbying in Directives, with the help of interested groups from businesses, charities and think tanks (depending on the subject matter). I spend a few hundred hours most years involved in commenting on draft Directives in the financial services area, for the City of London Law Society, in consultation with the FCA and Treasury and advising banks on their submissions. The UK engages more than any other country and achieves significant, important changes in legislation. Some of them (small ones) are my ideas.



MEPs approve directives. Most of them are idiots, so the only real scrutiny comes from outside the Parliament.

[Mojocvh]

Zod said:

don4l said:

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Well they manipulated the election very well this this will be a walk in the park.

The trouble is not Europe, not the population, not trade, it's the encroaching, hidden, undemocratic policy making.

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 20th May 14:21

Yes, because without the BBC and the MSM conspiracy, UKIP would have won plenty more seats and Farage would be telling Cameron what to do!

Get over it!

No.

The problem is that most EU laws don't come from the European Parliament. They come in the form of "directives" from the unelected "commission". The people that we elect have very little say at all in the laws that get imposed on us.

The WEEE directive costs my small company £1000.00 a year. As far as I can see, MEP's had no input at all.

The RoHS directive closed down one of our North Wales suppliers(with the loss of 80 jobs). Again, MEP's had no input.

Did yourespond to the wrong post?

In any case, you are wrong about Directives. The Government spends huge amounts of time lobbying in Directives, with the help of interested groups from businesses, charities and think tanks (depending on the subject matter). I spend a few hundred hours most years involved in commenting on draft Directives in the financial services area, for the City of London Law Society, in consultation with the FCA and Treasury and advising banks on their submissions. The UK engages more than any other country and achieves significant, important changes in legislation. Some of them (small ones) are my ideas.



MEPs approve directives. Most of them are idiots, so the only real scrutiny comes from outside the Parliament.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ENLIGHTENING US.

[AJS-]

The BBC isn't "at" anything. The phrase makes it sound as though it's some incident which has happened a few times before, blemishing an otherwise good record of balanced news reporting. They are simply continuing their role as a state broadcaster, influencing the news agenda in favour of the ruling orthodoxy shared by the main parties.

[Scuffers]

AJS- said:

The BBC isn't "at" anything. The phrase makes it sound as though it's some incident which has happened a few times before, blemishing an otherwise good record of balanced news reporting. They are simply continuing their role as a state broadcaster, influencing the news agenda in favour of the ruling orthodoxy shared by the main parties.

I would argue that, not the main parties, but the labour party (and Unite).

They certainly do not push the tory agenda

[limpsfield]

cookie118 said:

If we're talking about supposed 'media bias' how can anyone seriously quote breitbart?

So far the BBC (ok the news app) seems to have been pretty impartial.
Lord Bamford says he's for leaving, it's reported.
Deutsche bank say they'd reconsider and it's reported.
Airbus say they're in favour of staying and it's reported.

Basically when important businesspeople have commented on the issue it's gone up prominently regardless of which side they are on.

Spot on. I think any perceived media bias pales into insignificance compared to the some of the deeply entrenched bias of some of the PH posters. "If they are not reporting my opinion all the time, then they are biased"

I think this week we have heard more from the anti-EU side of business than before and I expect the debate on both sides will continue to get plenty of coverage in the run up to a referendum

[PRTVR]

limpsfield said:

cookie118 said:

If we're talking about supposed 'media bias' how can anyone seriously quote breitbart?

So far the BBC (ok the news app) seems to have been pretty impartial.
Lord Bamford says he's for leaving, it's reported.
Deutsche bank say they'd reconsider and it's reported.
Airbus say they're in favour of staying and it's reported.

Basically when important businesspeople have commented on the issue it's gone up prominently regardless of which side they are on.

Spot on. I think any perceived media bias pales into insignificance compared to the some of the deeply entrenched bias of some of the PH posters. "If they are not reporting my opinion all the time, then they are biased"

I think this week we have heard more from the anti-EU side of business than before and I expect the debate on both sides will continue to get plenty of coverage in the run up to a referendum

One of the problems is that it is very easy to get the head of a large company to speak out for remaining in, especially when it makes his business more profitable, but impact on thing like the health service,housing and education have nobody to speak up for them,especially when we have a pro EU PM,
I expect we will have lots of big businesses coming out for remaining in leading up to the referendum, but I wonder how many would be prepared to shoulder a larger part of the cost to remain in.

[IainT]

cookie118 said:

If we're talking about supposed 'media bias' how can anyone seriously quote breitbart?

So far the BBC (ok the news app) seems to have been pretty impartial.
Lord Bamford says he's for leaving, it's reported.
Deutsche bank say they'd reconsider and it's reported.
Airbus say they're in favour of staying and it's reported.

Basically when important businesspeople have commented on the issue it's gone up prominently regardless of which side they are on.

When they report stuff that Scuffers doesn't agree with they're biased, simple as that.

Evidence of true bias int eh BBC is as much an artifact of a persons own bias as anything more sinister. They do a better job than most, the left and right bias in the Indy and Telegraph respectively is pretty frustrating. I don't think anyone can argue that the BBC is as consistently biased one way or the other.

Going back to the election and looking at the treatment Labour got and it seemed to me that they generally got a harder time in interviews than the Tories - either that or they just weren't good enough to stand up to the interviews!

[Zod]

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

don4l said:

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Well they manipulated the election very well this this will be a walk in the park.

The trouble is not Europe, not the population, not trade, it's the encroaching, hidden, undemocratic policy making.

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 20th May 14:21

Yes, because without the BBC and the MSM conspiracy, UKIP would have won plenty more seats and Farage would be telling Cameron what to do!

Get over it!

No.

The problem is that most EU laws don't come from the European Parliament. They come in the form of "directives" from the unelected "commission". The people that we elect have very little say at all in the laws that get imposed on us.

The WEEE directive costs my small company £1000.00 a year. As far as I can see, MEP's had no input at all.

The RoHS directive closed down one of our North Wales suppliers(with the loss of 80 jobs). Again, MEP's had no input.

Did yourespond to the wrong post?

In any case, you are wrong about Directives. The Government spends huge amounts of time lobbying in Directives, with the help of interested groups from businesses, charities and think tanks (depending on the subject matter). I spend a few hundred hours most years involved in commenting on draft Directives in the financial services area, for the City of London Law Society, in consultation with the FCA and Treasury and advising banks on their submissions. The UK engages more than any other country and achieves significant, important changes in legislation. Some of them (small ones) are my ideas.



MEPs approve directives. Most of them are idiots, so the only real scrutiny comes from outside the Parliament.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ENLIGHTENING US.

The chances of enlightening you are slim to non-existent.

[Scuffers]

IainT said:

When they report stuff that Scuffers doesn't agree with they're biased, simple as that.

Evidence of true bias int eh BBC is as much an artifact of a persons own bias as anything more sinister. They do a better job than most, the left and right bias in the Indy and Telegraph respectively is pretty frustrating. I don't think anyone can argue that the BBC is as consistently biased one way or the other.

Going back to the election and looking at the treatment Labour got and it seemed to me that they generally got a harder time in interviews than the Tories - either that or they just weren't good enough to stand up to the interviews!

Sorry, no.

It's not about.me, no matter how much you claim.

Look, even their own employees have said the newsroom is left biased.

[turbobloke]

Scuffers said:

...even their own employees have said the newsroom is left biased...

And they've also said that the rest is just as bad.

BBC left-wing bias isn't just in its news coverage it's in everything else that it does

[Timmy40]

IainT said:

Going back to the election and looking at the treatment Labour got and it seemed to me that they generally got a harder time in interviews than the Tories - either that or they just weren't good enough to stand up to the interviews!

I'm looking back to the night before the election and the last prime time news on BBC Radio news when they proceeded first to play a full extract of Millibands final rallying speech, the simply mentioned in passing that the other leaders were also out campaigning. There was a consistent bias.

[AJS-]

Scuffers said:

AJS- said:

The BBC isn't "at" anything. The phrase makes it sound as though it's some incident which has happened a few times before, blemishing an otherwise good record of balanced news reporting. They are simply continuing their role as a state broadcaster, influencing the news agenda in favour of the ruling orthodoxy shared by the main parties.

I would argue that, not the main parties, but the labour party (and Unite).

They certainly do not push the tory agenda

I think I know what you're getting at, but I would say that while they might have a preference for certain details of Labour policy - especially spending more money - on the more fundamental political points Labour and the Tories are basically the same. By this I mean EU membership, climate change and a particular type of multiculturalism.

The BBC's bias is party political to a small degree, but it's adherence to this orthodoxy is strong and challenges to it are the enemy.

[Mark Benson]

PRTVR said:

limpsfield said:

cookie118 said:

If we're talking about supposed 'media bias' how can anyone seriously quote breitbart?

So far the BBC (ok the news app) seems to have been pretty impartial.
Lord Bamford says he's for leaving, it's reported.
Deutsche bank say they'd reconsider and it's reported.
Airbus say they're in favour of staying and it's reported.

Basically when important businesspeople have commented on the issue it's gone up prominently regardless of which side they are on.

Spot on. I think any perceived media bias pales into insignificance compared to the some of the deeply entrenched bias of some of the PH posters. "If they are not reporting my opinion all the time, then they are biased"

I think this week we have heard more from the anti-EU side of business than before and I expect the debate on both sides will continue to get plenty of coverage in the run up to a referendum

One of the problems is that it is very easy to get the head of a large company to speak out for remaining in, especially when it makes his business more profitable, but impact on thing like the health service,housing and education have nobody to speak up for them,especially when we have a pro EU PM,
I expect we will have lots of big businesses coming out for remaining in leading up to the referendum, but I wonder how many would be prepared to shoulder a larger part of the cost to remain in.

Excellent point.
There's also the burden to SMEs, who again have no prominence in the media and no PR firm to promote their veiwpoint.

The biggest failing of most of the mainstream media is that they have become reliant on PR and press releases and no longer employ journalists in the true sense of the word. The unquestioning regurgitation of PR from media-savvy organisations (companies, pressure groups, charities etc.) means that the 'news' is all too often an amalgamation of entrenched views, rather than balanced reporting of facts.