Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely

[Countdown]

Halb said:

AFD is a right wing party, she's the leader, what the issue?

"Alternative for Germany (German: Alternative für Deutschland, AfD) is a right-wing to far-right political party in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germ...

I think you'll find that is defined as "Centre/centre-left" in NP&E.......

[Halb]

Anubis said:

Thank you Halb, an actor from Cheshire that drives a Rover 600. Like your fact finding abilities

Cheers!

[Anubis]

In all honesty I didn’t know and still don’t know how far right the AfD Party is. However in that video she didn’t portray anything extreme. Laura Kuenssberg came across as an idiot to put it mildly.

I thought journalists were there to report on events and question people so the viewers can make up their own mind. It seems journalists are now in the business to strongly push an agenda from just one perspective via methods such as quick fire questions, constantly interrupting the guest and in this instance attack them with words and anger.

Whether the journalist personally agrees with the guest should not really come into play so I’m not sure why she was getting so irate over the AfD guest. If the views are so wrong, just let them talk themselves into trouble - no need to constantly interrupt and get aggressive over it. Kuenssberg looked a fool and total bias amateur. It makes me hate the BBC rather than the apparent “right wing” party - I ended up sympathising them.

This makes for poor viewing and if the interviewee cannot fully explain themselves without being interrupted then it begs the question - is it being shown from a neutral point of view. If it isn’t then it’s propaganda...

Edited by Anubis on Sunday 1st July 14:10

[Halb]

I don't know how far right they are either, but on the left/right devide they are on one side, and that consensus is that they are a right wing party, and therefore the video title of right wing, is accurate.
The quality of reporters is another matter.

[tangerine_sedge]

Anubis said:

Wow. Just...really? She’s not even close to right wing - to me she’s using common sense and if that means taking some hard decisions then so be it. I thought right wing meant having thugs on the streets in control, bullying, intimidation techniques, etc. Comments disabled on YouTube as well.

German right wing leader challenged on immigration

Quick fire questions and then when she tries to answer or voice her opinion, she is rudely interrupted all the time because the BBC have an agenda and not going their way. Liked it at the end. If someone spoke to you this way face to face without cameras you’d make enemies pretty quickly...

Edited by Anubis on Sunday 1st July 13:18

You must have watched a different clip to me. Politician claims one thing, reporter quotes back stats to disprove statement. Politician gets facial tick and looks like they are about to cry. Interview (lasting over 6 minutes) ends.

[ou sont les biscuits]

Anubis said:

In all honesty I didn’t know and still don’t know how far right the AfD Party is. However in that video she didn’t portray anything extreme. Laura Kuenssberg came across as an idiot to put it mildly.

I thought journalists were there to report on events and question people so the viewers can make up their own mind. It seems journalists are now in the business to strongly push an agenda from just one perspective via methods such as quick fire questions, constantly interrupting the guest and in this instance attack them with words and anger.

Whether the journalist personally agrees with the guest should not really come into play so I’m not sure why she was getting so irate over the AfD guest. If the views are so wrong, just let them talk themselves into trouble - no need to constantly interrupt and get aggressive over it. Kuenssberg looked a fool and total bias amateur. It makes me hate the BBC rather than the apparent “right wing” party - I ended up sympathising them.

This makes for poor viewing and if the interviewee cannot fully explain themselves without being interrupted then it begs the question - is it being shown from a neutral point of view. If it isn’t then it’s propaganda...

Edited by Anubis on Sunday 1st July 14:10

The interview was conducted by Emily Maitlis. Given you got that wrong, can we assume your criticisms are wide of the mark too?

[Anubis]

ou sont les biscuits said:

The interview was conducted by Emily Maitlis. Given you got that wrong, can we assume your criticisms are wide of the mark too?

Oh...you are quite right. My mistake

[Tony427]

ou sont les biscuits said:

Anubis said:

In all honesty I didn’t know and still don’t know how far right the AfD Party is. However in that video she didn’t portray anything extreme. Laura Kuenssberg came across as an idiot to put it mildly.

I thought journalists were there to report on events and question people so the viewers can make up their own mind. It seems journalists are now in the business to strongly push an agenda from just one perspective via methods such as quick fire questions, constantly interrupting the guest and in this instance attack them with words and anger.

Whether the journalist personally agrees with the guest should not really come into play so I’m not sure why she was getting so irate over the AfD guest. If the views are so wrong, just let them talk themselves into trouble - no need to constantly interrupt and get aggressive over it. Kuenssberg looked a fool and total bias amateur. It makes me hate the BBC rather than the apparent “right wing” party - I ended up sympathising them.

This makes for poor viewing and if the interviewee cannot fully explain themselves without being interrupted then it begs the question - is it being shown from a neutral point of view. If it isn’t then it’s propaganda...

Edited by Anubis on Sunday 1st July 14:10

The interview was conducted by Emily Maitlis. Given you got that wrong, can we assume your criticisms are wide of the mark too?

No, I dont think that you can.

Emily ( Legs all the way to the hips Maitlis) was quite frankly absolutely terrible in the interview and was so desperate to push her own agenda she not olny interrupted the interviewee but also shouted her down angrily.

The interviewee was claiming that the police crime statistics were inaccurate and wrong. Emily was basically calling her a liar.

Now I well remember the many sexual attacks at New years eves parties that although reported, went unrecorded until the police were brought to book and forced to admit that the huge amounts of sexual assaults actually occurred.

Perhaps Emily should have remembered that before shouting down an elected German MP citing official police statistics as gospel.

Still she may be a crap journalist, but she does have nice legs.

Cheers,

Tony

[CarreraLightweightRacing]

Here is a video of the AfD in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ66coDh14s


The young lady in question is highly educated, well travelled, speaks multiple languages, has a broad range of experience in many fields of business, is a Lesbian but apposes same sex marriage...

So perhaps not someone you would naturally assume to align with the AfD flavour of politics. Make your own mind up if this speech fits the AfD far right message!

[lyonspride]

Very "well edited" little piece accusing Polish Nazis of funding UK far right groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WGqS7cRzw&t

Trouble is, the BBC considers anyone with a different opinion to them, to be "far right", even groups such as "Veterans against terrorism", because apparently opposing terrorism is "far right".

Surely this is hate speech in itself? Against all the hard working Polish people who didn't enter the UK by duct taping themselves to the underside of a 40 tonne truck.........

[TTwiggy]

'Veterans against Terrorism' seem like an even-handed group...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/e...

[lyonspride]

TTwiggy said:

'Veterans against Terrorism' seem like an even-handed group...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/e...

So the leader said:
“entire Muslim religion is antichrist”
Well by definition isn't any non-Christian religion?

and

calls on people to join “the struggle against the Islamisation of the UK”

Notice how "calls on people to join" isn't a quotation from the group and “the struggle against the Islamisation of the UK” is therefore being quoted out of context.

The rest of the article is supposition at best, propaganda at worst.

[ou sont les biscuits]

Tony427 said:

No, I dont think that you can.

Emily ( Legs all the way to the hips Maitlis) was quite frankly absolutely terrible in the interview and was so desperate to push her own agenda she not olny interrupted the interviewee but also shouted her down angrily.

The interviewee was claiming that the police crime statistics were inaccurate and wrong. Emily was basically calling her a liar.

Now I well remember the many sexual attacks at New years eves parties that although reported, went unrecorded until the police were brought to book and forced to admit that the huge amounts of sexual assaults actually occurred.

Perhaps Emily should have remembered that before shouting down an elected German MP citing official police statistics as gospel.

Still she may be a crap journalist, but she does have nice legs.

Cheers,

Tony

You have your opinions, others will have different ones. What I’d like to know though is what the original post and your post has to do with political bias at the BBC?

[TTwiggy]

lyonspride said:

So the leader said:
“entire Muslim religion is antichrist”
Well by definition isn't any non-Christian religion?

If so, why pick on Islam?

lyonspride said:

and

calls on people to join “the struggle against the Islamisation of the UK”

Notice how "calls on people to join" isn't a quotation from the group and “the struggle against the Islamisation of the UK” is therefore being quoted out of context..

Where have we heard the word 'struggle' before?

lyonspride said:

The rest of the article is supposition at best, propaganda at worst.

Or if it looks like a duck (far right group), walks like a duck (far right group) and quacks like a duck (far right group), it's probably a duck (far right group).

[Not-The-Messiah]

TTwiggy said:

'Veterans against Terrorism' seem like an even-handed group...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/e...

Oh my goodness a individual expressed a critical opinion about an idea/ way of living/ ideology he must be a Nazi and everyone who knows him and works with him must be to.

I know there has been a concerted effort to portray a unprovable theoretical idea as a immutable racial characteristic. So it can't be criticised and to do so is unjust and intolerant. But like any religion it's just a theoretical idea and ideas should be open to question and criticism. And to do so doesn't automatically make someone far right.

The article you link is a typical left wing hit piece. When ever you get things like "They have been linked with the far right" you just know they are trying to poetry a narrative and not produce a balanced fair article.

[TTwiggy]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Oh my goodness a individual expressed a critical opinion about an idea/ way of living/ ideology he must be a Nazi and everyone who knows him and works with him must be to.

I know there has been a concerted effort to portray a unprovable theoretical idea as a immutable racial characteristic. So it can't be criticised and to do so is unjust and intolerant. But like any religion it's just a theoretical idea and ideas should be open to question and criticism. And to do so doesn't automatically make someone far right.

The article you link is a typical left wing hit piece. When ever you get things like "They have been linked with the far right" you just know they are trying to poetry a narrative and not produce a balanced fair article.

'Veterans against Terrorism' was put forward by another poster as a group that was being unfairly touted as 'far right' by the BBC. A few seconds of googling brought up the article I posted. They claim to be 'against the polarization in our nation' and yet they appear to just thump the usual anti-muslim tub. I remain unconvinced by their claims of 'impartiality'.

[anonymous-user]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Oh my goodness a individual expressed a critical opinion about an idea/ way of living/ ideology he must be a Nazi and everyone who knows him and works with him must be to.

I know there has been a concerted effort to portray a unprovable theoretical idea as a immutable racial characteristic. So it can't be criticised and to do so is unjust and intolerant. But like any religion it's just a theoretical idea and ideas should be open to question and criticism. And to do so doesn't automatically make someone far right.

The article you link is a typical left wing hit piece. When ever you get things like "They have been linked with the far right" you just know they are trying to poetry a narrative and not produce a balanced fair article.

You’re doing exactly what you’re complaining about the BBC doing.

You’re saying the BBC’s behaviour shows them to be lefties and that they shouldn’t be calling others (far) righties based on their behaviour.

Your post is a typical right wing hit piece and isn’t balanced and is portraying your own narrative.

[lyonspride]

TTwiggy said:

If so, why pick on Islam?

It's hardly "picking on" is it?
But I don't see extreme Hindu or Sikh followers bombing children or driving the truck of peace through crowds of people.

TTwiggy said:

Where have we heard the word 'struggle' before?

Dunno, was it Winston Churchill during WW2?

TTwiggy said:

Or if it looks like a duck (far right group), walks like a duck (far right group) and quacks like a duck (far right group), it's probably a duck (far right group).

You don't even know what the far right look like, the far right are scary motherf**kers, absolute lunatics. What our media paints as "far right" is just anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Even in these protests against terrorism, against grooming gangs, the media gives us images of Antifa and claims they're images of "far right", so even the media can't tell a Mallard from a f**king Giraffe.


What i'm now angry about is the slandering of Polish people/migrants and by proxy all eastern Europeans, I'm not sure what the BBC is playing at, but they seem to have dropped their pro-immigration stance in favour of something rather racist.

Edited by lyonspride on Monday 2nd July 11:04

[TTwiggy]

lyonspride said:

You don't even know what the far right look like, the far right are scary motherf**kers, absolute lunatics. What our media paints as "far right" is just anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Even in these protests against terrorism, against grooming gangs, the media gives us images of Antifa and claims they're images of "far right", so even the media can't tell a Mallard from a f**king Giraffe.

You have no idea what I 'know'.

As to the rest of your post, is this just an anti-media rant now, or are you picking out the BBC in particular?

And yes, I 'get' that you don't like Islam.

[anonymous-user]

lyonspride said:

You don't even know what the far right look like, the far right are scary motherf**kers, absolute lunatics. What our media paints as "far right" is just anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Even in these protests against terrorism, against grooming gangs, the media gives us images of Antifa and claims they're images of "far right", so even the media can't tell a Mallard from a f**king Giraffe.

It’s all relative to our own world view though isn’t it?

You think the bbc are lefties because they’re left of you politically. They could still be right wing though or centrist or lefties being left of you.

I’ve only ever voted conservative and I think you’re a right wing nut job. You probably think I’m a commie.

You think right wing nut jobs are the KKK or neo Nazi groups.

The neo nazis probably have people in their group that they think are far right nut jobs.