More evidence of BBC bias (or editorial judgement failure)
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7829802.stm
I think it would give the casual reader the view that the overwhelming support is for the "anti" campaign and I'm not sure that's correct. I'm certainly not sure it's how the BBC should be allowed to "balance" a story.
I know I'll probably get kicked for s
gging off the beloved Beeb, but if it does have to exist in it's current format that it absolutely has to display impartiality above all, at all times, regardless of the story.
Edited to quote the BBC page and correct spelling
BBC said:
Controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport are to get the go-ahead.
After the BBC learned of the government's decision to support the expansion, critics and supporters gave their reaction.
LORD MANDELSON, BUSINESS SECRETARY
Peter Mandelson told BBC's Newsnight he supported Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon's proposals and that the decision would result in a "greening" of the airport.
He said: "He has plans for the transport system as a whole - not just Heathrow. They're very exciting quite radical plans for rail and road and air.
"I think Geoff Hoon is right to say 'transport yes' because Heathrow's got to have a future. We need it for our economy - apart from the travelling public.
"But we've also got to take into account of our climate change ambitions and obligations and I think you'll see him doing that.
"It's a classic dilemma - we want to forge ahead in implementing our climate change ambitions when others are not but we don't want to lose our economic competitiveness in the process. We want to do both these things."
JOHN McDONNELL, HAYES AND HARLINGTON MP
Labour MP John McDonnell's constituency includes the airport. A staunch campaigner against the expansion, he said the fight was not over yet.
"The government's announcement is not the end of the battle against the third runway, it is just the beginning.
"Opponents will use every mechanism possible to prevent the runway going ahead including campaigns in Parliament, in the courts, in the planning process, in the media and if necessary in direct action.
"If the government is not willing to listen to Parliament or the people then there is no other option but to mobilise the largest coalition of public opposition and protest to halt this disastrous proposal in its tracks."
LORD SOLEY, FUTURE HEATHROW
Former Labour MP Lord Soley is the campaign director of Future Heathrow, which represents groups in favour of expanding the airport.
He told BBC News: "You know, in an ideal world, you wouldn't do it.
"But the ideal world doesn't exist and it isn't true to say that Heathrow isn't at risk.
"It is at risk and if it continues to decline, then the consequences for west London and the Thames Valley will be very, very serious indeed.
"There would be rising employment as companies pulled out and there would be lowering prosperity - that's the hard fact of it."
JOHN SAUVEN, GREENPEACE
Greenpeace director John Sauven said Gordon Brown had committed "political suicide" and that campaigners would continue to fight the decision.
He said: "People are going to discuss how they can thwart it at planning, at compulsory purchase action, they're threatening legal action, we've seen that from the Mayor of London and others.
"We've seen massive opposition from MPs, even from Gordon Brown's own backbench MPs.
"This situation for Gordon Brown and for other MPs is political suicide.
"I mean, it's completely irrational what he's doing.
"Because if he really wants us to stand up and say climate change is the greatest threat that the planet is facing, then he needs to make some tough decisions and one of the decisions he had to take was no third runway, it was the line in the sand issue, and he's failed."
CAROLINE LUCAS, GREEN PARTY
MEP and Green Party leader for England and Wales, Caroline Lucas said the decision would have "disastrous consequences".
"This decision demonstrates a complete contempt for the environment, for the health of UK citizens and for our democratic processes.
"A third runway will have disastrous consequences for residents in my south-east [England] constituency - leading to serious environmental damage and social upheaval through increased pollution, and the destruction of local communities," she said.
JOHN STEWART, HACAN CLEARSKIES
HACAN ClearSkies campaigner John Stewart said the decision did not factor in the four other airports located in London.
Calling the argument for the runway "nonsense", he said: "One hundred and thirty-nine million people used [the other airports] last year, much higher than the nearest European competitor.
"We shouldn't be comparing Heathrow with these other cities.
"We should be looking at all the facilities, all the airports in London, and then making the comparison.
"And in my view, then, the economic arguments for the expansion of Heathrow don't stand up."
WIZ BAINES, PLANE STUPID
Wiz Baines, from the climate action group Plane Stupid, said it should not have been a case of choosing between creating jobs and protecting the environment.
"There's no way that a runway built at Heathrow in five or ten years' time is going to solve an economic recession which is going on right now," she said.
"There may be jobs created in the construction of the runway but, at the same time, what is going to be the impact of this on climate change?
"Why can't we be investing money in sustainable jobs?
"Aviation is not a green industry, you cannot expand aviation and not have an increase in CO2 emissions.
"This is going to lead to devastating climate change which, in the end, is going to have a massive impact for all of us."
ANDY SLAUGHTER, LABOUR MP
Andy Slaughter, MP for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, who has campaigned against the runway for many years, said he was concerned.
He said: "At the heart of this the third runway will increase the capacity of Heathrow more than the size of any other airport in the UK, except Heathrow or Gatwick, it's like putting a new airport there.
"And this is the wrong place for an airport - that's the basic premise."
Maybe it's just me but I find that the lack of balance in this "Reactions" piece to be yet more evidence that the BBC fails to check it's reactions carefully enough. It has a role to play in being impartial and fair to all sides and yet only have 2 of 8 respondents being for the expansion of the airport I think is unfair.After the BBC learned of the government's decision to support the expansion, critics and supporters gave their reaction.
LORD MANDELSON, BUSINESS SECRETARY
Peter Mandelson told BBC's Newsnight he supported Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon's proposals and that the decision would result in a "greening" of the airport.
He said: "He has plans for the transport system as a whole - not just Heathrow. They're very exciting quite radical plans for rail and road and air.
"I think Geoff Hoon is right to say 'transport yes' because Heathrow's got to have a future. We need it for our economy - apart from the travelling public.
"But we've also got to take into account of our climate change ambitions and obligations and I think you'll see him doing that.
"It's a classic dilemma - we want to forge ahead in implementing our climate change ambitions when others are not but we don't want to lose our economic competitiveness in the process. We want to do both these things."
JOHN McDONNELL, HAYES AND HARLINGTON MP
Labour MP John McDonnell's constituency includes the airport. A staunch campaigner against the expansion, he said the fight was not over yet.
"The government's announcement is not the end of the battle against the third runway, it is just the beginning.
"Opponents will use every mechanism possible to prevent the runway going ahead including campaigns in Parliament, in the courts, in the planning process, in the media and if necessary in direct action.
"If the government is not willing to listen to Parliament or the people then there is no other option but to mobilise the largest coalition of public opposition and protest to halt this disastrous proposal in its tracks."
LORD SOLEY, FUTURE HEATHROW
Former Labour MP Lord Soley is the campaign director of Future Heathrow, which represents groups in favour of expanding the airport.
He told BBC News: "You know, in an ideal world, you wouldn't do it.
"But the ideal world doesn't exist and it isn't true to say that Heathrow isn't at risk.
"It is at risk and if it continues to decline, then the consequences for west London and the Thames Valley will be very, very serious indeed.
"There would be rising employment as companies pulled out and there would be lowering prosperity - that's the hard fact of it."
JOHN SAUVEN, GREENPEACE
Greenpeace director John Sauven said Gordon Brown had committed "political suicide" and that campaigners would continue to fight the decision.
He said: "People are going to discuss how they can thwart it at planning, at compulsory purchase action, they're threatening legal action, we've seen that from the Mayor of London and others.
"We've seen massive opposition from MPs, even from Gordon Brown's own backbench MPs.
"This situation for Gordon Brown and for other MPs is political suicide.
"I mean, it's completely irrational what he's doing.
"Because if he really wants us to stand up and say climate change is the greatest threat that the planet is facing, then he needs to make some tough decisions and one of the decisions he had to take was no third runway, it was the line in the sand issue, and he's failed."
CAROLINE LUCAS, GREEN PARTY
MEP and Green Party leader for England and Wales, Caroline Lucas said the decision would have "disastrous consequences".
"This decision demonstrates a complete contempt for the environment, for the health of UK citizens and for our democratic processes.
"A third runway will have disastrous consequences for residents in my south-east [England] constituency - leading to serious environmental damage and social upheaval through increased pollution, and the destruction of local communities," she said.
JOHN STEWART, HACAN CLEARSKIES
HACAN ClearSkies campaigner John Stewart said the decision did not factor in the four other airports located in London.
Calling the argument for the runway "nonsense", he said: "One hundred and thirty-nine million people used [the other airports] last year, much higher than the nearest European competitor.
"We shouldn't be comparing Heathrow with these other cities.
"We should be looking at all the facilities, all the airports in London, and then making the comparison.
"And in my view, then, the economic arguments for the expansion of Heathrow don't stand up."
WIZ BAINES, PLANE STUPID
Wiz Baines, from the climate action group Plane Stupid, said it should not have been a case of choosing between creating jobs and protecting the environment.
"There's no way that a runway built at Heathrow in five or ten years' time is going to solve an economic recession which is going on right now," she said.
"There may be jobs created in the construction of the runway but, at the same time, what is going to be the impact of this on climate change?
"Why can't we be investing money in sustainable jobs?
"Aviation is not a green industry, you cannot expand aviation and not have an increase in CO2 emissions.
"This is going to lead to devastating climate change which, in the end, is going to have a massive impact for all of us."
ANDY SLAUGHTER, LABOUR MP
Andy Slaughter, MP for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, who has campaigned against the runway for many years, said he was concerned.
He said: "At the heart of this the third runway will increase the capacity of Heathrow more than the size of any other airport in the UK, except Heathrow or Gatwick, it's like putting a new airport there.
"And this is the wrong place for an airport - that's the basic premise."
I think it would give the casual reader the view that the overwhelming support is for the "anti" campaign and I'm not sure that's correct. I'm certainly not sure it's how the BBC should be allowed to "balance" a story.
I know I'll probably get kicked for s
gging off the beloved Beeb, but if it does have to exist in it's current format that it absolutely has to display impartiality above all, at all times, regardless of the story.Edited to quote the BBC page and correct spelling
Edited by Mannginger on Thursday 15th January 06:44
The reality is that several organisations will not want to be quoted ahead of an offiial announcement.
The reality too is that this has been a remarkably contentious issue and there is no shortage of well organised dissent.
That means that you have one side of the arguement not wanting to pre-judge an announcement that they haven't yet seen and another side who will have been calling the BBC to offer comment - Not Bias, merely reporting what's so far available.
In fairness too they have listed the pro-anti responses they have with pretty equal prominence (until they ran out of pro!)
The reality too is that this has been a remarkably contentious issue and there is no shortage of well organised dissent.
That means that you have one side of the arguement not wanting to pre-judge an announcement that they haven't yet seen and another side who will have been calling the BBC to offer comment - Not Bias, merely reporting what's so far available.
In fairness too they have listed the pro-anti responses they have with pretty equal prominence (until they ran out of pro!)
GrahamG said:
The reality is that several organisations will not want to be quoted ahead of an official announcement.
What he said.You'll always get the greenies screaming from the roof tops as soon as a mechanic farts, and any MP will be calling out government failure if it might grab some votes in the next local election.
The Beeb edit and update their articles throughout the day as new information comes in, so we'll prob see this change somewhat as the nation actually gets into work.
I'll be interested to see the article later, but its to early to put them on par with the Daily Mail just yet.
It could also be the case that the distribution of comment reported by the BBC is a fair representation of general public opinion, it's just that it doesn't happen to agree with yours.
Don't forget both Tories and Lib Dems are saying they wouldn't proceed with the development if they take power (bit of a long shot for the lib dems, it has to be said
) and many authorities say that further expansion of HR is not the right place to build a mega-hub to benefit all of the UK - not least because the infrastructure of the South East just cannot take any further expansion.
Broon has pinned his standard to the 3rd runway project, and seems determined to force it through, using the argument "If you don't support this project you must be a tree-hugging wierdo who wants to force UK back to the dark ages" - a typically NuLabour piece of specious nonsense.
Don't forget both Tories and Lib Dems are saying they wouldn't proceed with the development if they take power (bit of a long shot for the lib dems, it has to be said
) and many authorities say that further expansion of HR is not the right place to build a mega-hub to benefit all of the UK - not least because the infrastructure of the South East just cannot take any further expansion. Broon has pinned his standard to the 3rd runway project, and seems determined to force it through, using the argument "If you don't support this project you must be a tree-hugging wierdo who wants to force UK back to the dark ages" - a typically NuLabour piece of specious nonsense.
GrahamG said:
The reality is that several organisations will not want to be quoted ahead of an offiial announcement.
The reality too is that this has been a remarkably contentious issue and there is no shortage of well organised dissent.
That means that you have one side of the arguement not wanting to pre-judge an announcement that they haven't yet seen and another side who will have been calling the BBC to offer comment - Not Bias, merely reporting what's so far available.
In fairness too they have listed the pro-anti responses they have with pretty equal prominence (until they ran out of pro!)
This is a good point and TBH not one I'd thought of. However I don't think it detracts from my "concern" about the reporting.The reality too is that this has been a remarkably contentious issue and there is no shortage of well organised dissent.
That means that you have one side of the arguement not wanting to pre-judge an announcement that they haven't yet seen and another side who will have been calling the BBC to offer comment - Not Bias, merely reporting what's so far available.
In fairness too they have listed the pro-anti responses they have with pretty equal prominence (until they ran out of pro!)
I'm completely indifferent to the Heathrow story BTW - this is comment on the reporting alone.
If they story is not a full picture then I think it unwise for the Beeb to be having "reaction" pieces. Surely that should be kept until the story is known, especially if by not doing so allows for a very 1 sided piece?
Mannginger said:
GrahamG said:
The reality is that several organisations will not want to be quoted ahead of an offiial announcement.
The reality too is that this has been a remarkably contentious issue and there is no shortage of well organised dissent.
That means that you have one side of the arguement not wanting to pre-judge an announcement that they haven't yet seen and another side who will have been calling the BBC to offer comment - Not Bias, merely reporting what's so far available.
In fairness too they have listed the pro-anti responses they have with pretty equal prominence (until they ran out of pro!)
This is a good point and TBH not one I'd thought of. However I don't think it detracts from my "concern" about the reporting.The reality too is that this has been a remarkably contentious issue and there is no shortage of well organised dissent.
That means that you have one side of the arguement not wanting to pre-judge an announcement that they haven't yet seen and another side who will have been calling the BBC to offer comment - Not Bias, merely reporting what's so far available.
In fairness too they have listed the pro-anti responses they have with pretty equal prominence (until they ran out of pro!)
I'm completely indifferent to the Heathrow story BTW - this is comment on the reporting alone.
If they story is not a full picture then I think it unwise for the Beeb to be having "reaction" pieces. Surely that should be kept until the story is known, especially if by not doing so allows for a very 1 sided piece?
I'm not against the runway as such. I just wonder if all the predictions on increased air travel requirements are based on figures from before the current financial problems and that we will not actually need it.
Combine that with prefering to use smaller airports over Heathrow.
Do we actually need/want it?
Combine that with prefering to use smaller airports over Heathrow.
Do we actually need/want it?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff