mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
On top of that, you've also got stuff like this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50374630
That seems pretty harmless. Were there even words spoken? 
I guess his hair looked better.
Well, there was a few raised eyebrows, given that:
1. It was a month before a general election
2. There was a bit of mud-slinging towards Corbyn for not showing sufficient sincerity
3. PM Johnstone made a bit of a fluffin putting the wreath upside down. I may be recollecting wrongly, but there was a political figure in the past that took a LOT of flak for doing the same.
Given these three things, some viewed it as exceptionally convenient that, by complete accident, footage from years previously where Johnstone (before he was even PM) makes no fluff ups.
Cue rumour mill that it was a deliberate editing decision and so on. Occam's razor that it was a honest mistake, but it does make one wonder...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
quote:
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Obvert,
Newsguard, interesting browser addon. I did a little research on them...
Here is a site I frequent, oh, this is a perspective bias tool:
Homepage
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings
For their review of the daily beast
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-beast-media-bias
Putting the BBC in the middle of the road requires taking everything else on the site with a grain of salt.
Nah, it is a perspective rating.
One of the things I find interesting in this thread are the similarities between some of the commentary on the media seen here and that which I've seen over the last years from Corbyn/Labour supporters in the UK. The latter are convinced that the 'MSM' (television/radio/print journalism) is institutionally right-wing and that it has been (now was) conspiring to frustrate and prevent any sort of success from Corbyn's Labour. The BBC is seen by them as one of the worst offenders - a wolf in sheep's clothing.
At the same time for the last few years the Conservative party has been convinced that the BBC has been pushing a 'soft left' anti-Brexit agenda.
For me if they are managing to upset both sides of the argument they must be doing something right!
As a news organisation at least I'd suggest the BBC is pretty much as down the middle as you are going to get. That side of things is separate from it's role as a 'content creator' in which it has no explicit obligation to be 'impartial'. That separation is not just an airy-fairy ideal - it is a fundamentally expressed in the Royal Charter under which it operates.
There is evidence in support of a BBC bias in favour of the Conservative party
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323117695736
www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/2019_ps15_pa4.pdf
On top of that, you've also got stuff like this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50374630
Regarding that journal article. I'd argue that it certainly doesn't say that there was a BBC bias in favour of the Conservative Party. For a start at that time of the campaign, the Conservative PM and Chancellor were both explicitly in favour of remaining in the EU. The Home Secretary was 'submarining' but as far as anyone could pin her down was softly pro-remain. The Health Secretary was pro-remain at the time. The only high profile 'pro-Brexit' member of the cabinet I can think of was Gove. Boris was just an MP at that point (and even he at the time was equivocal on the issue until quite late on when he decided which way he thought the wind was blowing).
Obviously missed some of the nuance in the article:
quote:
If we examine the party affiliation of politicians appearing across all television news bulletins, a significant imbalance emerges: an overwhelming majority – 71.2% – was from the ruling UK Conservative party, compared to Labour’s (the Official Party of opposition) 18.4%. UK Independence Party (UKIP) – a right-wing Euro-sceptic party – represented 7.6% of sources, with just 2.8% left for other parties to contribute (particularly notable here is the absence of the Scottish National Party (SNP), whose pro-EU stance combined with a suggestion that a Leave vote might trigger another independence referendum).
71.2% compared to 18.4%. Not a small difference.
quote:
I'm not even sure that the article says that there was a pro-Brexit bias - more that the coverage was impartial but that it did not do enough to mitigate against the fact that the Brexit campaign was far more effective in driving the narrative. I think iquote:
t is debatable whether it is the responsibility of the media to correct the inadequacies of the Remain campaign.
I think it was less a case about driving the narrative as muddying the waters. That article does a very good job of highlighting the extent to which dubious claims were thrown around left, right and center.
When less than a third of the electorate felt sufficiently informed about the vote days prior to the vote, it doesn't reflect well on either campaign...
quote:
All I'll say about the second article is that once you have a 'conspiracy narrative' it is easy to find examples to fit the narrative if you look hard enough.
To be frank, I somehow doubt that two professors from the Univ. of Zurich are indulging themselves by writing articles on conspiracy narrative. However, if we write that off as two nutcase academics, here's another paper:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1389295
quote:
This is well off-topic - happy to continue by PM.
What is it with this trend to take discussions to PM? If you want to discuss, let it be for everyone.
|
Printable Version
RE: OT: Corona virus - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread