Even just observing, it does not seem very impartial after the blackout story Nick Robinson did on Salmond
The story shows a few seconds of the presenters question which then cuts to state the question did not get answered, but on the actual debate footage.. the question was significantly longer, and the answer given spanned several minutes
Its misleading, as (and I cringe saying this) plenty of people do actually believe the media (tv/papers) still have integrity, and actually believe the rubbish they come out with
Also the way they portray the party leaders as knights going to save the day... because I'm sure the yes voters are going to change their mind at the whims of 3 mps that do more U-turns than a dodgy plumber
Even just observing, it does not seem very impartial after the blackout story Nick Robinson did on Salmond
The story shows a few seconds of the presenters question which then cuts to state the question did not get answered, but on the actual debate footage.. the question was significantly longer, and the answer given spanned several minutes
Its misleading, as (and I cringe saying this) plenty of people do actually believe the media (tv/papers) still have integrity, and actually believe the rubbish they come out with
If it's the question I am thinking of, it is the one that Salmond waffles on for minutes without actually answering the question...
If he didn't answer the question then they aren't going to play the minutes worth of waffling...
The BBC led its stories at both 6pm and 7pm tonight by mentioning a pro Union rally in Edinburgh today. As someone has pointed out, there was no mention at all that it was the bigoted and sectarian Orange Order that was marching. They also failed to report the anti-Catholic banners at this pro Union rally.
Immediately afterwards their reporter, Ian Murray, standing on Calton Hill in Edinburgh linked Scottish independence to the rise of Hitler.
The BBC have been shocking during this referendum campaign.
Plenty of Scots have been accused of being anti-Scottish, or traitors because they want to vote No.
Most Yes voters aren't anti-English, but some are.
A lot of Yes voters are under the impression that Scotland is "ruled by England". Do these people not realise that the UK Government (rebranded Westminster Government by the Yes campaign, so it sounds more English and remote) is made up of representatives from all over the UK, including Scotland?
Plenty of Scots have been accused of being anti-Scottish, or traitors because they want to vote No.
Most Yes voters aren't anti-English, but some are.
A lot of Yes voters are under the impression that Scotland is "ruled by England". Do these people not realise that the UK Government (rebranded Westminster Government by the Yes campaign, so it sounds more English and remote) is made up of representatives from all over the UK, including Scotland?
WOW.
How the hell can you get away with such a reasoned, honest answer
The BBC led its stories at both 6pm and 7pm tonight by mentioning a pro Union rally in Edinburgh today. As someone has pointed out, there was no mention at all that it was the bigoted and sectarian Orange Order that was marching. They also failed to report the anti-Catholic banners at this pro Union rally.
Immediately afterwards their reporter, Ian Murray, standing on Calton Hill in Edinburgh linked Scottish independence to the rise of Hitler.
The BBC have been shocking during this referendum campaign.
It is funny once people end up on the receiving end of the insidious propaganda of the BBC they start to notice it. Until then they think that everything is fine and rosy and that what and how the BBC reports and commentates on is fine and that what it misses and what it concentrates on are the important points of news.
Plenty of Scots have been accused of being anti-Scottish, or traitors because they want to vote No.
Most Yes voters aren't anti-English, but some are.
A lot of Yes voters are under the impression that Scotland is "ruled by England". Do these people not realise that the UK Government (rebranded Westminster Government by the Yes campaign, so it sounds more English and remote) is made up of representatives from all over the UK, including Scotland?
Sorry just not true, in anyway shape or form - an utter minority keep banging on at that - the majority think of a possibility, and are, to be fair, anti-Westminster. But i have a lot of English friends that think just the same.
So not having a go at you just saying that we are different from what you portray...
Sorry just not true, in anyway shape or form - an utter minority keep banging on at that - the majority think of a possibility, and are, to be fair, anti-Westminster. But i have a lot of English friends that think just the same.
So not having a go at you just saying that we are different from what you portray...
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm assuming it's something to do with the bit in bold, but I'm not aware of having portrayed you of being anything.
The bit you put in bold is me talking about how a lot of Yes voters claim Scotland is ruled by England. I didn't say it's all of them, or even most of them. I know it's a lot, because a lot of them have told me. By "a lot", I mean it's more than a handful, and it's not the minority who are "anti-English".
As for your English friends think the same - do you mean they think the English rule Scotland, or they don't think it? Or are you saying that your English friends are unaware that they too get to vote in general elections to send a representative to "Evil Westminster"?
The BBC was consistently anti Tamil Tigers and would regularly ignore marches in central London where 100,000 people took part. Similar stories with the middle east.
However, if you get 50 anti fracking protestors in Sussex then it makes headline news.
I know they are not, its just amusing that people still believe the media have a shred of integrity about them still
Especially the way bbc have practically ignored a 5,000 strong demonstration on the doorstep of their Glasgow headquarters... aside from a tame article on their website claiming only 1000 showed
faisal islam is a billion times better than Adam Boulton I think the BBC needs to do the same with Nick Robinson. The evidence is clear its roses and candlelight when he interviews Cameron and co and constant interrupts when its anyone else.
Especially the way bbc have practically ignored a 5,000 strong demonstration on the doorstep of their Glasgow headquarters... aside from a tame article on their website claiming only 1000 showed
And the feature on the main evening news, in which they gave the official police figures, and said that other sources claimed a higher number.:p
There was someone on my Facebook who insisted that the BBC were ignoring Gaza protests, despite there being an article about it on their front page. When someone pointed it out, he insisted that they'd added it retrospectively - presumably altering the published time, and implanting it into my memory to fool people into thinking it had been there all along.;-)
While I agree that some newspapers are obviously more for one side than another, apart from some poorly directed questioning on one interview I have seen no bias from the BBC. Nor channel 4. Nor STV.
I grew up in an apartheid controlled South Africa - I know a biased news channel when I see one. BBC does not in any way fall into that category with it's referendum reporting.
What I have seen however, is journalist's frustration with politicians not answering direct questions, but that is nothing new in politics now is it?
The BBC was consistently anti Tamil Tigers and would regularly ignore marches in central London where 100,000 people took part. Similar stories with the middle east.
However, if you get 50 anti fracking protestors in Sussex then it makes headline news.
The BBC don't ignore marches. It's not their policy to show them. People complained that the BBC didn't show the pro Gaza or pro Israel marches in London. They showed neither.
The bias is towards the Yes campaign. Salmond is constantly going unchallenged on completely factually incorrect nonsense, yet any No politician is ripped to shreds.
Sounds legit. Look at the YouTube vid on the 'Dundee' thread.
The great unwashed are the 'grass roots' of the snp campaign. Salmond himself today said it's about getting 'the folk of cities like Glasgow who have never voted before' out to vote.
It's the 'kick the effing Tories' type and the anti-English that he's banking on in order to gain his new position as leader of a country.
He'll get found out soon enough. Benefit scroungers who are foaming at the mouth ready to vote yes, they're going to get a huge shock if it's a yes vote!!
Someone on Radio 5 from Scotland said the other day that of the people who came into her Post Office, all those were weren't working & were receiving benefits were going to vote Yes & all those who were in work & weren't receiving so much in benefits were going to vote No.
The BBC led its stories at both 6pm and 7pm tonight by mentioning a pro Union rally in Edinburgh today. As someone has pointed out, there was no mention at all that it was the bigoted and sectarian Orange Order that was marching. They also failed to report the anti-Catholic banners at this pro Union rally.
Immediately afterwards their reporter, Ian Murray, standing on Calton Hill in Edinburgh linked Scottish independence to the rise of Hitler.
The BBC have been shocking during this referendum campaign.
I have to agree with this post. There have been a few instances during the BBC's coverage of the referendum that have left me questioning it's impartiality but this was truly out of order. As someone who has always supported public service broadcasting, and the BBC in particular I am deeply saddened it has allowed itself to stoop to this.
The problem is that many people now think BBC news is biased and the loss of trust will take a lot of time to rebuild.
What does it matter? Once Scotland goes Independence they will have their very own broadcaster to bitch about being biased, SBS. Salmond Bullshit Service. Although given how they blindly believe what he claims now, i they will probably say it is the least biased channel to exist...
The BBC is a government propaganda machine and has been for many years. Most people seem to be blind to this fact. They constantly state dodgy research as fact.
It's a shame but they haven't been impartial for years (if they ever truly were).
You appear to be confusing the, with Sky. Oh wait, sorry, that is just for right wint propaganda.
The BBC don't ignore marches. It's not their policy to show them. People complained that the BBC didn't show the pro Gaza or pro Israel marches in London. They showed neither.
I couldn't be bothered to go beyond August, but the BBC clearly does cover marches.
Only someone who has been completely conditioned by western media would believe the BBC is neutral.
However, the BBC are not nearly as bad as some of their international counterparts. I'd say pretty much every news outlet has some sort of agenda/bias.
The BBC led its stories at both 6pm and 7pm tonight by mentioning a pro Union rally in Edinburgh today. As someone has pointed out, there was no mention at all that it was the bigoted and sectarian Orange Order that was marching. They also failed to report the anti-Catholic banners at this pro Union rally.
Immediately afterwards their reporter, Ian Murray, standing on Calton Hill in Edinburgh linked Scottish independence to the rise of Hitler.
The BBC have been shocking during this referendum campaign.
Scotland pays a lot in licence fees - the BBC won't want to lose all that cash. They clearly have a vested interest in a No vote unlike other broadcasters like Sky who operate internationally already.
Scotland pays a lot in licence fees - the BBC won't want to lose all that cash. They clearly have a vested interest in a No vote unlike other broadcasters like Sky who operate internationally already.
By the time it is worked out the loss of Scottish TVL money will be offset by not having to provide for Scotland, not having to pay for Satellite space for BBC services, aswell as savings on not paying for the Scottish Freeview service too, and then income from Scotland in the form of SBS paying the commercial rate from BBC Worldwide to show their programming, then the BBC are going to be in ghe same position if not actually better off.
I couldn't be bothered to go beyond August, but the BBC clearly does cover marches.
Only someone who has been completely conditioned by western media would believe the BBC is neutral.
However, the BBC are not nearly as bad as some of their international counterparts. I'd say pretty much every news outlet has some sort of agenda/bias.
Yes, but those marches you've posted are for English/ British policies, not for foreign ones which I was referring to. ( Gaza, Israel etc).
They probably cover what's newsworthy on the day, and fit marches in if they've got nothing else to broadcast.
Comments
The story shows a few seconds of the presenters question which then cuts to state the question did not get answered, but on the actual debate footage.. the question was significantly longer, and the answer given spanned several minutes
Its misleading, as (and I cringe saying this) plenty of people do actually believe the media (tv/papers) still have integrity, and actually believe the rubbish they come out with
Also the way they portray the party leaders as knights going to save the day... because I'm sure the yes voters are going to change their mind at the whims of 3 mps that do more U-turns than a dodgy plumber
If he didn't answer the question then they aren't going to play the minutes worth of waffling...
Immediately afterwards their reporter, Ian Murray, standing on Calton Hill in Edinburgh linked Scottish independence to the rise of Hitler.
The BBC have been shocking during this referendum campaign.
Plenty of Scots have been accused of being anti-Scottish, or traitors because they want to vote No.
Most Yes voters aren't anti-English, but some are.
A lot of Yes voters are under the impression that Scotland is "ruled by England". Do these people not realise that the UK Government (rebranded Westminster Government by the Yes campaign, so it sounds more English and remote) is made up of representatives from all over the UK, including Scotland?
WOW.
How the hell can you get away with such a reasoned, honest answer
It is funny once people end up on the receiving end of the insidious propaganda of the BBC they start to notice it. Until then they think that everything is fine and rosy and that what and how the BBC reports and commentates on is fine and that what it misses and what it concentrates on are the important points of news.
Sorry just not true, in anyway shape or form - an utter minority keep banging on at that - the majority think of a possibility, and are, to be fair, anti-Westminster. But i have a lot of English friends that think just the same.
So not having a go at you just saying that we are different from what you portray...
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm assuming it's something to do with the bit in bold, but I'm not aware of having portrayed you of being anything.
The bit you put in bold is me talking about how a lot of Yes voters claim Scotland is ruled by England. I didn't say it's all of them, or even most of them. I know it's a lot, because a lot of them have told me. By "a lot", I mean it's more than a handful, and it's not the minority who are "anti-English".
As for your English friends think the same - do you mean they think the English rule Scotland, or they don't think it? Or are you saying that your English friends are unaware that they too get to vote in general elections to send a representative to "Evil Westminster"?
The BBC was consistently anti Tamil Tigers and would regularly ignore marches in central London where 100,000 people took part. Similar stories with the middle east.
However, if you get 50 anti fracking protestors in Sussex then it makes headline news.
Especially the way bbc have practically ignored a 5,000 strong demonstration on the doorstep of their Glasgow headquarters... aside from a tame article on their website claiming only 1000 showed
And the feature on the main evening news, in which they gave the official police figures, and said that other sources claimed a higher number.:p
There was someone on my Facebook who insisted that the BBC were ignoring Gaza protests, despite there being an article about it on their front page. When someone pointed it out, he insisted that they'd added it retrospectively - presumably altering the published time, and implanting it into my memory to fool people into thinking it had been there all along.;-)
Finally, some perspective!
The BBC don't ignore marches. It's not their policy to show them. People complained that the BBC didn't show the pro Gaza or pro Israel marches in London. They showed neither.
Someone on Radio 5 from Scotland said the other day that of the people who came into her Post Office, all those were weren't working & were receiving benefits were going to vote Yes & all those who were in work & weren't receiving so much in benefits were going to vote No.
It's funny because a lot of people get angry with the BBC when it doesn't side with their point of view, but in reality the BBC doesn't take sides.
I have to agree with this post. There have been a few instances during the BBC's coverage of the referendum that have left me questioning it's impartiality but this was truly out of order. As someone who has always supported public service broadcasting, and the BBC in particular I am deeply saddened it has allowed itself to stoop to this.
What does it matter? Once Scotland goes Independence they will have their very own broadcaster to bitch about being biased, SBS. Salmond Bullshit Service. Although given how they blindly believe what he claims now, i they will probably say it is the least biased channel to exist...
Are you sure?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29153713
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29094093
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29079108
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-28990328
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-28967854
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12864353
I couldn't be bothered to go beyond August, but the BBC clearly does cover marches.
Only someone who has been completely conditioned by western media would believe the BBC is neutral.
However, the BBC are not nearly as bad as some of their international counterparts. I'd say pretty much every news outlet has some sort of agenda/bias.
Scotland pays a lot in licence fees - the BBC won't want to lose all that cash. They clearly have a vested interest in a No vote unlike other broadcasters like Sky who operate internationally already.
By the time it is worked out the loss of Scottish TVL money will be offset by not having to provide for Scotland, not having to pay for Satellite space for BBC services, aswell as savings on not paying for the Scottish Freeview service too, and then income from Scotland in the form of SBS paying the commercial rate from BBC Worldwide to show their programming, then the BBC are going to be in ghe same position if not actually better off.
Yes, but those marches you've posted are for English/ British policies, not for foreign ones which I was referring to. ( Gaza, Israel etc).
They probably cover what's newsworthy on the day, and fit marches in if they've got nothing else to broadcast.