Reposted for accuracy:

Arrogant or Arrogance is sooooo last year.

It does, because I'm embarrassed to say that I really don't see how her paraphrasing of her own question the second time around was drastically different in meaning to the first time she asked it.
Can somebody elaborate on this please?

I know that some don't like her, but I don't want to condemn her for something which is either a slightly different rewording which was intended to be slightly more cogent, or just an innocent mistake where she didn't intend to misrepresent anybody.

I've done it myself. I've posted something online where I thought a sentence I've written looks like it may read better if it was shorter and I could have chosen fewer words to say the same thing. Sometimes I have time to edit it and sometimes I don't. I really don't see how her meaning changed much. She was essentially saying the same thing but with fewer words wasn't she?

In the broadcast interview her question is as originally phrased. OK she paraphrased her question when summarising the interview. The question I suppose hangs on what Corbyn thought he was being asked. Since the interview took place in the wake of the Paris attacks I'd have thought that was obvious.

More accurately they've been non reporting the BNP for years. Possibly due to a lack of relevance.

So she isn't actually in trouble at all.

Doesn't sound anything out of the ordinary for most journalists to whom a headline is more important than accuracy.

Given that this is a report of the provisional finding of the BBC Trust, i would say she is in trouble. The Trust found that she breached the guidelines.

For the record the police have NEVER had a 'shoot to wound' policy, they always shoot 'to neutralise the threat' they are trained to aim for the largest part of the body which is the 'central mass' or chest, the head is much smaller and therefore the chances of missing are much higher, likewise with the arms or legs, if their target lives or dies is not really a consideration, the objective is at all times to render the target out of action and no longer a threat.

So asking someone if they are in favour of a shoot to kill policy shows either a remarkable lack of information on the topic or a deliberate attempt the 'trip up' the person you are interviewing, Corbyn was not asked about 'shoot to kill' in an ongoing terrorist situation, therefore it was a deliberate attempt to make him appear to be soft on terrorists,
from what I remember from the thread about it and the reaction of the 'if it's negative and about Corbyn I will believe it without question brigade' it was very successful.

I suppose you have seen the report, does it name who filed a complaint?

By the way, looking at some of the headlines on that website it comes across as the Breitfart of the Left.

How appropriate that you decide to 'shoot the messenger' on this topic

Well, have you seen the report to ensure the report is an accurate interpretation ?

Looking at other headlines....


The writer of the piece...


Breitfart of the Left is apt.

I'd say the Canary is about as "biased" as the Guardian or Telegraph - they definitely push their own agenda. I don't think they're quite at the Breitbart level yet

I think a fairly balanced view of the spat between Kuenssberg and The Canary can be seen here

At least the anti-Kuenssberg sentiment has moved on to trying to silence her by criticising her work rather than misogynist posts on social media or booing her during Labour press conferences

The point was with regards when they do report them. I would not argue as regards relevance for political parties should be reported as regards their current support in general terms or as regards their increasing support if that information is available.

As if Corbyn needs any help from Laura Kuennsberg to show how unelectable he is. He's doing a pretty good job on his own.

Is it the Canary that reacted or one political activist namely James Wright, who seems to have it in for Carlsberg for sometime...probably because she is female.

What is it about Canary's, Farage claims to be like a Canary down a mine...but don't they fall off their perch and die?

So a relic of an earlier time that's no longer relevant? Nope - no idea why they chose that for a name

I see. So in the original interview there was no surrounding context which referred to a Paris type of terrorist attack?
That's what I asked for earlier so thank you for the clarification if this is the case.

I think that is quite important.
You can't do that, because referring to a Paris style attack is providing a different context to the question which didn't exist before.
A lot depends on if there was a surrounding context where it was obvious that Corbyn knew that was what she meant in the original question even if she didn't explicitly say it. For example being asked about it just after a terrorist attack and Corbyn being clearly aware of what the question was connected to because it was a pressing issue at the time.

It would be a shitty thing for him to complain about if he was being disingenuous about it.

However, this is a leaked provisional report, and they have stated:


They also said (in the report):



Meanwhile BBC News has contested the report:

Symbolically speaking The Huffington Post is really the Breitbart of the left.
Because Andrew Breitbart was friends with Arianna Huffington, and it was he who helped her set it up.
The two publications are almost each others twins at birth.

Its a specious difference. If you don't have rules of engagement that allow police to shoot terrorists first , without warning , to kill, you can't shoot them in time. That ROE has to come from politicians. She paraphrases that as a shoot to kill policy. Corbyn's objection is to shooting terrorists generally, and to shooting them first, without warning - which shows he understands the question, and is what he rambles on about.

The substantive point remains intact. Corbyn wouldn't authorise, whats blindingly obviously, necessary to do when dealing with people, with techniques like bomb belts. And he falls back on evading the question - talking about it not being desirable and wanting some other, magical, non specified solution to the problem.

An intelligent voter isn't mislead at all on Corbyns view. And if reporters didn't paraphrase questions and responses , and explain what they meant in full, the news would be hours long.

The whole point seems to be that she asked him if he was in favour of a shoot to kill policy, while neglecting to add "in an ongoing terrorist situation" so Corbyn (I believe, and this is what the crux of the thing seems to be) thought she meant that should the police just have a shoot to kill policy in general, a sort of 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude on our streets,
she did NOT mention a Paris style attack or an ongoing terror attack in the interview, but went on to edit it in such a way that it appears that Corbyn was saying that even in such a situation the police should try not to kill the terrorists,

which, as I pointed out is an irrelevance anyway, as the police or security forces only ever shoot to neutralise the threat, the living or dying of the target does not really come into it,
for example if they shot a threat who went down but continues to move and either still has his weapon or they have reason to believe he may have an explosive device strapped to him, then they will continue to shoot until he is no longer moving. (and quite rightly)
it is however very interesting to compare the reaction of our 'impartial media' towards the initial interview, and their reaction since it has been revealed that there is a strong possibility that his words were intentionally manipulated in order that they be taken out of context with the intention to present a false impression to the public,

or as I prefer it, a barefaced politically motivated LIE, and the thing is, now that we have spotted that the emperor is indeed starkers (as many of us have been saying) ask yourselves this with an open mind, what else have they deliberately distorted or lied about? and should we ever trust them again?

Some examples of the media reaction to the initial story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023



This lie is from the BBC the people who did the interview and therefore KNEW it was a lie, he never said any such thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34840708


he is NOT backtracking because he was never asked the question about "during a terrorist attack"
the BBC even admit this in their next line in their OWN report.

I mean who would be happy knowing that the armed police have been instructed to 'shoot to kill' at all times? where did he say anything about a terrorist attack situation?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...attacks-labour

the Torygraph excel themselves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...g-Britain.html

he NEVER EVER said those words in bold, but hey a little thing like the truth doesn't stop the right wing media lying though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/new...ll-policy.html
watch the $%^&ing video, he never mentions a terrorist situation he says " I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general"

Very little going on about the BBC getting caught out, certainly nothing like the feeding frenzy of the right wing media when they had a good lie to spread.

free and impartial media RIP.

My first thoughts on hearing the reporting of Corbyn's interview were good, if I'm ever unlucky enough to be involved in an ongoing terrorist situation I want the police to operate a stop the bastards in the most effective way possible policy.

Whether that be to kill, disable, wrestle to the ground, scare away or quietly arrest them, I don't think I'd care as long as they're stopped from hurting innocent people.

I'd also rather they didn't start taking potshots at likely looking suspects because they've been told that they should shoot to kill as the first and main objective due to pressure from politicians fueled by the perpetually fuming right wing press.

Seems it's not just Kuenssberg showing her bias. Apparently the Economist is now Friends of the Tories