According to our dear B-BBC commenters, this morning Radio 5 Live did a ‘text’ poll asking for people’s opinions on whether or not the UK should sign-up to the new EU constitution. The result of the poll was cheerily reported by the presenter as being 67% in favour of Britain signing up, with 33% against – which is, as anyone who reads the newspapers knows, almost the exact opposite of properly conducted polls.
Cheerily that is, until this bit:
And so far, the voting in our straw poll is as follows, 33% of you [intake of breath, long pause], uh, is this right? This is the wrong way, this is, er, opposite to what we were saying an hour ago, ah, I’m gonna just check those figures for you. Apparently, no, you don’t want to join 67% of you, and yes, 33%. Which, I have to admit, is absolutely opposite to what I reported to you about twenty minutes ago to Eric Forth, so we’ll clarify that for you, I do apologise, but a lot of people are saying that our unscientific vote isn’t fair because it’s skewed towards younger people who have mobile phones and are more likely to text us, so we’ll find out about what proper scientific polls say about the subject a bit later in the programme, although I do think that is ageist because my mum’s over fifty and she knows how to text.
The funny thing about this is how shocked the presenter was at her mistake. We all make mistakes from time to time, but her first, mistaken, interpretation was so at odds with known polling on this subject that surely she should have stopped and questioned that result, rather than stopping later to question the correct figures, especially as Eric Forth, when he was interviewed, pointed out just how far off beam the earlier (mistaken, unbeknownst to him) figures were…
As for her then going on to emphasise how unscientific the poll was, I don’t believe that this point would have been emphasised to this extent were the situation reversed.
Presumably the complaints about the ‘text’ nature of the poll, to which the presenter referred, were older listeners responding to the earlier figures being so far out from their perception of the state of public opinion, although as it turns out, the ‘text’ generation (cast me as a thirty- something techie fuddy-duddy who reckons ‘texts’ are poor value for money, at least in terms of bits-per-pence!) is, reassuringly, firmly against getting further embroiled in the EU too. It’s a pity Radio 5 Live isn’t so in tune with its audience.
Courtesy of commenter ‘Anonymous’, you can hear two excerpts from the above in this MP3 recording: http://upload4free.com/files/1810.mp3. Thank you Anonymous!
>although I do think that is ageist because my mum’s over fifty and she knows how to text.
Did she really say this? On air? Almost too good to be true.
If the BBC poll is skewed towards any position, it’s going to be skewed towards “Yes”, because BBC listeners are more likely to be Europhiles than, say, Talk Sport listeners. So this is an astonishing result.
it was i who made that clip – with a little help from the BBC’s very own ‘listen again’ section on their web site 🙂
jx
Thanks for that. ‘Derbyshire’s Pause’ as I shall henceforth refer to it was priceless. You can actually hear the disbelief! I agree with Scott that if the poll is skewed in any way it would be towards Eurounrealists. I was indeed, one of those Little Englander jackbooted Nazi bigot anti- EU types listening in to Alan Parry and Ian Collins on TalkSport. I have to say that simply through force of habit though; nothing beats Mike Dickin in the morning and I’m waiting for him to reclaim his throne.
As I’ve said all along,the Beeb is not only biased — it’s incompetent! How much does this airhead make per year, I wonder?
There was obviously some kind of organised campaign on behalf of UKIP and their secret friends the BNP.
The fact that they show such Xenophobia on the anniversary of the Holocaust should give us all pause for thought.
If we do not accept this constitution, there will be war and pestilence, or something, so its realy important.
Radio 5 is easily the most politically biased part of the BBC network – even Radio 4 is not in the same league. There’s an overwhelming feeling that no one is in control and the presenters have total freedom to air their narrow political agenda and prejudices to the populace at large. And the Breakfast programme is not even the worst of it – the late afternoon Drive programme is a Guardian readers’ love-in with no opposing political point of view getting a look in.
What a classic clip!
Susan hits the nail on the head. This bubblehead presenter fails to smell a rat about the 2 to 1 pro-Europe majority.
Someone like Paxman, Andrew Neil etc. would have sniffed it out straight away.
Not that I’m being arsey for the sake of it, but in an item which chastises the BBC for being unprofessional, Andrew pens the least grammatically structured sentence known to man:
“We all make mistakes from time to time, but her first, mistaken, interpretation was so at odds with known polling on this subject that surely she should have stopped and questioned that result, rather than stopping later to question the correct figures, especially as Eric Forth, when he was interviewed, pointed out just how far off beam the earlier (mistaken, unbeknownst to him) figures were…”
Try and fit another comma in Andrew, I dare you!
Hey TGORK, it may not be the best of sentences, but the point of commas (in the right places) is to aid comprehension, so it’s a mystery why you should criticise that particular aspect of the sentence.
And, if you think that’s bad, try re-reading the nonsense in the quote from the unflappable professional presenter. Unlike her, no one is compelled to pay their hard-earned tellytax cash to me for the pleasure of reading my thoughts!
Still, I suppose we should be thankful that you’ve stooped to picking on grammatical style having evidently failed to rebut the main thrust of our contentions about BBC bias… 🙂
>Not that I’m being arsey for the sake of it, but in an item which chastises the BBC for being unprofessional, Andrew pens the least grammatically structured sentence known to man:
There’s nothing ungrammatical about that sentence. It could have had a few commas less, perhaps, but that would not have been a matter of grammar.
I challange you, Ghosty-boy, to explain in what way the sentence is ungrammatical.
Note too the bizarre constant refrences to ‘joining the constitution’.
Say what ?
Is it excessively tinfoil to wonder whether someone’s trying to help push the Blairesque canard that opposition to the constitution must automatically mean support for leaving the EU ?
redken
You don’t have to apologise for being “arsey” – it is what we expect you to be.
“Yet the biggest problem that most students have with commas is their overuse. Some essays look as though the student loaded a shotgun with commas and blasted away. Remember, too, that a pause in reading is not always a reliable reason to use a comma.”
http://cctc2.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
redken
1 – The sentence is fine. The pauses are in the right place, it read well enough and I understood it immediately.
2 – So we see the pro-BBC camp descend to questioning grammer. Come to the dark side, redken, you know it makes sense.
3 – Maybe a pattern is emerging here. We’ve seen how liberals like to make fun of Bush for being inarticulate. Does this signal the intent of the left to go after the man when they cannot score on matters of substance? Be careful, redken; however bad we may be you have Prescott, Mangler-in-Chief of the English language, on your side 😉
Just for you TGORK, this time annotated with the relevant ‘rule’ from the page you quoted:
“We all make mistakes from time to time,[2] but her first,[4] mistaken,[4] interpretation was so at odds with known polling on this subject that surely she should have stopped and questioned that result,[2] rather than stopping later to question the correct figures,[2] especially as Eric Forth,[4] when he was interviewed,[4] pointed out just how far off beam the earlier (mistaken,[2] unbeknownst to him) figures were…”
Rule 2: Use a comma + a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so) to connect two independent clauses… if there is ever any doubt, however, use the comma, as it is always correct in this situation.
Rule 4: Use a comma to set off parenthetical elements… a part of a sentence that can be removed without changing the essential meaning of that sentence.
If you still feel strongly about this off-topic diversion do re-write the sentence more elegantly so that we may compare the two versions. Thank you!
I think redken is these days flying in ever-decreasing circles. Till he finally disappears you-know-where !
Prescott is certainly not on my side. Why do you keep assuming I’m either a BBC employee or Labour party supporter?
I seriously wonder about the sanity of the people on this blog, if the poll had come up with opposite result, you all would be up in arms. “Damned if you and damned if you don’t” is the phrase I’m verbally grasping for here. Presenter makes hash of it all. Big fecking deal.
‘I think redken is these days flying in ever-decreasing circles. Till he finally disappears you-know-where !’
If the truth be told I started reading this board for a different perspective than my own opinion and to start with there were some interesting observations, well made points even.But this place seems to have descended into right-wing moonbat hell and pointless nit-picking. It’s just not as fresh or as insightful as it used to be.
Andrew: I just found it amusing that if you had penned that article for any media news outlet you’d have probably have been sacked, yet the nit-picking continues! Provide me with some real insight for Christ sakes! Even Marc from USSNeverUsesSpellCheck could have written your last post.
redken
Stick to Balamory – its the red meat of BBC PC. And no commas.
TGORK: “Not that I’m being arsey for the sake of it…”
TGORK: “…yet the nit-picking continues!”
Indeed – now put the mirror away!
I’m sure I’m not the only B-BBC reader eagerly awaiting the chance to do some lit. crit. on your own improved version of my sentence TGORK. You can even split it into more than one sentence if you wish – but mind you don’t miss anything out or make things too complicated!
We’re waiting…
You’re, rather, purposely, missing, my, point, Andrew.
They used to tell me that Dr Joe Goebbels poisoned himself and his family in Berlin 60 years ago this May; but with Mengele dying on a beach in Brazil I just wondered if the BBC had smuggled Josef out to run training courses…………..”a lie oft repeated……..”
TGORK: I’d like to pointedly point out that you have a pointless point.
Which is my point.
Right…
To summarise myself more concisely:
I don’t have a problem with Andrew’s grammar but his post is neither an example of BBC bias or particularly insightful in any way, it was nit-picking, which is very easy to do but neither constructive nor helpful, hence I nit-picked Andrew. Ok?
TGORK, if you must be “arsey”, we’re still waiting for your rewritten version of “the least grammatically structured sentence known to man”.
Surely you can spare just a bit more of your valuable time to show us how much better it could have been done – especially given how poor my effort apparently was – there must be plenty of scope for you to show me up good and proper. Go on, be a love.
P.S. Are you a student or an academic?
TGORG: Nit-picking’s fine. Can I have a go, too?
“…Andrew pens the least grammatically structured sentence known to man” and “I don’t have a problem with Andrew’s grammar…” imply you don’t care about grammar.
Well, I do, up to a point. And I am deeply offended by your lack of regard for it. Will you apologise? 🙂
Andrew enquires whether our grammatical editor is a student or an academic. In my experience one cannot assume to much from either source. A lecturer with a doctorate in English told me a few years ago how unsettling it was being required to grammar when she had never studied it herself.
Anonymous: “Andrew enquires whether our grammatical editor is a student or an academic. In my experience one cannot assume to much from either source.”
No, but one can reasonably make that assumption based on the consistent source of TGORK’s submissions… 😉
There’s lovely!
redken
Believe it or not I won’t demand anything of you in the way of grammer. It’s this
“Prescott is certainly not on my side. Why do you keep assuming I’m either a BBC employee or Labour party supporter?”
thing. I’ve never assumed that you’re a BBC employee but I have assumed you’re a lefty. In my defence your name in here does lead me to believe that; I know of only one Red Ken and I’m fortunate enough not to live in his fiefdom anymore. So please enlighten me and others. This isn’t sarcastic, leading anywhere or an attempt at a wind up. Please enlighten us so we know where you’re coming from.
How rude of me. I’ll go first. I’m a working class Londoner who has at times voted Tory, UKIP or spoiled the ballot paper (come to think of it ‘disfigured’ would be a more apt term). My instincts are libertarian with a dash of Tory chucked in. Anti-EU, anti-tranzies, very much pro freedom and liberty and I will only be happy when the BBC is shut down or privatised.
And you?
I rang 5 live today during a Holocaust disscusion, asking what the view was regarding the Muslim Council of Britain refusing to attend a ceremony…I never got past the researcher who said it was irelevant.
Was it?
Very relevant I’d say – at least since the Muslim Council of Britain made such a song and dance about their reasons for not attending it is – at least as relevant as the BBC making special mention of the Muslim contribution to Tsunami fundraising efforts was…
Moreover, who is the researcher to decide on the relevance of the question in these cicumstances? Did he/she explain why they considered it irrelevant, given the MCB’s hoo-ha about their non-attendance?
Perhaps a little creative mis-direction of the researcher would have got you on air…
Thanks Andrew, maybe next time a little creative mis-direction will be in order.
Pete: Oh ok if it’ll make you happy or provoke some interesting banter. I would describe myself as politically in the centre with the occasional leaning towards the left (don’t laugh, if you think I’m a ‘proper loony’ lefty then you really should meet some of the people I know). I come from working class background and I’ve voted both Labour and Liberal in the past and I can’t say I have an alliance to any party. That said I would never vote for the Tories because they turned where I used to live into one of Britain’s biggest shit-pits in the 80’s. I live in large city and work for stupidly large public sector organisation although I used to work in the media (and still do, sort of) but never for BBC or Guardian/ Independent and that’s as specific as I’m prepared to be on that.
I dislike most of the Labour party (particularly Prescott) and I think George W. Bush is an illiterate/liar/oil company stooge and probably a crook but I would concede that Kerry was terrible candidate. I l
I like the BBC, but more for the entertainment, comedy and radio than the news coverage (Channel 4 is my preferred source, although Newsnight is very good).
My ‘handle’ is a play on The Ghost of Tom Joad by Springsteen. It was just the first thing that came into my head, no real significance…
Oh and I’m not to sure on Europe. If pushed I’d say I was pro-EU with extreme scepticism.
All this talk of Prescott and class reminds me of an excellent Private Eye cover from a few years ago – Prescott had said something about him (or maybe it was everyone) being middle class now.
Private Eye printed a picture of Blair saying “The middle class is behind me…”, with Prescott in the background saying “‘Appens I am yer poncey bugger” – made me laugh anyway 🙂
redken
As I said, there was no intent behind me asking apart from getting a handle on where you’re coming from. Voted for the LibDems, eh? Thanks for confirming you’re from the extreme left 😉
I’d reckon that the LibDems are a fairly dangerous bunch and get a free ride from the BBC (could be coincidence). What I find particularly annoying when one of this right-on bunch is expressing say, his/her desire to spend (our) money on more overseas aid or extract higher taxes etc. is that radioactive glow of smug self-satisfaction which appears across the face of the spokesman. Labour has been in government and their spokesmen are at least partially aware that there are some limits to good intentions
I wonder, how many would vote for the EU constitution if they were aware of the EU lifting it’s arms embargo on China?
Perhaps that is why there has been so little coverage of this hugely important moral issue.
I was very pro-EU 10 years ago, but I have become dissilusioned with it’s dubious, anti-liberal policies.
I dislike Bush. And I think the Iraq war is a mistake, not for the PC reasons espoused by much of the Guardian reading Left, but because I see no real gain for the US or UK people.
There has been so much Anti-Americanism spewed and stirred by Iraq that America has gained nothing. It pains me to say that, but it is a hard truth in my view.
One further note. The Democrats in the US are basically class traitors.
Many traditional Dem voters have complained of Bi-Coastal elitism in the DNC.
Why was Bush able to make gay marriage into such a big deal? Because the Dems are the ones obsessed with social issues…the leftist elite have no interest in economic policies for the working classes; the whole point of the Democrats.
“There has been so much Anti-Americanism spewed and stirred by Iraq that America has gained nothing. It pains me to say that, but it is a hard truth in my view.”
Oh pooh. Europe and the Arab states were spouting anti-Americanism during Clinton’s administration. Let them spout. The point is the Islamofacists and their ‘Arab Street’ supporters are now vividly aware that hostile *action* will have bad consequences for them personally.
I have no faith at all in the moral character of the Arab peoples but great faith in their sense of self interest. Support for terrorism will fade if and when the supporters suffer for it – and not before.
They are now suffering for it. And yes, enchantment with radical Islam is fading slightly. Now is the time to keep the pressure up, not ease off.
Remember suicide attacks are the strategy of losers, not winners. See WW II.