On the BBConline UK frontpage we see “Row looming over cannabis grading”
To its right, a survey is highlighted: “Third of staff ‘hungover at desk’“
Surveys and political “debates”- two of the BBC’s favourite things.
Well, what I am suggesting is that such tie-ins between a feature about the classifiction of Cannabis and the deleterous effects of alcohol is not coincidental- the BBC want to emphasise the old talking point about all drugs being equal (except the really hard ones).
Of course it’s manufactured news, opinion rather than reporting events, politicised rather than straightforward- the usual BBC thing.
People might hold all sorts of views on this but they don’t have to force the issue, whether there is a political demand to or not, through the media. Social experience is largely determinative, in my view. Against the BBC survey I would place my own experience- a cousin of mine died through mental ill-health which followed youthful cannabis usage. But, like, whatever…
note how the five hour shootout in chelsea is NOT on the front page…
by any stretch of the imagination that should be a TOP news story… well not in beeboid land.
they prefer “surveys” and drugs…
“But, like, whatever…”
Down with the kids as always David.
What seems to be the complaint? That the BBC had two stories on the front page which were vaguely connected in your head?
Not sure about the conspiracy theories of the post, but I’m quite amused by the inference that those in the media drink more because of “long hours, high expectations, short-term contracts and bad management”. i.e. look at me, look at me!! aren’t I clever??!!!
I’m not entirely convinced that the media sector is REALLY the hardest working sector of employment with the highest expectations…
Cockney- not sure I follow what you mean by “conspiracy theories”.
Every newspaper editor has an idea what his typical type of front page would look like. The web need be no exception. Every journalist, meanwhile, works according to his assessment of that editor’s vision.
To its right, a survey is highlighted: “Third of staff ‘hungover at desk'”
Only a third? I find that hard to believe.
Weren’t three-quarters of the BBC’s staff hung over after celebrating Labour’s victory the 1997 election?
This is definitely a tenuous example of bias. I’m not sure what bias the original post is trying to point out. It is news that cannabis likely going to be reclassified as a Class B drug. Especially since it wasn’t that long ago that this government reclassified it as Class C.
It is interesting that this is against the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Clearly everyone has an opinion on this, but this change of status will have knock-on effects for the police and prison service. Surely the real story here is that it’s Labour trying to look as tough on crime as the Conservatives. Not necessarily implementing a sensible policy.
As I said I really don’t think this is an example of BBC bias, and shouldn’t have been posted as such. The old less is more argument. I’d rather have the general comment threads and then bigger/more obvious examples of bias highlighted rather than the current scattergun approach…
sky news lead on the chelsea shootout
bbc 1 o clock lead on cannibis
says it all really…
bbc news continue to ignore chelsea – now they’re on about burma!!!
I wonder how many Beeboids take soft and hard drugs?
mister scruff — is Sky still running the hilarious interview with the batty Chelsea neighbour whose parrot kept falling off its perch at the gun shots and shouting?
I expect the BBC to interview said Parrot soon, maybe Paxman himself. Them being experts on parroting things.
Ed: “Cockney- not sure I follow what you mean by “conspiracy theories”.”
I think he meant that you jumped to the assumption that because both stories were featured on the front page for a time (which is no longer the case), the BBC was deliberately trying to associate one story with the other.
Which is, I admit, quite a mild conspiracy theory for this site, which usually puts the BBC behind most of the ills of the world — but it’s a conspiracy theory nonetheless.
No, Scott. It’s called editorial analysis.
They used to teach it at school, but that may have gone by the board these days, along with so much else.
No, GCooper — it’s Ed Thomas’ assumption of how the BBC selects which stories get selected for the various section fronts of their website.
In the absence of any definitive information, he merely jumps to the conclusion that the BBC wants to promote a link between those two stories, because that’s what fits into his particular opinion of how the BBC operates.
There’s nothing analytical about that. It’s biased conjecture of the sort that devalues Biased BBC’s supposed aims.
The issue with the dope debate is Brown’s abandonment of evidence-based decision-making in favour of an obvious bit of gesture politics.
Given the widespread assumption in these pages that the BBC routinely prostitutes itself in Brown’s interests, a story highlighting the PM’s departure from his own principles is to be welcomed.
Surely?
.
And what ‘definitive information’ do you have in mind, Scott? A sworn affidavit from the head of BBC News explaining the process whereby the BBC selects its stories?
BBC apologists are quick enough to accuse the Right wing Press (The Mail, in particular) of selectivity, yet squeal when the compliment is returned.
Ed Thomas may, or may not, have been right to infer what he did from the juxtaposition of these two stories, but you are in no better position to assert that he is wrong.
Over a period of time, it is perfectly possible to analyse the BBC’s news output by watching the patterns. Indeed, it is the only way to do it.
I assume this isn’t a joke, so are you on drugs Ed?
“Over a period of time, it is perfectly possible to analyse the BBC’s news output by watching the patterns. Indeed, it is the only way to do it.”
Well, let’s look at the UK section front page right this second, shall we?
The cannabis story is still the major lead. In the “Other top stories” section, which is where the hangover story was featured, we currently have stories on flood plans, a Scottish referendum, the Chelsea siege, driving tests, the suicide bomber trial, abortion, and the proposed Ebbsfleet sculpture.
None of which could possibly be linked to the cannabis story by any rational person. Which, I would suggest, means that the position of the drinking story in the same list was not related to the cannabis story either.
Hillhunt:
The issue with the dope debate is Brown’s abandonment of evidence-based decision-making in favour of an obvious bit of gesture politics.
If you’d had a 21 year old niece, or any relative for that matter, who hanged herself whilst in prison awaiting a court appearance for shoplifting, in order to fuel her addiction to drugs of all kinds including cannabis and seen a child born disabled due to the same addiction and attended the funeral of that young lady then you wouldn’t call it gesture politics you arsehole.
Scott writes:
“None of which could possibly be linked to the cannabis story by any rational person. Which, I would suggest, means that the position of the drinking story in the same list was not related to the cannabis story either.”
You cannot infer any such thing. I suggest you go away and think about it a little more.
I too have lost a woman I loved to Cannabis.
Drug use is a moral evil. Sobriety.
Liberals repudiate sobriety, their ethic is the simple and inadequate “do what thou wilt”.
I recoil from Liberals the way a healthy animal recoils from urine and excreta.
Meggoman,
Sorry to hear of your personal tragedy. Cannabis isn’t physically addictive though, nor does it cause infant deformities.
I think HillHunt’s point was that reclassifying cannabis as either a ‘C’ or ‘B’ class isn’t going to make a whole heap of difference to its use. I was sorry to hear about your neice though.
GCooper, you remind me of Homer Simpson. Lisa was trying to explain to him once something about logic and reasoning. She said ‘This rock is a magic rock because it keeps tigers away. How do I know this? You don’t see any tigers round here do you?”
To which Homer replied “Oh, Oh gimme, gimme the magic rock’.
Go away and think about it.
If ganja gets reclassified as Jacqui Smith wants is this likely to lead to an estrangement between NuLiebour and an organisation that employs the likes of Johnnie Walker, Richard Bacon, Grooverider, Nigel Wrench, Graham Norton (cont. p94)
Beeboids very excited about cannabis reclassification. Given the number of them lifted for drugs posession it is obviously a subject dear to their little marxist hearts.
The about turn stems from the emergence of the GM form of cannabis, skunk, many, many times stronger than the old fashioned varieties. Skunk has a potency appraoching that of opium.
It would be I suspect that many in the anti-GM movement are partial to skunk. It would be interesting to find out if that is indeed the case.
Alex,
Learn to read who actually writes the post before opening your mouth.
The news headlines on PM repeatedly mentioned only that Jacquie Smith was reversing the decison on cannabis that was made “by a former Home Secretary”. Not “.. by David Blunkett”, or “.. x years ago by a former Labour Party Home Secretary”.
No, keep it vague to protect your political friends as far as possible, and allow any uninformed listeners to wonder if it was a Conservative Home secretary.
Joel: The deficiency in your argument is matched only by its audacity.
If you cannot understand the absolute illogicality of what Scott is suggesting (that a connection between two things cannot be established if it does not occur on every occasion) then I despair.
It’s probably best not to use The Simpsons as your appeal to authority, by the way. It just makes matters worse.
“by a former Home Secretary”. Not “.. by David Blunkett”, or “.. x years ago by a former Labour Party Home Secretary”.
In the order of the revolutionary transcendence, we have abandoned the irresponsible re-classificationism of the discredited and right-wing David Blunkett. There is no room for failure and deviationism in our new age of hope and change. We must continue sweeping away the accumulated historical detritus of the overthrown and hated Blairist oligarchy.
WoAD 🙂
If you want more like that read Private Eye. They feature in every issue a Gordon Brown “Presidential Decree” written in Stalinist language.
OT. Follow this link, ignore the main story though, on the right hand side is a highly misleading table of the election results for the Mayor of London. The BBC seem to be ramping up the candidates they wish had being more succesful.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7388574.stm
They seem to think it is legitimate to add second preferences to all the candidates when the entire system is based on the redistribution occuring only to the top two candidates (votes who voted for those candidates do *not* have their second preference counted).
Under the crazy bbc system, it would be quite possible for the libdem to have had the most votes (if he wasnt a useless wally).
Why would the bbc do this?
Those who scoff at the suggestion that the BBC is deliberately pushing a point of view by linking the cannabis article with the one on alcohol have obviously never observed the editors’ careful designing of the website for maximum propaganda effect.
This varies from subtle manipulation of the news – a bit more emphasis here, a little less there – to blatant distortion. And it is interesting to note that the subjects especially dear to the BBC’s little heart, bless it, are the ones to suffer the most distortion.
I mentioned here
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7173557651858437868/#396737
that right after Boris had been confirmed as mayor of London the BBC ‘news’ front page had as its top story the latest twist in the saga, then already over a month old, of the Zimbabwe election, complete with photos of Mugabe and Morgan Whatshisname and big bold text shouting out the headlines. A small photo of an unsmiling Boris (hell I wonder when that was taken, certainly not after he’d won) complete with subdued headline was eclipsed by the brilliant radiation from the Zimbabwe story above. Given equal weight to that of Boris was the news that the Sudan defence minister had died in an air crash.
Now evidently BBC editors were in shock and mourning at the loss of their beloved Livingstone, and the fact that it came right on the heels of Labour’s resounding defeat made matters worse. But the BBC seems to think it has the right to inflict its despicable loyalties and sympathies on everyone else.
Anyone who thinks Zimbabwe would have trumped London on the BBC website if Livingstone had won doesn’t know the BBC. If the BBC really feels that the latest bit of news about Zimbabwe’s political squabbles is more important than the election of a (Conservative) Mayor of London, then it has no right to call itself the British Broadcasting Corporation and no right to continue to leech off the British taxpayer.
WoAD | 07.05.08 – 7:16 pm
I recoil from Liberals the way a healthy animal recoils from urine and excreta.
I take it you never owned a dog.:)
“If you cannot understand the absolute illogicality of what Scott is suggesting (that a connection between two things cannot be established if it does not occur on every occasion) then I despair.”
Oh please. The original piece suggests that, in a list of headline links that changes regularly, the appearance of one story on that list for a short amount of time is sufficient to show that the BBC wants to subliminally link that story in the minds of its readers with the main story on the same page.
And you have the cheek to question my illogicality?
Call itself the British Broadcasting Corporation? Well, the BBC seems to think it is taking over the world. Perhaps it is replaying some old, lingering notion of what is British.
Strange indeed is this grandiose assumption of its own importance and the necessity of its swaggering presence in America, Africa and Asia. I suspect this BBC sickness is a side-effect of being bloated with too much (of our) cash.
The BBC has an obsession with XImbabwe. Maybe it thinks that Britain is a branch of that country.
They never stop. It is relentless.
Every time I hear them rabbiting on about a “run-off”, I wonder if they ever stop to think about what they are saying. I doubt they have the capacity. What exactly is this run-off? Something to do with rainwater drainage? A hundred-yard sprint? Could be anything.
For all the endless rabbiting, they seem incapable of informing us what exactly would happen and how the result would be determined. They simply rabbit, rabbit, parrot phrases that do not impart actual information. They might as well be talking to themselves.
“For all the endless rabbiting, they seem incapable of informing us what exactly would happen and how the result would be determined.”
Hmm. Alongside every piece of their Zimbabwe coverage, one of the links is clearly labelled “Q&A: Zimbabwe elections”, which goes into the voting system in plain language, clearly explaining the concept of the second round run-off.
I think having a separate web page for a backgrounder going into the details of Zimbabwe’s electoral mechanics, rather than clogging up each story with an explanation of each term every time it’s used, is quite a sound approach.
Imagine I’m listening to the news, not msking a study of the Zimbabwe electoral system. I just want in a few words the gist of what will happen, not a longwinded explanation of all the ins and outs. I’m left wondering what they mean and I am none the wiser. Repeating phrases is just meaningless chatter. They need to inform and communicate with clarity.
As I am the common listener, there will be hundreds of thousands more sitting there scratching their heads too.
Supplementary information elsewhere to amplify basic information is fine. That’s not really the issue here, which is the use of language.
Joel- email: no name. Homepage: BBC.
Content of comments: nil apart from insults. Bye bye old son.
Scott writes:
“And you have the cheek to question my illogicality?”
Indeed I do, because you are clearly incapable of understanding a really elementary idea. I had hoped you would have been able to work it out for yourself and saved me the trouble of posting again, but as you clearly cannot, I suppose I’ll have to.
Let us say that the BBC juxtaposes two stories, and let’s take the example Ed Thomas used of cannabis and alcohol.
You claim that because one of those stories later disappears, no inference of a connection between those two stories can be taken from that juxtaposition.
Clearly, that is not true, if it is part of a pattern of juxtapositions, which was what lay behind Ed Thomas’s post.
For something to be part of a pattern or trend it does not have to occur every time. It simply needs to occur sufficiently often to be beyond chance.
Do you understand now?
Thanks GC- that was well put.
Sorry no open thread. But can’t let this pass.
This from the BBC.
‘The YouGov survey for the Sun newspaper suggested David Cameron’s opposition had the support of almost half of voters (49%).
However, other recent polls have suggested the gap is smaller.’
They just have to qualify the poll with that little sentence at the end. Why?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7391549.stm
In fact Gordan Ramsay creating seasonal menus is a bigger story than NuLab in meltdown if you are to believe the BBC. There’s no mention of this poll on the BBC front page or website other than the extract above which is a story about Labour not the poll. But Gordon Ramsay gets a spot of his own
Why not say this
http://news.sky.com/skynews/politics or this
http://www.aol.co.uk/?src=www.aol.com
or this
http://itn.co.uk/news/uk_news.html
“Do you understand now?”
In other words — we say there’s a conspiracy. You can’t prove there isn’t, so shut up. Classic conspiracy theorist reasoning.
Trouble is, I have ten years’ experience in building editorial web systems for construction home pages and section fronts, be they manual, semi-automated or completely automated. That experience allows me, over the years that I’ve been reading the BBC news site, to take a knowledgeable estimate of how that “other top news stories” segment gets put together.
My apologies for using knowledge and experience to inform my opinion. I do appreciate it’s not the typical Biased BBC way of doing things.
Oh, and if there’s a pattern of juxtapositions, let’s hear it. Ed Thomas’s post only has one instance, and it’s impossible to justify a pattern from that.
Scott writes:
“Trouble is, I have ten years’ experience in building editorial web systems for construction home pages and section fronts, be they manual, semi-automated or completely automated.”
A whole ten years!? Such a wealth of editorial experience!
Scott later ads:
“Ed Thomas’s post only has one instance, and it’s impossible to justify a pattern from that.”
Now we are getting somewhere. It’s almost as if you have finally begun grasp the basic idea.
Earlier in this thread, you wrote: “There’s nothing analytical about that. It’s biased conjecture of the sort that devalues Biased BBC’s supposed aims.”
As I pointed out, you cannot know this. Thus your airy dismissal of Ed Thomas’s point was based on exactly what you accuse him of.
Give it another 10 years Scott.
“A whole ten years!? Such a wealth of editorial experience! ”
Well, seeing as the world wide web only dates as far back as 1993, and widespread uptake didn’t occur until much later, please don’t be so patronising.
“As I pointed out, you cannot know this. Thus your airy dismissal of Ed Thomas’s point was based on exactly what you accuse him of.”
So let’s see this analysis. There was none in Thomas’s original account, and there has been none in your comments.
Otherwise, you’re just repeating yourself – you want to see a pattern, so you say there’s a pattern, but provide no evidence of one.
Scott writes:
“Well, seeing as the world wide web only dates as far back as 1993, ….”
This site is about the BBC’s collective bias not, solely, the (all too manifest) bias of those who edit its website.
The juxtaposition of those two stories was a question of editorial bias – a journalistic matter – not something unique to websites. Thus, your claim to special expertise was irrelevant.
“…you want to see a pattern, so you say there’s a pattern, but provide no evidence of one.”
Whereas you and your fellow apologists for the BBC see no bias at all, because what there is conforms to your worldview.
Ed Thomas’s post, as many of the posts and comments here do, illuminated another element of the bias which you and your predecessors (Reith et al) try to nit-pick out of existence.
Seasoned BBC watchers, however, take it as a whole and thus arrive at an opinion, based on the big picture, rather than a single fragment.
“This site is about the BBC’s collective bias not, solely, the (all too manifest) bias of those who edit its website.”
But the issue Ed Thomas envisages concerned a particular page of the website.
“The juxtaposition of those two stories was a question of editorial bias – a journalistic matter – not something unique to websites. Thus, your claim to special expertise was irrelevant.”
Incorrect. The juxtaposition occurred between the main story on a page (which I think is safe to assume is selected by an editorial process) and one story of several presented in a list to its right. How that list is constructed would be pertinent, especially if (as Ed Thomas suggested, and you seem to have assumed must be true) the BBC wanted to place a single story in there to create a subliminal link with the main story.
“Whereas you and your fellow apologists for the BBC see no bias at all, because what there is conforms to your worldview.”
Classic issue avoidance. Challenged on your assertion, you start rounding on your critics.
“Ed Thomas’s post, as many of the posts and comments here do, illuminated another element of the bias which you and your predecessors (Reith et al) try to nit-pick out of existence.”
No. Ed Thomas’s post suggests a link, but provides no evidence to back it up. And your attempt to justify it amounts to little more than “we all know the BBC’s biased, so this suggestion MUST be true”. Which isn’t really particularly strong, now, is it?
Scott writes:
“How that list is constructed would be pertinent, especially if (as Ed Thomas suggested, and you seem to have assumed must be true) the BBC wanted to place a single story in there to create a subliminal link with the main story.”
You assume wrongly. As I commented earlier:
“Ed Thomas may, or may not, have been right to infer what he did from the juxtaposition of these two stories, but you are in no better position to assert that he is wrong.”
You did that because, regardless of the volume of evidence presented on this site, you choose to regard each incident as discrete, rather than part of a whole. Death by a thousand nit-picks.
As I said before, it’s a familiar tactic but no one is buying it, save the BBC’s apologists.
I’ll leave you to have the final word.
“You did that because, regardless of the volume of evidence presented on this site, you choose to regard each incident as discrete, rather than part of a whole.”
If all the incidents are on as shaky ground as this one, what value is there in considering them as a whole?
Biased BBC is, as I’ve said before, a worthy concept in theory. In practice on this site, though, it fails because of the poor level of quality control.
Scott, I don’t really hope to make you understand, because you will understand what you want to.
However, the main (“row looming”) story was published in advance of the actual decision on classification. It was preparatory to a story rather than reactive, and therefore its timing could be chosen.
Meanwhile the other story was from a survey- we all should know by now that surveys are commissioned, and the commissioners of surveys to be published usually for one reason or another have in mind the news cycle. Hence when I saw the two non-news stories at the same time I felt it worthy of comment. I still think so.
I made it pretty clear- “you know where they stand” that it was a point you get if you believe as I do. You don’t and so you didn’t, and that’s that. So next time simply say “I disagree”- it’s all you can reasonably do.
The fact is as GC stated that “coincidences” repeated become less and less coincidental and more and more of a pattern. That is part of the function of this site, since no BBC stories come neatly packaged with a “biased” label for the edification of sceptical or hostile readers.
Btw Scott, following your interest I have done a little more research into the alcohol report. The study was commissioned by Alcohol Concern (which the BBC itself reported), which is Dept of Health funded.
ON the Alcohol Concern website I came across references to and articles from another DoH funded organisation, the National Treatment Agency. The NTA states in a recent publication:
“A key question concerns whether or not alcohol will be included in the NTA’s remit, given that the NTA will have a significant effect on the provision of alcohol services, whether or not alcohol is included within its brief.
So far the alcohol field has leant towards the view that alcohol should be included in the remit of the agency. Ideally the NTA should deal equally and appropriately with both drug and alcohol services from the outset but this looks unlikely at present.”
So, it looks like the BBC’s twinning of those reports certainly plays into an argument and agenda behind the scenes and brings it to the public mind at a crucial moment.
Just another coincidence, I am sure, Horatio.