A biased BBC reader writes
‘Just in case you missed it, Sarah Monatgue interviewing a prospective labour leader candidate on Radio 4’s Today (16/05/15) does a Naughtie and says “the reason why we, er you lost the election………”. The relevant section starts around 51 mins in.`’
If you check with the “Is the BBC Biased” web site it is suggested that the words quoted are an edited version.
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/stealth-editing-from-today.html
Hopefully will make the lady’s Wikipedia.
‘ it is suggested that the words quoted are an edited version’
Is there a way/has it been confirmed?
Can the BBC be asked?
Or does rather key sample quoting fall under their quaint exemption policies when it’s their staff doing it??
Not the first time that things get ‘disappeared’ at the BBC. I seem to remember the case of an embarrassing interview (with Mandleson, if my memory serves me) and a VT Tape that mysteriously vanished.
Could be argued she was just repeating the words of the guest who had just used the term. I would let it pass if I were feeling generous.
However I’m not
Come on chaps, be fair. What if the candidate’s name is Weeryu?
So when a BBC journalist makes a slip of the tongue when talking about a Conservative or Ukip politician, it is to call them a “cunt”, but when it’s Labour, the slip of the tongue is “we”. But they are not biased of course. Perish the thought comrade.
With due acknowledgement of one of the commenters on the other website, could we imagine any BBC presenter interviewing Nigel Farage saying “We got 4 million votes, but ….”
I think that really does sum up that “we” is only a small word, but it can say so much in the context it is being discussed in here!
Very very well spotted. Also an accurate observation I think.
She was very quick indeed in seeing the territory she was about to set foot in….
That comment of ‘we’ is so very telling.
No doubt before and after the programme they were all chatting together and the word ‘we’ was used in the same context.
The BBC can mourn with Labour all it likes. But Labour ain’t gonna come back. Hell, no…!!
..
Captured and saved!
I don’t think it has been edited, the section in question would be very easy to remove.
I have just listened to You &Yours re the BBC license fee. ‘We’ in this case means those that the programme chose to give time to give their views. They were allowed to comment on particular minutiae such as that they did/didn’t think the salaries were too high but I could believe every single one of them were picked because they work for the Beeb as virtually to a man they agreed with the Beeb’s group think.
I listened to the You & Yours programme, I even sent an email saying that as I pay the licence fee I would like to get access to the iPlayer whilst I am in France & Italy where I spend a few months a year working. Consequently I feel I am not getting my money’s worth of the amount I pay.
But though I go along with all you say here about bias in the political coverage I do like a lot of other stuff the BBC does, the arts programmes, historical documentaries, dramas like Wolf Hall etc. I don’t want these intelligent programmes to be axed in favour of populist subscription-chasing, neither do I want to have adverts popping up every fifteen minutes!
A lot of the BBC is good, I just wish they could balance their news & political commentators with some who are somewhat favourable towards the Tories & UKIP. Oh, & the commedians as well, a shake-up is well needed in that department!
“very little of the BBC is good”
Fixed it for you!
In case you haven’t noticed even their historical programs have an agenda, tokenism is the normal tactic.
‘virtually to a man they agreed with the Beeb’s group think’
My surprise at learning this is, as you may imagine, total.
Lucky that the selection process for this representative sample of the general public will remain within the BBC and a closely-guarded secret.
Did she call the elected Minister for Health a ‘Tristram Hunt’ live on air as well and then make a big joke of it?
why we lost the election the labour party lot and bbc journalists are asking themselves daily,well they can start by going off into the working classes communitys of which i am one in the uk and ask them since they departed you lot and voted for ukip,maybe you ed millband and harriet harman might hear why they turned there backs on the labour party and this is what you might hear from the silent majority on street level,mass uncontrolled immigration from all over the world,child grooming immgrant gangs rampant in are citys,islamic extremism and hate preachers and isis suppoprters up and down every mosque in the uk,forriegn criminals protected by the human rights act introduced by jack straw,politacal correctness, bully boy union bosses,len mcluskey,dianne abbott,ken livingston.loss of cultural and religious identity,you ask why you lost the election ed millaband and harriet harman,well i have answered you.
“How Labour Lost”, by clever ex Labour MP Ian McKenzie. He gets a lot of it about right, I imagine, from the Labour perspective. I am not of the Labour perspective but still found this a good read to see how the intelligensa viewed the whole election affair.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/
here here stuart
For ChrisH-san.
Guardianista #1 : “OJ”
Marxist Owen Jones,
Aged Thirty Three and Two Thirds,
Writes fantasy pulp.
Guardianista #2 : “AGW”
So, George Monbiot
Rethinks his alarmism,
Adjusts his model.
Guardianista #3 : “Resource”.
Forbid freeing fuel?
Fossilised folliage fruit.
Frack off, Off Frackers!
Guardianista #4 : “Marmite power”.
Willful westward wind,
Wielding winding windmill whines,
Yielding wanton waste.
Guardianista #5 : “A Greenhouse Gas?”
Man made CO2,
We just don’t know enough yet.
Best monitor it.
An interesting review by two Common Porpoises + Beeboid on BBC News 24, ‘The Papers’ 2240Hrs 19.5.15
The case of a bakery taken to court over refusal to provide services (refused to provide a cake to a client as their religious beliefs directed them to refuse the custom). This is a can of worms and not a straight forward issue. If the court correctly applied the law, then the law is an ass. The reasoning of the porpoises was however, strange.
Their reasoning? A service provider can not choose to whom he provides services. He can not refuse service.
It follows from their reasoning that: When a print shop owned by a Muslim is asked to print pictures of a particular Mohammed, he will he be taken to court for discrimination if he refuses to provide the service. Many people in society believe Islam to be a pernicious cult and wish to expose this through art.
The court decision in ‘Cakegate’, in my view, is ethically incorrect for a number of reasons, which I don’t wish to get into here, but the consequences for this ruling for all Muslim owners of print shops, bakeries, Bespoke T-shirt manufacturers, in short, any business which offers graphical image services, will now be vulnerable to being taken to court for refusing to provide services to people who want images producing which Muslims may find offensive.
This could get very messy. It comes with big government and social engineering. What a state we are in.
What a state, indeed. It’s going to take a long time to reverse the damage inflicted by the last Labour Government. When will we get someone who’ll start the process?
You don’t seriously imagine that these rules would apply to Muslims, do you?
just dont spend any money in their shops wherever possible simples!