UKC

... although they tried hard by relegating it to after the 'read more' prompt, beyond which presumably they hope that most readers will have had enough and clicked on:

"Mr Trump also suggested the NHS would be included in post-Brexit trade talks between the US and the UK.

The US president said "everything is on the table" in future discussions between the countries, adding that a "phenomenal" trade deal would be reached."

Given that there was bugger all else of political or indeed general news interest in the article, it's telling that such a critical line was relegated to a virtual footnote.

Article (top feature on bbcnews.com) :https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48507244

Is there really any doubt now that Brexit and the end of the NHS as we know it are inevitably linked? Or indeed that BBC news isn't being somewhat deliberate in its playing down of inconvenient Brexit consequences? 

Is there any doubt now that some remainders will  always see leave bias in the BBC and that some leavers will always see remain bias in the BBC however evenhanded the BBC try to be.

To be fair, there was a swift and unequivocal rebuttal from the Health Minister.

It's strange to hear you come out with this BBC conspiracy rubbish as I would have put you above such garbled nonsense.  

The same health minister, along with all the other ministers, who are living in cloud cuckoo land and denying reality when it comes to any Brexit deals possible? There's little doubt that, when it comes to the crunch, a UK Brexit government will be so desperate for a US trade deal they'll sell their souls as well as the NHS, then try to put some kind of spin on it that it's simply making the NHS more streamlined, more competitive, or some other such obfuscation of the reality that they will just have pulled the rug out from under it and sold it (and the wishes of the UK people) down the river for personal or political gain.

Please then explain why such a significant development wasn't in the first paragraph, or indeed the headline.

It was on the six o’clock News.

Because it was not the headline news. Imagine the leaver outrage if it had been. The BBC just cannot win here.

It has been impossible to listen to radio 4 without hearing about the NHS slant repeatedly.

Apparently then the headline news was that "US President Donald Trump has said the US and UK have the "greatest alliance the world has ever known"

Well that changes everything. Where do I sign?

If that's the case then I'm surprised and somewhat relieved, as that sounds like a very different impression from what the top item on the BBC news website is conveying.

It's hard to comment on this because the front page and the articles themselves are in constant flux. As I look right now, Trump's comment about the NHS is in the first main paragraph of the primary story on the page and is also the headline to its own article which gets equal second prominence with a variety of other stories about the visit.

As someone who is very cynical about the Tories and shares your worries about the future of the NHS, I do think the comment is being given reasonable prominence. It's not like the threat is completely new or surprising, this is a rerun of the ambassador's comments a couple of days ago, almost word for word. I'm sure the counter-arguments from the government will be similar too and just as worryingly difficult to take seriously.

You're right - it's been changed!

The NHS story also gets substantial coverage and its own analysis section within the story about Trump refusing to meet Corbyn. Not necessarily where you would expect to find it based on the article headline but I guess Corbyn's comments on protecting the NHS led them into it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48515506

Oh sure, I don’t think there’s any doubt that most - not all - leavers would like for this not to happen. But let’s face it, it’s not going to matter what we want, is it? 

jcm

People don't really want unbiased news they want news that conforms to their bias.

Which is why the Tories changed the governance of the BBC so they could appoint almost all the board and make sure the news conformed to their bias.

When the Cameron government was in charge the BBC was pro-Remain.  As soon as Brexit became government policy it became pro-Brexit and now as the next leader of the Tories is looking like hard right wing it is even dialing back its views on things like Trump and the NHS.

There's no longer any semblance of an attempt at neutrality on shows like Question Time on issues like Scottish Independence or Brexit.  The BBC has a board director to look after Scotland, naturally appointed by the Tories in London.

It really pisses me off that it's illegal to watch TV in the UK without subsidising Tory propaganda.

More idiotic conspiracy rubbish. Time you moved to a remote island somewhere where no one will hear you ranting at yourself.

Umm, don't watch it or listen to BBC radio? 

You could start the socialist revolution that way.

What is your problem with that? Are you claiming he didn't actually say it? Is it fake news?

I looked this up recently. Complaints of bias against the BBC from al directions have indeed increased in recent years and they are taking this seriously. It is hard to see what they can do about it except to stick to their principles (social media echo chambers are here to stay) except perhaps try to educate about people about echo chambers and fake news.

If I read Guardian comments, they complain that the BBC is biased, pro-Brexit, right wing propaganda. If I then look at Telegraph comments, it's apparently left wing, snowflake, fake news. Based on this, I'm reasonably happy that the BBC is ok as an information source

Agree on the issue of bias vs perceived bias and the challenge the beeb has in dealing with it.

On a slightly different note, I don't think the BBC website's articles (and certainly its algorithm-driven 'most popular' sidebar), are really reflective of the corporation's overall editorial slant. Indeed the broadcast news generally seems to have clearer and more consistent editorial control (at least individual programmes, if not across whole stations). I think the poor editorial oversight on the website may actually be one of the causes of John's ire.

Edited for grammar: I need better editorial oversight before posting! On that note - most of the sport live text feeds really do need to get staff with decent grammar!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bbc-board-members-for-scotland-and-engla...

The board of the BBC is appointed by a Tory cabinet minister.  If you think that Tory cabinet ministers do not appoint people sympathetic to Tory politics then I have a bridge to sell you.

There is a representative for Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland on the BBC board.  The obvious thing would be to have them appointed by the devolved governments, if you were actually trying for unbiased coverage.  They are appointed by the same Tory minister as every other board member.

Why are you assuming that, just because they are appointed by the government of the day, their editorial is biased towards the government of the day? Are you assuming some sort of corruption or lack of professionalism in the appointees (despite lack of evidence of bias)?

My wife likes to watch Channel 4 News.  Otherwise I'd have saved myself £150 a year a long time ago.

Why would you think I'm a socialist?  I'm a business owner who thinks Scotland would be better off as an independent state within the EU.   It's not about choosing between capitalism and socialism it is about figuring out an economic system that works for an increasingly high-technology and knowledge based society.

Because the Tories specifically changed the board structure to bring them under political control.

The BBC's views on Brexit were clearly pro-Remain during the Cameron administration and switched to pro-Leave when May got in.  Now they are moving even further right.

People have moved from press positions in the Prime Minister's office straight into BBC news.  Many BBC journalists have personal or family ties to the Tories or Labour.

A classic example is the question time audience when the show came to Scotland.  The SNP guy on the panel was getting a really hard time from the audience.  Fiona Bruce asked for a show of hands for who was an SNP supporter and there were about 10.  Then there was a comment about how it was surprising and SNP/Independence support wasn't as high as you'd think.   The next day people started looking at the faces in the audience and discovered a ton of Tory councilors and former MSPs.   

It was so blatant the BBC admitted they were not trying to represent the location the show was in, they were trying to balance the audience according to the UK as a whole.  So the Scottish Question Time audience was stacked full of Brexiteers who hate the SNP because England is stacked full of Brexiteers who hate the SNP.   A few days after the show the SNP wiped the floor with the Tories in the EU elections.

How does the French system work for you?

Just saying this does not make it true. Please could you provide some proper evidence.

It's a UK wide programme, so that seems a fair policy.

It's it a cabinet minister who appoints. From your own link.

"Chair appointed via a public appointments process coordinated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The selection panel for this appointment was chaired by a Public Appointments Assessor, nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments;"

Considering they were trying to ignore it, it was the prime article at every news break on R4 this morning

You  do realise that nearly 8% of the NHS budget is already spent on outsourcing health care services to the private sector and that technically, most GP practices are private partnerships? This dates back to the Blair government.

Um, "co-ordinated by" the department; chaired by an independent assessor, appointed by Peter Riddell.  Peter is not a Cabinet Minister, in fact the role is to provide independent scrutiny. https://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk

Christ there's a lot of shite in this thread.

Not up to your usual standard.

I'm an avid remainer but we don't help by getting frustrated and vexed.

Trump has retracted this morning.

Sorry, there was a rather crucial "not" missing from my post - I absolutely agree with you.

Ah. - Happy days!

Can I just point people to the title of this thread? People seem to be getting very agitated about to what extent the perceived bias in BBC news reporting is real, and missing the point that our NHS is existentially threatened by Brexit

It's the same thing whether they put their pals in at the BBC directly or they put their pals on the committee which then puts their pals in at the BBC.   It's an incestuous little circle of people living in London most of whom went to Oxbridge handing out favours among themselves and their family members.

It was reported loads of times on BBC radio news, including playing a clip of Trump talking about it.

  Actually, do you have some up to date figures on this? They are available up to 2013 and show the massive over representation of Labour apparatchiks in quangoland but I haven't seen any numbers to demonstrate that the Tories have managed to correct the balance.

https://fournews-assets-prod-s3-ew1-nmprod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2014/02/P...

I think the whole assumption that it is about a Labour/Tory balance is part of the problem.   It assumes that the system should be a duopoly where two London-centric parties take turns governing and nobody else gets a look in.   The Labour/Tory balance system worked to an extent in the years when politics was about slightly to the left/slightly to the right economics, but once the dividing issues are about regional balance, Brexit and Scottish Independence the Tories and Labour are the same and there is no balance at all.

There is zero chance of either Tory or Labour ministers appointing a supporter of Scottish Independence to the BBC board or doing anything to make BBC Scotland give a fair shake to the SNP relative to unionist politicians.

Gordon Brown certainly didn't cover himself in glory (as chancellor and later PM) with his enthusiastic adoption of the PFI schemes that started under John Major.  But the sins of the Blair (and Brown) government regarding privatisation of the NHS were as nothing compared to what came later, particularly after the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

This after Cameron had said in the run-up to the 2010 election that there would be "No new top-down reorganisation of the NHS" under a Tory government.  Biggest new top-down reorganisation of the NHS ever undertaken.  And supported by the Lib Dems in coalition though there was nothing in either party's manifesto nor the coalition agreement obliging them to do so.

To those pointing out that several European countries have insurance-based healthcare and do quite well with it (unlike the USA).  Well, you may be right.  But if we were to go down that road which do you think we would get?  Swiss or American? 

Here's an experiment that might help with any confusion on that one: try travelling by train in Switzerland, then try it in the UK.  Healthcare is more complicated than public transport though, so take a bicycle and  a big rucksack with you.

I agree with everything you say. It just irks me on these type of threads whereby the NHS is discussed as if it has never had any of its services provided by the private sector prior to Trump coming onto the scene.

I know what you mean, it is irksome.  Perhaps it will at least lead to an increase in awareness of the degree of privatisation that has already taken place and is currently ongoing.

You mean, as I pointed out on the other thread, not very much?

According to the King's Fund:

"Following the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the number of contracts awarded to private providers increased, though there is little evidence of a significant increase in spending on private providers or widespread privatisation of NHS services. In many cases the use of private providers to treat NHS patients reflects operational challenges within NHS providers and is a continuation of longstanding practices."

Well the bigger problem is that the NHS does need serious reform to make it fit for providing healthcare to an older, fatter, larger population. That reform needs to come off the back of some serious cross party consensus that looks at long term planning spanning decades instead of the current myopic situation whereby health ministers of whatever political stripe tinker or try and make their mark before being moving on. We also need to ditch the 'sacred cow' attitude we currently have whereby the only solution to improved healthcare is to lob more money at the NHS.

Despite its origins and long history, it seems the King's Fund may no longer be as independent a body as you may wish to see it portrayed:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ournhs/kings-fund-suggests-nhs-fees-but-is...

Nor, of course, is Open Democracy

Anyway, provide evidence to the contrary.

Que?

Are you in agreement with the King's Fund conclusion. If not what is your evidence that it is wrong?

http://www.patients4nhs.org.uk/how-is-the-nhs-being-privatised/

I linked to a source which explained why the link you provided may not be relied upon to be presenting impartial advice. If you have anything from a less questionable source then please present it. It shouldn't be up to me to disprove something questionable you supplied.

But of course you knew that already.

  You linked to a source which made a spurious inference that the King's Fund, one of the country's leading and most respected  think tanks, is institutionally biased in favour of privatisation and therefore distorts the figures or the analysis of the figures because it receives DOH funding. It doesn't wash.

  If you want to make your point (which appears to be that privatisation is some sort of existential threat to the NHS) you need to do more than repeat second hand slurs and provide some evidence to support your case.

  But since you asked:

https://www.ft.com/content/8736afde-9f20-11e8-85da-eeb7a9ce36e4

  which is a an article based on research the FT commission by the Nuffield Trust (another highly respected think tank) which concludes "spending on non NHS providers has increased marginally" (2013/14-17/18)

"Professor Appleby said that during the past three years, spending on non-NHS provided care has remained flat in real terms, and the sums spent on care provided by the private sector actually fell last year by £410m — a drop of about 4.5 per cent in real terms, even though part of the fall is explained by a change in definition that meant many providers that were previously classed as private sector became “voluntary”

(Appleby is chief economist of the Nuffied Trust.)

Spending on the private sector rose from 2.7% in 2008 to 7.5% in 2017-8 and grew as fast under Labour as the Tories (source:Full fact). It's hardly an existential threat to the NHS.

  So, we have the FT, the King's fund, the Nuffield Trust and Full Fact, all of which use similar source and numbers and reach similar conclusions.

  Against which we have Allyson Pollock, one of the leading scaremongers about "Americanisation" and privatisation of the NHS was writing articles 20 years ago saying that Primary Care Trusts were going to lead to US style healthcare. in 2010 Ms.Pollock said  that "the NHS in England is to be dismantled, and instead healthcare will be run on US healthcare lines". In 2016 she somewhat curiously claimed that  ‘the Health and Social Care Act 2012 abolished and dismantled the NHS in England' and that  that Brexit is in fact going to lead to the destruction of health as a human right in this country.

  It was bollocks then and it's bollocks now.

  You will be aware that Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS depicted by the madder fringes of of the save the NHS crowd as a plant from America to push forward with rapid Americanisation (actually his politics are left of centre) has actually put forward proposals to stop compulsory competitve tendering, thus probably slowing down or even reducing private private provision of NHS services.

Well your first paragraph shows your colours pretty clearly.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that, with international trade deals in critically short supply after Brexit, there won't be a huge incentive to open up more NHS goods and services to US providers in return for UK opportunities in the US? If so, I would question your judgement.

The question then remaining would be to what extent a UK government would follow that route. My opinion, as expressed earlier, would be that the incentives would be radically different to those that have been in place in recent years or decades. Any UK government emerging from an imminent Brexit would find it incredibly hard to resist, given the instant negative trade impact and the perceived economic trade potential of US trade partially replacing existing EU trade, and would most likely go as far as it possibly could down that route while feeling it could still argue that it wasn't doing so. We'd be in for a period of smoke and mirrors while our NHS steadily migrated at least some way towards a US healthcare model.

I appreciate that you would most likely disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion too.

  Yes, my colours are that the King's fund is a widely respected and independent think tank. It believes that "Provided that patients receive care that it is timely and free at the point of use, our view is that the provider of a service is less important than the quality and efficiency of the care they deliver. More positively, the NHS can benefit from partnerships and joint ventures with the private sector to deliver some clinical and non-clinical service "

  and I agree with it. That is bugger all to do with their funding (or mine!)

  I note that you provide no evidence to support your privatisation trope.

 > The question then remaining would be to what extent a UK government would follow that route.

An incentive isn't the same as a it happening. It would be extremely unlikely, especially given the special status of the NHS in public opinion, that any government would make special concessions to US suppliers on provision of service that it has shown no enthusiasm for for UK or EU suppliers for 40 years.

It would be an electoral disaster

As I pointed out, the left has been crying wolf over this since the days of Thatcher and have always turned out to be wrong. Frankly I think you're being manipulated by hard line propagandists (on the basis of your and other apparent but usubstantiated belief that the NHS is already being rapidly privatised and that there is "24 hours to save it"), but you're entitled to your opinion.

Your reading skills are letting you down, Pat.

My point, precisely as articulated, was that the UK government would be hugely incentivised to "go as far as it possibly could down that route while feeling it could still argue that it wasn't doing so."

Are you now arguing that:

a) Trump won't be putting huge pressure on widening access to NHS goods and service post-Brexit, or

b) One of the current Tory leadership hopefuls will stand up to him and offer no such thing, despite watching UK trade crash and burn in the brave new world of friendlessness?

As if to reinforce my point, I've just come across a tweet from Aaron Banks yesterday:

"Don’t E.U competition rules apply to the NHS? Allowing US companies to compete and drive down the cost of medicine could mean more money for patients. UK drug companies could do brilliantly in the US"

Preparing the ground for public acceptance of some kind of compromise or hybrid arrangement that pretends that the UK hasn't sold the NHS down the river.

Aaron Banks is a (possibly dodgy) businessman. If you are implying that he will have some influence over trade negotiations you have lost the plot.

 1) Driving down the cost of medicine would be good for the NHS and its patients. Why would anybody see this as a problem except the drug companies?!!!(You are aware that US drug companies supply the NHS already I presume?)

2) Sadly, as pointed out on the other thread. The risk is actually the opposite, that the drug companies put pressure for their prices to rise.

I'd politely suggest that, given that he's Farage's main backer (or at least Farage's money is being routed through him), and given that Farage currently enjoys the support of most traditional Tory voters, his opinion is extremely telling as to the direction a forthcoming Tory leader would be heading.

Ignore him at your peril - and the peril of the NHS.

   Do you mean going down the route that the left have been telling us is secretly happening for forty years but never actually happens?

   Sadly I'm not a soothsayer but i expect that the US will want equal access to UK companies but not to change the whole nature of UK healthcare, anymore than the EU does. Since I don't believe that the UK will be "friendless" I don't believe that it will have to resort to such desperate measures and probably wouldn't anyway..

  To be honest I think you are being hysterical.

  Hubble , bubble, toil and trouble.....

  Anyway, I know where you are coming from and don't see anything but misplaced joining of sometimes non-existent dots.

The evidence so far is pretty much non-existent and the evidence of what senior politicians want gives no support to your view.

  Time will tell I guess.

To be honest, by denying the enormous effect Brexit is certain to have, I think you have your head firmly in the sand.

I hope you can afford private health insurance.

You seem to love a widely respected think tank as if they prove some kinda independently proved point. 

Odd comment..

You don’t think that a heavily researched report by a specialist think tank (two actually)with statistics, facts and analysis to support its conclusions should be regarded as valuable evidence to demonstrate (not prove) a case? (I only posted one para from a longer report).

He's got massive influence over the Tories because the Tories are shit scared of his glove puppet Farage splitting their vote.   Banks just stands in the background using his glove puppet Farage to herd the Tories along the path that his business and the Republican donors he made friends with want.

When someone spends at least 500K paying a glove puppet's personal expenses and a good few million on a vehicle to obtain political influence - the Brexit party - and takes enough risks to get himself under criminal investigation in the process they see a big payday.     

That makes it sound like the board of the BBC is appointed by the executive privilege of a single individual, when that is very far from the truth. In fact, from your own link, BBC appointments are subject to considerable scrutiny and are remarkably transparent.

One wonders why, if the BBC were the propaganda mouthpiece you make it out to be, they would be subject to codes of practice or have be required to declare such things as political activity. Surely through the executive power of the government, such inconvenient things could be done away with.

I am cynical as f*ck about these things because I spent some time doing consulting.  When you get hired by a large company or government there is a good chance you aren't there to form an opinion but to put your name on some senior person's opinion and provide a reasonable justification for whatever they want you to say.   The value of the 'independent' non-exec or consultant to senior people is getting their way without having to take the flack for whatever it is they want to do.

Politicians love codes of practice because as long as they get lawyers to check the boxes are ticked their arse is covered.    The official documents are never going to record what was said face to face over lunch.

The BBC have places on their board specifically to represent the devolved regions.  The obvious way to fill those places is for the devolved governments to appoint someone from outside of London.  But the Tories keep the appointments under the control of the Westminster government.  Why would it be important to them to control the appointments if they weren't trying to exert influence?

None of that amounts to anything more than hearsay. Any evidence of the institutionalised, systematic bias on the part of the BBC that you allege is contradicted by their actual coverage which is there for anyone to see. As far as I can see there is nothing more than confirmation bias  from people who see what they want to see.

For me it is pretty obvious that when Tories change the rules to put appointment of BBC board members under political control it is because they want to control it politically.   You are never going to get more than hearsay evidence of this sort of thing unless an insider breaks ranks.   The confirmation bias is on the part of people for whom BBC impartiality is an article of faith.

Their coverage is totally biased on issues like Scottish Independence (Bad), Brexit (Good) and the Royal Family (Good).  They usually try to stay unbiased on the Tory / Labour spectrum.

During IndyRef1 there was continual FUD from all the unionist media about Spain stopping an Independent Scotland joining the EU and a YES vote meaning joining the back of the queue.  Now we get an official letter from the Spanish Consulate saying their government policy is not and has never been to block Scotland and there is no queue to join.  Not a word from the BBC.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17686950.spain-we-will-not-block-independ...

You are seriously paranoid

From your perspective.  

If this was 1776 people in England would probably think the English press was completely reasonable and unbiased about American Independence.  People in Boston would have thought it was propaganda and bullshit - and they'd have been right.

But it's not, it's 2019, you can easily obtain news from 6 different sources then compare. You are hearing or seeing what you want to see etc.. 

I'm sure lots happens in Yorkshire, Wales, the South West that doesn't feature heavily in 'national' news etc.. But is probably covered by regional broadcasters in more detail. 

The British press at the time reported views that were pro and anti the position of the majority of the colonists. 

https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2017/07/04/british-reaction-to-a...

I’m sure the overall balance would have been pro-the British position, but the publishing of some of the positive eyewitness accounts in the Scots Magazine, which seems pretty anti-independence in It’s commentary on the Declaration of Independence, is an interesting example.

What's my perspective?

Then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to give a couple of examples?

I opened up the BBC News page this morning.

• Story No 1. Labour sees of Brexit Party in by-election
• Story No 2. Brexit consultancy fees top £97m

I'm just not seeing this 'Obvious Pro Brexit' bias.

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1136880406786183168

The views of a former BBC journalist on the policy at BBC Scotland.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17507098.confirmed-bbc-journalists-though...

Here is an academic paper on bias during the first Independence referendum.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/bbc-bias-and-scots-referen...

"Comparing Reporting Scotland with STV News, the former seems less balanced and fair to the Yes campaign if only in the tendency to give pro-independence statements a greater frequency of opening and closing debates. Overall, however, both feature a preponderance of anti-independence statements, a majority of anti-independence evidence and a heavy personalisation of the debate around the character of Alex Salmond with the latter often portrayed as selfish and undemocratic. However, if we characterise viewers as likely to watch both BBC 1 and Reporting Scotland or both STV and ITV News, in succession, the two experiences diverge further than is apparent in comparing one programme with another. The BBC1, Reporting Scotland alerts are commonly short and punchy with an attack, typically a Westminster scare story, on the Yes campaign, mostly left unanswered and unchallenged."

Someone who lives in England and therefore isn't continually exposed to BBC Scotland and is not directly affected by the independence issue in the same way as someone who lives in Scotland.

How about someone who's spent over half their adult life living in Scotland, including during all the independence referendum period, but who has also lived in other parts of the UK and world.  Maybe my perspective is a little more rounded than yours?

That's journalism, not an academic paper

Maybe it's not.  If you haven't lived in Scotland for years and don't intend to spend your life in Scotland then Scottish Independence then you don't have the same experience or concern about the issue.

You just need to look at the map from the EU election to see how far Scottish politics has diverged from the UK.  My guess is that we are past the 45% support for Independence from he last referendum but not yet quite at 50%.  The unionist media are getting scared by #indyref2 being announced and are ramping up the propaganda again like they did before the first referendum.

Conversely, when it was reported on the BBC radio news earlier there was a quote from Farage, a Tory spokesperson and finally a verbal segment from Jeremy Corbyn at least three times longer than the others.

Like I said, those determined to find bias will do so. Will they bother to look for evidence that does *not* confirm their hypotheses?

You've no idea where I intend to spend my future, nor of my current concern or experience of the issue.  Frankly you come over as the exact analogue of a typical brexiteer - insular, closed minded and seeing everything through a lens of fearing outsiders affecting your little bubble.. 

That's interesting, thanks. In what academic journal was it published?

Did you read it?  The author is Dr John Robertson from University of West Scotland and it is pretty obviously a cut and paste from an academic paper.  Journalists don't write stuff like this:

"The coding which led to the evidence of bias emerged from a grounded theory/ phenomenological approach which allows the data to speak. The final coding is the product of two phases, through all the data, of coding by the lead researcher and subsequent moderation by three others (recently retired staff and PhD students). The first phase resulted in evidence of bias more damaging to the BBC and STV. In the second phase, the lead researcher allocated statements with more subtle or nuanced undermining of the Yes campaign to the general or descriptive category. Coding of human language cannot be utterly objective but the team has done more than most in an effort to be as objective as can be."

Here's his (rather limited) academic output.  Don't see it.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Robertson10

Face it, the report was a non peer-reviewed attempt at a hatchet job of the BBC at the end of Robertson's career and clearly political in nature.  It was jumped on by all the vaguely loony websites at the time but ignored elsewhere because it wasn't a serious assessment.

I have an idea that people who live in England know less about Scottish issues and the media in Scotland than people who live in Scotland.     How do you form a valid opinion on whether Reporting Scotland is biased when they don't even transmit it in England?

Obviously, in order to be credible his work would need to be quoted on the BBC News or one of the big unionist papers. 

It was ignored by the unionist media because it didn't help their agenda.

And how does this article about satirist "Cold War Steve" and his Time Magazine cover "How Brexit Broke Britain", currently featured on the BBC News front page, help their "Pro-Brexit agenda"? Could it be possible that you're the one ignoring examples that don't fit your agenda?

BBC News - Cold War Steve: How the British artist designed new Time cover
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48547558