UKC

A move straight from the Trump playbook, get foxes to look after the henhouse.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/26/pm-offers-top-media-body-jobs...

In reply to Offwidth:

Probably. Is the BBC too big and bloated, maybe, but should we maintain a neutral (as far as possible) national broadcaster? Definitely.

Fast forward 4 years and I reckon that the old folks who voted for the Conservatives, who forced the BBC's hand into removing free TV licences, will then go complaining to the daily mail who encouraged the demise of the BBC. Reap what you sow.

In reply to Offwidth:

The appointment of Dacre as chair of Ofcom is further proof that Johnson is simply Trump in a Little Country

In reply to Offwidth:

o does that mean that OFCOM is going to move from the grossly incompetent to the malicious, not a good prospect.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think the objection is more the lack of process and (de facto) political appointment by Johnson than the person.  Moore does have reasonable credentials for the job, like him or not.

In reply to Offwidth:

Can this be happening here; in my lifetime? How quickly we are pivoting away from the old comforting certainties. I remember feeling a chill when seeing the "British Values" displays appearing in primary schools. Then a man spitting the words "traitor" and "quisling" in my face for pushing a Remain leaflet through his letterbox. (Remain was govt. policy). My blood ran cold.

We are going the way of Orbán's Hungary. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Hopefully the BBC will be an independent, private company by the time this Parliament ends. 13 quid a month for some snooker, a bit of athletics and some rugby tournaments. Absolute rip off, 13 quid a month so the BBC can churn out endless crap that I'd never watch. 

I pay 6 quid a month for Netflix and they put out more watchable content in a month than the BBC does in a year.

The news and current affairs is dead to me, if I want to know what a politician thinks I'll watch youtube thanks. When I used to watch newsnight it's just endless interruptions and trying to back them into a corner, please, just let me listen to what they have to say and I'll make my own mind up. I don't care what arrogant aggressive journalists think. I don't want to see our politicians constantly attacked and humiliated.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Maybe you shouldn't push litter through peoples letterboxes? Unless you're a postman, in which case it's half your job.

In reply to Offwidth:

They should just make it a subscription service.  

Conflix I suggest .

Or conTV.

In reply to munkins:

Ha ha. You had me for a moment there.

In reply to Offwidth:

It is certainly depressing and scary; a blatant attempt by Johnson to undermine the BBC's impartiality. Of course it could be that Dacre and Moore would be professional enough to do their job properly and uphold the impartiality remit despite their personal views. But I have my doubts. At the moment the BBC is still one of the very finest things about this country and I find the thought of life without it in pretty much its present form almost unthinkable - in fact it is one of the few things which hold be back from committing to Scottish independence. If the BBC is lost, then I think this country is lost.

In reply to munkins:

Tomorrow belongs to you. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's worth remembering that the last chair of the BBC Trust was Rona Fairhead, who on stepping down actually became a Conservative minister, so this isn't so unprecedented.  We've had 10 years of Conservative-led governments, who have not been shy about putting ideologically congenial people into these kind of public appointments.  The only difference now is  the accompanying culture war theatre that the current lot seem to enjoy.  This may not be much comfort to you.

In reply to MG: ​

Reasonable credentials? seriously??

He completely fails in three essential criteria. 

Most importantly he simply will never be seen as a fair and Independent Chairman, this will undermine his authority and the public and staff trust in him.

The BBC has a publicly agreed mission that he publicly disagrees with, even to the extent of carrying out a political stunt of being fined for not paying the licence, based on his beliefs.

In what business sense is he qualified to be a Chairman of such a large organisation? Has he ran any organisation or business other than just the editorial functions of a newspaper and the Chairman of a small think tank?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Moore,_Baron_Moore_of_Etchingham

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Too subtle. Some people will take that as a compliment. 

In reply to Offwidth:

I'd have thought being former editor of several national publications and previous role of chair are reasonable credentials, yes. Would you also regard say Alan Rusbridger as unsuitable?

In reply to munkins:

Netflix is appallingly average ( ssome excellent stuff, but most is mediocre). I do not know why it gets such rave reviews. Its content is limited and the films are rubbish for the most part.It may appeal to you but it is no replacement for a broad public service broadcaster like the BBC with a reasonable mix of programmes.

I do not understand why people cannot see this.

I have netflix and also sky and also the terrestial channels. Its a mix and match approach to my viewing.

In reply to MG:

Neither seem to have much experience in either radio or tv media so neither would seem particularly suitable for the job. Although Rusbridger does have the advantage of not appearing to hate the BBC which doesnt seem the best attribute for its leader.

In reply to MG:

Alan Rusbridger is also not suitable.

Not likely to be seen by the public as independent enough, not enough relevant leadership experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rusbridger

In reply to MG:

I did a bit of research, as my only real knowledge of Moore is a someone who used the edit the Telegraph and the Spectator, wrote hagiographies about Margaret Thatcher and occasionally says  ridiculous things "Olivia Coleman shouldn't play the Queen because she has a left wing face". 

I found a few things relevant to being Chairman of the BBC Trust. He claims not to watch TV, has been fined for not having a TV licence. He was the Chairman of Policy Exchange when it faked links between British mosques and extremist groups, the fabrication was exposed by the BBC. Big supporter of Trumps muslim travel ban and it seems Trump generally, Trustee of climate change denial group Global Warming Policy Foundation and it probably goes without saying a big supporter of Brexit.

Obviously has strong views, I guess you could argue that someone who is honest and professional can still maintain impartiality; the problem is he has amply demonstrated that he lacks both honesty and professionalism.

In reply to Offwidth:

I suspect the ‘Classic Dom’ intention is to install a person who does not pay the license fee, widely publicise the fact and then sit back as millions follow suit.

In reply to neilh:

Well basically only 1% of it is good but there is so much content that this 1% dwarves whatever the BBC produced in its entire history.

Also, most of the quality BBC stuff ends up on Netflix as well.

I barely watch the BBC anymore except the occasional BBC news in the morning. And I think this is the same for most people I know.

They used to make really good stuff on BBC4 (various documentaries, horizons series) but they’ve just pretty much stopped doing them or it became dumbed down / cheap or endless repeats.

As a news outlet it’s become incredibly careful and scared with the powers at be, essentially giving up on being an independent check on power. 

In reply to Alyson30:

I also barely watch BBC, but I listen to the radio. Radio 4 and 6 is in my opinion worth every penny of the licence fee alone.

Tastes are mixed... and therein lies the fundamental issue.

In reply to munkins:

Would you jave viewed a pro brexit leaflet in the same light?

In reply to Alyson30:

There are still loads of fantastic arts and science programmes on BBC4 (and R4).

In reply to Alyson30:

That is one of the silliest things ever written on UKC. 

In reply to neilh:

This. I tried Netflix and cancelled. I also have the full Virgin and Sky channels as part of my home package and despite the 100s of channels, I still mostly watch BBC1, 2 and 4 plus listen to Radio2 and 4.

In reply to neilh:

That's subjective, you can't say BBC is better than Netflix because people like different things. Some people prefer BBC, some Netflix. I much prefer Netflix to the BBC and am happy to pay six quid a month. As for the BBC I am not happy paying 13 quid a month, I'd happily stop watching BBC and keep that money. But if I'm watching live sport on other channels then I need a license. 

You don't understand why people who dislike the BBC and most of it's content don't want to pay for it?

In reply to Tigger:

Yes

In reply to munkins:

You can say though that the BBC and Netflix are offering completely different products. To compare them is foolish at best.

In reply to The New NickB:

Well Steve Baker is now openly claiming the BBC will more conservative under Moore, so I'll stop trying to be fair minded and agree it appears to be an extension of the coup.

In reply to munkins:

I'd like to see the BBC funded out of general taxation. Like roads and other infrastructure funded through taxation, nobody would be obliged to use it.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thank God Moore and Dacre are both known to be big fans of Radio 6 Music. At least that's safe.

In reply to munkins:

I have a mate who is virulentally anti BBC. Do you know what is favourite programme is.... the Archers.Every day he listens to it, it's a religion.Yet he whines on and on about hating the BBC.

People just do not want to pay for anything, that is the real issue.They think everything should be for free and that they are entitled to it.

People do not watch/listen to most of its content anyway, its an impossibility.

I am quite relaxed about paying for it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

As it is or reduced? Just found this on google

In our latest forecast, we expect total BBC spending in 2018-19 to amount to £4.0 billion (with £3.8 billion of current spending and £0.2 billion of capital spending). That would represent 0.5 per cent of total public spending, and is equivalent to £140 per household and 0.2 per cent of national income.

I wouldn't be happy with that at all.

In reply to neilh:

I don't want the BBC for free, I don't want it at all.

You use it.

In reply to Offwidth:

BBC is a national disgrace and a subversive organisation with its own agenda.

The sooner it joins the real world the better. Both Paul Dacre and Charles Moore would be excellent choices to drain the swamp hopefully.

DC

In reply to munkins:

Chicken feed for programming and reporting costs.

It should be doubled to £8 billion in improved content and more on the ground reporters.

In reply to Alyson30:

So f*cking what. There are so many outlets to watch these days, you can't watch them all. I can dip into BBC4 if I see something interesting, Pink Floyd docs over the weekend. So they're repeats, big f*cking deal, pretentious prick.

In reply to munkins:

Listen, Mr Munchkin - this is what solid, proper British people think

youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA&

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

You mean it is generally impartial

One minute the right criticse it, then next its the left. Lefties think the BBC is biased and that good old Laura and Nick are  an agent of the Tories.Tories think its a full of remainers.

Each play to their own sterotypes.

Can you not see this paradox. Makes me laugh.

In reply to neilh:

I remember an episode of HIGNFY where they were getting a load of criticism about continually attacking the Tories or Labour.

Hislop points out that they generally attack and take the piss out of whoever made the biggest dicks of themselves in the previous week.

In reply to Bacon Butty:

Wow. I’m not sure why finding that the BBC has gone down in quality massively, something that is reflected quite well in their market share makes me a pretentious prick.

In reply to neilh:

Not necessarily. Its always curious how people say, effectively, "people on the left complain and so do people on the right" which misses two key bits.

Firstly are the complaints equivilent or not? I mean some on the right have complained about the EU flag being displayed by audience members at the last night of the proms. Whereas some on the left complained about Laura K reporting, without checking, some lies from tory central office about Labour supporters assaulting a tory ministers assistant outside a hospital at a time when it would have diverted a rather embarrassing story. Likewise when her instant response to Cummings eye test trip was to quote him, sorry, a anonymous tory source giving his warmup defence.  She has acted on multiple occasions as a nice test the waters approach for cummings and friends.

Second it always misses out the "centre" complaining. For the BBC to be impartial they should be equally annoyed and yet it rarely happens.

In reply to The New NickB:

The lack of argument and overreaction in that response highlights a certain amount of bias.

Viewing figures speak for themselves though.

In reply to Alyson30:

Apparently comparing BBC to Netflix makes me a fool. Apparently I'm supposed to work out why myself because he didn't explain further... Luckily this is a guy who claims to be 95% certain about stuff that hasn't happened yet so I didn't feel obliged to think about it for more than 3 seconds.

In reply to munkins:

I guess I can see how you could evaluate a politician's attitudes and views using youtube - but how do you keep informed about events? Or when you say the news is dead to you, do you mean you don't care about events? 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

If I want to know what Jacob Rees Mogg thinks I watch stuff like this.

youtube.com/watch?v=k-V3nQxMm6k&

The difference here is that the interviewer is not trying to back him into a corner, he's letting him answer the questions. I don't want to watch an aggressive journalist put words in his mouth or spend ten minutes trying to make him say something he doesn't want to say. I'd much rather listen to what he has to say and make my own mind up. If you like that style, great, support the BBC. I don't like it, I don't watch it and I don't want to pay for it.

I disagree with him on many levels, I'm pro-choice, I don't support the integration of church and state, I see socialism as something to strive towards not something to eliminate.  

Yet him and his buddies are calling the shots on Brexit, Brexit is happening so I want to know what he thinks and why he thinks it's a good idea. It's interesting.

I keep up to date on-line, newspapers, youtube, UKC, ect. 

In reply to Alyson30:

Better to actually look at what you wrote. Netflix has 13,900 titles, as you readily admit 99% of this is garbage. The remaining 1% equates to 139 titles. Does this “dwarf” the BBC output of comparable quality over the 98 year history of the BBC?

Netflix famously don’t publish viewing figures.

In reply to neilh:

You've got every right to buy them if you like them.

The problem is that people that don't like them don't have the right not to buy them.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The issue is more that people refuse to acknowledge that in some shape or form they usually watch or listen or click onto the bbc.

The  number of times that I had this argument with anti BBC people who watch / listen to something beggars belief. 

So I think they are just hypocrites of the highest order.

In reply to neilh:

Absolutely not.

Giving equal play to the Tories and Labour would not make it impartial, nothing like it.  It is reinforcing the two party Westminster system.   Any issue the Tories and Labour agree on the BBC will pile in on the side of the UK establishment.  Their bias is particularly bad on Scottish Independence, Royalty and Brexit.     

These days it isn't even neutral between Tories and Labour.  Over time the senior management and board have become political allies of the governing party in Westminster.    People like Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg wouldn't be employed by a neutral channel.

In reply to neilh:

That’s a completely illogical argument, you may find the BBC very poor value for money and mostly crap but still enjoy one or two specific programme. 

It's like saying you shouldn't criticise a restaurant for serving you an overpriced burnt steak just because you ate the side of chips.

In reply to neilh:

They'd never get 12 quid a month without a law that says you have to pay it if you watch any live TV.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Andrew Neil has been more entertainer than reporter for a while. 

The main issue with other journos at the BBC isn't their "bias" but the fact that they live completely the UK media bubble. British politics and media  being out of touch with reality, their are sucked into the reality distortion field as well.

They do a good job, I think, in terms of balancing between the main political currents. The issue is, British politics is disconnected from reality in the first place.

The only ones I find competent these days are the foreign correspondents who live in other countries because at least they have some perspective.

I find the issue to not be BBC specific, btw, most other outlets have the same issue to varying degree.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That is very, very true.

In reply to The New NickB:

Pretty much. I don't think I would be able to list more than a couple of dozens titles currently available on the BBC that I could arguably describe of high quality.

Don't get me wrong I absolutely agree that the BBC used to produce great stuff.
I simply observe that it's gone downhill massively in the past ten years and they don't seem to produce much of the stuff I used to enjoy.

The other thing is that the few really good things they produce end up relatively quickly on Netflix so why pay twice ? 

In reply to neilh:

It's not hypocrisy to use something you pay for. I click on the BBC from time to time, I watch snooker and athletics. Of course I do but that doesn't mean I think it's value for money and it doesn't mean that I'd happily pay 13 quid a month for 10 weeks of sport coverage. 95% of the sport I watch has adverts. I watch lower ranked snooker tournaments with adverts. What happens if the BBC is defunded? I watch those particular events with adverts and save 13 quid a month.  

In reply to Alyson30:

Andrew Neil is on youtube now. Spectator channel. Apart from the baffling poor audio he's just as interesting as he was on BBC. 

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

sigh........

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Thats fine, just do not watch or listen and do not pay.. Ultimatley like everything its your choice.

I lived for about 10 years without a tv etc, never bothered me not having a licence or a tv/radio.

In reply to Alyson30:

Isn't that simply because there are now a hugely increased number of other channels now available?  It doesn't say anything about the quality of the BBC offering. 

In reply to neilh:

No, its not because legally you have to buy a TV licence if you watch any live TV, not just BBC programs.   I don't have to pay for Netflix because I watch Amazon and I shouldn't have to pay for the BBC to watch other channels.

Wouldn't bother me either but I'm not the only person in the house.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Jayzus! It really is happening here. 

In reply to munkins:

Do you listen Political Thinking with Nick Robinson then? It's on Radio 4. 

In reply to TobyA:

I had no idea it existed, then I youtubed* it and yes, I have, I listened to this.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qd5sF1ZP0IY&

*am I allowed to say youtubed yet?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

No, it just means there is more competition and they are struggling quite a bit.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Round here people take eggs and put nothing in the honesty box. It's just human nature unfortunately. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

The BBC is about as impartial as FOX NEWS, either way you go, whatever argument over the last 4-5 years its become worse. You only have to watch political assassins like Laura Cunsberg interviewing literally anyone she personally disagrees with. I am A political and like to listen to all sides of an argument and make my own informed decision, the BBC have become a network where that has become almost impossible. Its a shame as I used to have it on 24/7 but now at times can't bare to listen to it!! question time is just as bad too!!!

In reply to payney1973:

As a matter of interest, do you think it biased to the left or the right; opinion seems to be fairly even split among those who feel it has lost its impartiality?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well, obviously, upon independence, the correct way forward is for us to take the BBC with us. John Reith built it on Scottish values and it is quite clearly in danger while in English hands. We know where to send the monthly invoice for England's share. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

The BBC is not biased, it is castrated.

In reply to Robert Durran:

it depends, they were fiercely Anti Brexit ( which I dont see as left or right as there were MPs from both sides voting against their own party’s, initially anyway )
Individually the presenters can believe what they want but they were clearly using this as a platform to make their personal point.

Id go as far as to say that pre election they were very pro Jezza! 

Now this point isn’t that I lean one way or the other, its the fact that the BBC of all the broadcasters world wide were famous for their professionalism and impartiality, that unfortunately IMO is well in the past. To add, theres no other network thats any better so when I do watch the news I turn my bull crap filter on 110% 😂

In reply to Alyson30:

Care to elaborate?

In reply to Robert Durran:

They are running scared of the powers at be. 

In reply to payney1973:  I am tempted to think that you're saying that because they disagree with what you think.  Because there is so much media each day to look at you can always find a bunch of stuff that agrees with what you think, and so anything neutral will sometimes be different.  That's why the left think it R biased , and the R thinks it's L biased.  

I'd agree there's more 'personal' now, but that's because to appear modern it's moved on from it's 'pathe news' style it had even into the 80's. 

What papers (or assoc websites) do you normally read?

In reply to Offwidth:

One of the depressing things is that the left are working hard to facilitate this, with their persistent undermining of the BBC. (in line with their support for Brexit, antagonism to electoral reform, love of autocratic leadrship.... they help move what is acceptable in peoples minds).

In reply to payney1973:

From which I can only conclude you've never actually watched FOX.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I wonder whether Lord Reith was your finest export.

In reply to wbo2:

Always interesting how people never mention the "centre" here.

In reply to wbo2:

You obviously haven't read what I have written then! I may well agree with the BBC stance on BREXIT for instance but have the brains to understand when they aren’t allowing balanced debate!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Meaning??? Are you implying that FOX news is impartial or have you missed my sarcasm??

In reply to Dave Garnett:

And yes, I have watched fox news quite a lot in the past, especially when on American bases in the states, Iraq and Afghanistan, why?

In reply to wbo2:

Papers wise, if I do, which Would only be while travelling would probably be the times, but I generally don't. I used to read ‘the week’ magazine to keep abreast of world politics.

Truth is over the past few years Ive been really put off politics, I used to find it really interesting looking at both sides and managing my thoughts by what I heard and read, but the whole thing is a quagmire these days so I steer well clear.

In reply to payney1973: So where do you get your news? Facebook - random threads, youtube? If all you're doing is listening to your echo chamber then how are you placed to really judge right from left?  

It's hard work to stay neutral!

In reply to payney1973:

I missed the sarcasm, sorry!

In reply to payney1973:

While I think the view that the BBC is biased to left or right is ninsense, there might be something in the claim that they tend to represent the British establishment. The establishment failed to see Brexit coming and so did the BBC; I don't think this was bias against Brexit but rather a failure to read the mood of the country. So I do have sympathy with the proposal (which, unfortunately, is often associated with the right), that the BBC needs to recruit more widely in society in order to get a better handle on some things.

It is probably also true that that the BBC is quite supportive of the monarchy as part of the establishment and also of the Union (it is, after all, the B(ritsh)BC), so separatists in the nations of the Union may well be occasionally justified in their grievances against it. 

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Thought so 😂😂👍🏻

In reply to wbo2:

Yeah good one mate 🙄 I dont care if its hard to stay neutral, if its your job theres no excuse!! 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I can buy most of that 👍🏻 Thing is if you stay neutral you shouldnt have to read the mood of the people on either side or in any part of the country/world. Report baseline facts not allowing your reporters to push across their own personal narrative and beliefs. End of the day everyone has opinions, including me, we can only work with what we have and respect others opinions whether we like them or not.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

John Reith built the BBC on Scottish values? So Scottish values are promoting homophobia and misogamy whilst repressing ones own sexuality? 

In reply to payney1973:

I'd like to know the mood of the country and so on. Nothing to do with reporters pushing their own beliefs or narrative.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The BBC get things wrong from time to time and any reported story can be seen as propaganda for X or Y, depending on your point of view.

However, the best reason for keeping the BBC is just about every government in the last 50 years has at some time complained the BBC is a mouthpiece for the opposition and vice versa.

If they can irritate both right and left, they need keeping.

Dave

In reply to Offwidth:

The thing about itv is...you may as well have a billboard in your front room and for almost half an hour in every two, somebody noisily interrupts you and pastes up a load of shite that you don’t want to see.
I stopped watching it years ago.

As for the BBC, well I avoid Laura Cunstburg and co and just stick to stuff I’m interested in. There’s plenty of other content.

In reply to birdie num num:

The Underwear Repair Shop?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

To summarise, British Bullshit Corporation is:

pro EU
anti Trump
anti Brexit
pro-feminist
pro climate alarmism
anti Farage
anti democracy
woke
swimming in the swamp of identity politics
subsidy chasing while making massive commercial profits
unrepresentative
left wing
pro-Labour
anti-Conservative
unpatriotic
not remotely impartial or apolitical
in breach of its charter

That's enough for me.

A little girl was leaning into a lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside in front of her screaming parents.

A biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the biker brings the girl to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A BBC reporter, Laura Kuenssberg, has watched the whole event.

Laura, addressing the Harley rider says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and bravest thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.”
The Harley rider replies, "Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right.”

Miss Kuenssberg "Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a BBC journalist, you know, and tomorrow's news will run this story. So, what do you do for a living, and what political affiliation do you have?”

The biker replies "I'm a British Army veteran, a Conservative and I voted for Brexit”. The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker turns on BBC News to see if it indeed brings news of his actions.

BBC Headline: RIGHT WING UK VETERAN ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT & STEALS HIS LUNCH.

And THAT pretty much sums up the BBC's approach to the news these days.
 

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Quite astounding how you could have ended up with views like that.

Edit: Perhaps it could be a good exercise to watch more BBC content at source, rather than seeing it through the massively distorted prism of Facebook, Twitter, etc. snippets crafted so as to give a 'particular' impression of its overall content. I'm not a big believer in BBC news impartiality but it's clear to me that it's enormously less biased than the impression you have somehow been left with.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

This is the same Kuensberg who is pretty much Cummings mouthpiece for testing out ideas without taking responsibility for them?

The same one who instantly defended him when he was caught breaking the rules?

The same one who breathlessly reported that labour supporters had assaulted a tory ministers aid outside a hospital based solely on tory spin doctors word?

In reply to mondite:

You must be wrong, isn't her reporting  history is so pro Labour....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kuenssberg

In reply to john arran:

How do you know that’s not exactly what he’s done?  Found it absolutely hilarious listening to r4 in the run up & just after the referendum - one program where they’re congratulating themselves for their lack of bias, immediately followed by political comedy slating one side (you know which).  This happened repeatedly.  Very telling.

In reply to mondite:

I think Kuensberg simply reported Cummings' defence rather than defending him herself. Totally different. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

She immediately and uncritically allowed him to provide a counter story (which turned out to be false) as an unnamed source.

She then continued to push his excuses in an uncritical and nonattributable way allowing him to undermine the story whilst not actually having to stand by any claims.

Something she has done repeatedly in the past. Whether she is biased is debatable but she is over dependant on her downing street sources to the point they are handlers not sources.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's outrageous; Laura Kuenssberg is blatantly pro-Cummings and Emily Maitlis is blatantly anti-Cummings.  Clear evidence of bipolar institutional bias. 

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

If the BBC can't be trusted, what specific news outlets would you recommend for impartial reporting of Brexit in particular? 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Speakers' Corner?

In reply to nufkin:

What, the "Leading International Speaker Booking and Consultation Service" to quote their website? I'm not having people like Bear Grylls turn up to ruin a perfectly good after-dinner drink.