BBC Impartiality

Champ said:
Again, and I don't want to get into a petty tit for tat debate, but all of the accusations are levied at Khalida Popal, who according to the article kept adding more names to the list whilst claiming they were footballers.
There doesn't seem to be any blame attributed to the individuals.

Again, the morality behind a person doing this is entirely justified in my view but it's clear that others have been left behind despite needing that route out.
Click to expand...

I disagree that that's the sole implication in there. But there you go, a badly written opinion piece if we don't know what they're getting at.
 
TwoSheds said:
I disagree that that's the sole implication in there. But there you go, a badly written opinion piece if we don't know what they're getting at.
Click to expand...
Then it comes back to what you make of it as per a few posts back,

It's not an opinion piece, there's absolutely no opinions given in the article.
 
Champ said:
Then it comes back to what you make of it as per a few posts back,

It's not an opinion piece, there's absolutely no opinions given in the article.
Click to expand...

Their entire investigation is based on a couple of opinions.
 
TwoSheds said:
Their entire investigation is based on a couple of opinions.
Click to expand...
The investigation was conceived because they were approached by people left behind:

We were initially contacted by the former women footballers still in Afghanistan who were unhappy they had been left behind and who had seen others claiming to be top-tier sportspeople granted refugee status. We investigated their claims.”

so yes, you could say it was due to an opinion most investigations start this way, hence the term investigating, but it's one which seems to be based in fact.

As I say, the real victims here are the ones who have reached out to the BBC and been left behind, yet they are the ones who are forgotten in all this.
That is the real tragedy, not the article from the BBC, which is perfectly legitimate.
 
Champ said:
The investigation was conceived because they were approached by people left behind:

We were initially contacted by the former women footballers still in Afghanistan who were unhappy they had been left behind and who had seen others claiming to be top-tier sportspeople granted refugee status. We investigated their claims.”

so yes, you could say it was due to an opinion most investigations start this way, hence the term investigating, but it's one which seems to be based in fact.

As I say, the real victims here are the ones who have reached out to the BBC and been left behind, yet they are the ones who are forgotten in all this.
That is the real tragedy, not the article from the BBC, which is perfectly legitimate.
Click to expand...

The article barely fecking mentions the people left behind, that's exactly what I'm saying. They've done what seems like a pretty half arsed investigation and then not even really given you any clear conclusions and left it open to interpretation by the average dipshit.

But you know what, I'm out, it's a great investigation, long live the BBC's current level of journalistic standards. We can only aspire to be more like them, I concede the point.
 
TwoSheds said:
The article barely fecking mentions the people left behind, that's exactly what I'm saying. They've done what seems like a pretty half arsed investigation and then not even really given you any clear conclusions and left it open to interpretation by the average dipshit.

But you know what, I'm out, it's a great investigation, long live the BBC's current level of journalistic standards. We can only aspire to be more like them, I concede the point.
Click to expand...
There's no point to concede.

You view it one way, I view it the other. It's evidently a polarising piece.

The article/investigation happened due to those left behind, so I'd say they have a pretty massive part in this and unfortunately they are the ones who have been forgotten.
 
I can only surmise Champ wrote that shite article :lol:

If you can't see the obvious editorial direction they've decided to take with that article the bias must be at play.

Only at the BBC is excusing wife beaters in their absence and picking on young girls without right of reply both impartial and balanced.
 
It might only be little things but it's these little tweaks they do to be impartial and think they can get away with it.

I had no idea which party the MP was from so was purposely trying to find the party in the article, which then made it stand out to me that they literally buried his affiliation out of plain sight. Damage limitation.
 
Well it's run by Tories, you'd hope it wasn't news to anyone by now although I suppose it certainly is.
 
TwoSheds said:
Well it's run by Tories, you'd hope it wasn't news to anyone by now although I suppose it certainly is.
Click to expand...
It's hard to keep up with the tory scandals to be fair. There have been quite a few.
 
DOTA said:
I refuse to complain about mistreatment of Jess Phillips.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm not particularly a fan of hers. I'm merely highlighting that if someone just read the first few paragraphs which many do. They'd know one was Labour and they wouldn't be certain of the party of the other.
 
ThehatchetMan said:
Oh I'm not particularly a fan of hers. I'm merely highlighting that if someone just read the first few paragraphs which many do. They'd know one was Labour and they wouldn't be certain of the party of the other.
Click to expand...

Well you'd be pretty sure because they put a picture of him and he's the most slimy Tory looking prick imaginable.
 
Another conscious sly decision made was the images to use for the articles.

For Julian Knight it's the first result from Google images, the one on his wkipedia.

For Jess Philips the wikipedia picture is also the top result. But a decision was made to find a picture which makes her look worse.
 
Dear Points of View,

Whilst perusing the BBC's online output earlier today I happened upon a picture of the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding that was decidedly mid...
 
I didn’t really know where to ask this… why are the BBC treating Philip Schofield and Holly Willoughby falling out like it is a national scandal and story of the century? They have done more in depth reporting on this than anything the Tories have done in the last 13 years
 
To deflect from having to report on actual news, it might embarrass their Tory chums.
 
Absolutely nailed it

 
Whisper it quietly. An unknown BBC presenter is a nonce. I cannae believe it! The BBC, of all places??
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66188500

Millions of public sector workers, including teachers, police and junior doctors are to get pay rises between 5%-7%, the government says.
Police and prison officers will receive a 7% pay rise, while teachers and junior doctors will get a 6.5% and 6% rise respectively.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he had accepted recommendations made by the pay review bodies "in full".
He said the rises would not be funded by borrowing more or increasing taxes.
Following the announcement, the education unions said they would now put the offer to their members with a recommendation to accept the pay award and said the deal would allow the strikes to be called off.

Nice one BBC. Report it but don’t report what it really means; that the salary increase is being paid for by cuts to services
 
Volumiza said:
:lol: BUSTED!

Although, there but for the grace of god! Don't we all feel that way at work sometimes? I've often given a sneaky finger to people after they've left my office after pissing me off.
Click to expand...
FFS we've been through this before. A child psychologist shouldn't be making their patients cry.
 
Volumiza said:
:lol: BUSTED!

Although, there but for the grace of god! Don't we all feel that way at work sometimes? I've often given a sneaky finger to people after they've left my office after pissing me off.
Click to expand...
Although I no longer go to the office I've done this for years, and still do out of sight of the camera in Zoom/teams meetings :)
 
Red in STL said:
Although I no longer go to the office I've done this for years, and still do out of sight of the camera in Zoom/teams meetings :)
Click to expand...
:lol: It's really immature but a good way of dealing with situations / conversations that are annoying but don't need to escalate into a full scale confrontation. Occasional little acts of petulant self gratification are good for the soul.
 
Volumiza said:
:lol: It's really immature but a good way of dealing with situations / conversations that are annoying but don't need to escalate into a full scale confrontation. Occasional little acts of petulant self gratification are good for the soul.
Click to expand...
Spot on but I'm not averse to the other either, I work with liver-livered Americans who are terrified of upsetting someone by disagreeing with them, one thing I learnt over here is that you can't criticize anything, they can't handle it and I'm not always shy about disagreeing :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.