Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
There's simply no defence for Kuenssberg's actions.
 
I don't have any agenda and I don't think she has any agenda. She is simply in bed with anyone in Not 10 so she gets scoops. She will parrot any PMs line to keep people happy. A journo for hire as it were.
 
Last edited:
Classical Mechanic said:
Laura's done him a big favour then.
Click to expand...
Meh it would of got a ton of hits anyway although yeah its completely possible that her and the beeb stupid actions and abuse of power have caused the video to get more view. None of which takes away from the arguments against Kuenssberg and the BBC.
 
Sweet Square said:
Meh it would of got a ton of hits anyway although yeah its completely possible that her and the beeb stupid actions and abuse of power have caused the video to get more view. None of which takes away from the arguments against Kuenssberg and the BBC.
Click to expand...
The narrative of the story has now changed though.

No one is talking about Boris’ ridiculous lie (unless he considers the BBC a part of his staff which is also possible), they’re talking about the labour activist or the BBC journalist.
 
Sweet Square said:
Meh it would of got a ton of hits anyway although yeah its completely possible that her and the beeb stupid actions and abuse of power have caused the video to get more view. None of which takes away from the arguments against Kuenssberg and the BBC.
Click to expand...

I think its a really weak point for the Corbynites to go rabid over. Salem seems to think so too. It's a poor battle to go full force into and doesn't really help to enhance any idea of her bias towards the Tories in my opinion. It more supports the idea of an agenda against her.
 
Kuenssberg has form in this regard. Her coverage of the Scottish Independence vote is infamous North of the border, the BBC trust actually ruled against her coverage of Corbyn and she is clearly joined at the hip to Johnson.

I have no idea if her bias is conscious or not but it is clear her independence is compromised which, as she is political editor of the BBC, is an issue. If she wrote for the Spectator then fair enough.

If the BBC is seen as the mouth piece of the Government (or of a particular political persuasion) , which it is by many in Scotland since 2014, that is a terrible shame in my mind. I do genuinely believe the BBC, in general, tries to be impartial, often resulting in laughable equating of argument positions in the interest of balance.Of course, we all have our own convictions and that influence is very hard to eliminate utterly, but LK has either lost her capacity for self reflection or has actively crossed the line to a partizan position. It is very disheartening.
 
If what she's done is so bad, what sort of punishment are you lot thinking is warranted?
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Kuenssberg has form in this regard. Her coverage of the Scottish Independence vote is infamous North of the border, the BBC trust actually ruled against her coverage of Corbyn and she is clearly joined at the hip to Johnson.

I have no idea if her bias is conscious or not but it is clear her independence is compromised which, as she is political editor of the BBC, is an issue. If she wrote for the Spectator then fair enough.

If the BBC is seen as the mouth piece of the Government (or of a particular political persuasion) , which it is by many in Scotland since 2014, that is a terrible shame in my mind. I do genuinely believe the BBC, in general, tries to be impartial, often resulting in laughable equating of argument positions in the interest of balance.Of course, we all have our own convictions and that influence is very hard to eliminate utterly, but LK has either lost her capacity for self reflection or has actively crossed the line to a partizan position. It is very disheartening.
Click to expand...

The BBC is framed as being against all parties depending on the weather. Apparently its full of liberal elite media luvvies that are thwarting right wing agendas too.
 
nickm said:
You are wrong. The defence is she was reporting facts, ie doing her job.
Click to expand...
So does she highlight every person who interacts with Johnson’s political background? Or is it just because they caught Johnson with his trousers down?
 
Pexbo said:
Personally I think it's one of two things, possibly both:

Firstly, she has her own centre-right bias which despite her training as a journalist and the responsibility of her role to stay impartial, inevitably rears its head occasionally. That's human nature and it is incredibly difficult to avoid this, I'd argue that it's actually impossible unless you intentionally play devils advocate occasionally. She also obviously has absolute contempt for Corbyn and his politics and that kind of strong emotion will inevitably impact on her reporting.

Secondly, as a journalist she knows the value of networking and harvesting key sources. As such she is going to value her access to Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, very highly. She's been cultivating that trust and access for years now hedging her bets that he will eventually get the job and she was right. She's doing all she can to retain that access and sadly that has resulted in her trading inside information for favourable reporting.
Click to expand...

I think she generally blows a bit of smoke up the arse of the #10 Downing Street dweller, whoever the might be. She did the same with Cameron to some extent, although those were less "testy" times than these I'd argue. That's probably, as you said, to maintain access to and get scoops from the Govt.

Her time in prominent positions for both the BBC and ITV previously has coincided exclusively with Tory governments. I think that might be distorting opinion a bit as with regards to her alleged centre-right bias. She might have one, but that's hard to ascertain given the slight pro-government bias that we both kinda agree on.

For me, I think she's a very smart journalist who's trying to balance impartiality and scrutiny of the government with having access of information to it. And she sometimes gets the balance wrong and appears protective of the Govt. It's fecking hard job at the best of times to be honest. And the current climate has people questioning anyone and everyone's motives. Not just politicians and journalists, but even judges as we've seen.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The BBC is framed as being against all parties depending on the weather. Apparently its full of liberal elite media luvvies that are thwarting right wing agendas too.
Click to expand...
Yes and that sort of paranoia is bollocks. As I stated, a level of drift from complete impartiality is human and inevitable and I have no issue with that.
LK is operating in a different space here. She has consistently adopted a line in her reporting and has done for sometime.
 
When did journalists both TV and print, stop just actually reporting the facts and make every single thing a bloody opinion piece? No one cares what you think you clowns, give us the facts and we will form our own opinions, we don't need you to tell us what to think.
 
nickm said:
I don’t know. Do you?
Click to expand...
Well I have never seen her deliberately go out of her way to identify someone’s political background and then find their Twitter and identify them before.

Why suddenly do it now?

The only reason I can think of is to minimise the person who spoke to Johnson’s contribution to dilute the point he was making, (just a bitter labour activist, nothing to see here), oh and to distract from the clear liar Johnson just got caught in.
 
WensleyMU said:
If what she's done is so bad, what sort of punishment are you lot thinking is warranted?
Click to expand...
No pudding for a week.

Or she could just give some indication that she realises she made a mistake and she needs to be more careful with how she treats strangers on twitter.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
No pudding for a week.

Or she could just give some indication that she realises she made a mistake and she needs to be more careful with how she treats strangers on twitter.
Click to expand...

Yeh, an apology would probably be best. I don't think it warrants much more than that. It's hardly the crime of the century at the end of the day.
 
On an unrelated note, will Liz Truss be resigning after selling arms? Or will that just be swept under the carpet?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
No pudding for a week.

Or she could just give some indication that she realises she made a mistake and she needs to be more careful with how she treats strangers on twitter.
Click to expand...

She would have to be investigated through the appropriate bodies. Apologising for this incident would have zero currency for her and would be used against her forever by the mob that's gone after her in the first place.
 
WensleyMU said:
Keeping his arms clear so that he can quickly access a vein.

Alternatively it's pretty normal in hospital to have sleeves rolled up, as it allows for better hygiene. So he's probably just ensuring his unwashed shirt doesn't come into contact with the doctors and nurses hands.
Click to expand...

Nope. Refuse to believe for one second that is what you think is going on. Not having it. WUM.
 
Bare elbow policy is fairly normal in many UK hospitals. It helps prevent the spreading of germs as a person's sleeves cannot be washed like their hands can. It also allows for proper hand washing, which is vital in hospital.

The ability to blow the most minor things out of proportion on here is weird.
 
WensleyMU said:
Jesus wept there's some spectacular mental gymnastics going on here...
Click to expand...
Indeed...particularly from people who give the benefit of the doubt to a political editor who the BBC Trust found guilty of breaking the channel's impartiality and accuracy guidelines.
 
SteveJ said:
Indeed...particularly from people who give the benefit of the doubt to a political editor who the BBC Trust found guilty of breaking the channel's impartiality and accuracy guidelines.
Click to expand...
All this is just a part of the anti-Laura conspiracy, mate.
 
SteveJ said:
Indeed...particularly from people who give the benefit of the doubt to a political editor who the BBC Trust found guilty of breaking the channel's impartiality and accuracy guidelines.
Click to expand...

Anything wrong with looking at something in isolation?

And if she's done it again, then we can be sure the BBC trust will find her guilty again.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
BBC trust investigated her last time.
Click to expand...
You think if she admitted she shouldn't have tweeted linking to the bloke's account she would be investigated by the BBC trust?

EDIT - I mean, if she made an apology confessing how her undying lust for access to stories caused her to spend several hours a day skyping Dominic Cummings for instructions, I can see there'd be problems, but confessing to not thinking before crudely bringing attention to the guy's tweet doesn't strike me as requiring impartiality investigation.
 
Last edited:
Ady87 said:
I'll make it really simple. Johnson doesn't have his sleeves rolled up with absolutely any thought towards germs. It's not mental gymnastics.

Edit: I don't really care if he does or doesn't, but it's PR driven and that's that.
Click to expand...

Honestly, the chances are he was asked to wash his hands, as is common practice in a hospital for the most obvious of reasons. He probably rolled his sleeves up to do so.

It really isn't a big deal.
 
Ady87 said:
I'll make it really simple. Johnson doesn't have his sleeves rolled up with absolutely any thought towards germs. It's not mental gymnastics.

Edit: I don't really care if he does or doesn't, but it's PR driven and that's that.
Click to expand...

I hate to have to take the side of Johnson but you may recall an incident where a doctor got angry with Cameron and his media team during a hospital visit for not having their sleeves rolled up a few years back.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
You think if she admitted she shouldn't have tweeted linking to the bloke's account she would be investigated by the BBC trust?

EDIT - I mean, if she made an apology confessing how her undying lust for access to stories caused her to spend several hours a day skyping Dominic Cummings for instructions, I can see there'd be problems, but confessing to not thinking before crudely bringing attention to the guy's tweet doesn't strike me as requiring impartiality investigation.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing why she should apologise for linking his account at all. His account is used specifically to influence political narrative on a public platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.