Serious? As in system overload?! Wow. We are part of a movement
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I think it has settled down now, i just made my complaint without issue.Serious? As in system overload?! Wow. We are part of a movement
Chances are the BBC will ignore the complaints because of it being a concentrated effort, much the same way Steam would ignore obvious review bombing. The hashtag gives them their excuse to ignore it.
At least that's how the BBC will see it
At least that's how the BBC will see it
Redcafe will make up a tiny contributor to total complaints made on this. You really think BBC will avoid over 1000+ complaints? In the scheme of complaints, that's massive.
If you didn't know and to provide some context, when BBC receives just 50 complaints about any program, it acts. If ASA received 50 complaints about an ad, it will invariably ask for that ad to be taken off air.
Even if they don't take official public action, Im sure Kuenssberg be reprimanded and get a yellow card.
PS: What hashtag are you talking about?
One about sacking her. #sacklaurak or something.
And I wasn't referring to Redcafe but social media in general. Companies often ignore negative feedback, bad reviews or complaints if they believe they are targeted. It's a fairly common tactic for people to use after all.
Just like to point out that Kuenssberg herself has been the victim of some vial trolling and even death threats on social media, even to the extent she now needs 24/7 protection. Not defending her, just pointing out the facts.
There are far too many Internet warriors out there from all sides of the political spectrum.
There are far too many Internet warriors out there from all sides of the political spectrum.
Rather than defending, that makes her retweet even more despicable, as she knows what she is doing and how it will feel to receive the vitriolic abuse.
Also, in this instance, I don't think its internet warriors, it's simply people outraged at her abuse of power. As @BobbyManc said in the other thread, BBC don't make it that easy to complain via their website, and internet warriors without much skin in the game would give up before completing all the pre screen questions.
BBC rallying around Kuenssberg will make this worse. It just amplifies the accusation that BBC is pro Tory Leave. Terrible crisis management.
I’m a socialist by heart, but I don’t think she did anything wrong apart from showing a lack of empathy towards the blokes child maybe. She’s the political editor, it’s her job to point out the awkward truths. It might have been different if it had been somebody with no political intentions, but the guy himself has turned it into a political issue by bragging about it on social media. Just my 2 cents worth anyway.
You are 100% entitled to your opinion, no problems.
But I suspect my instincts on this are right, she knew exactly what she was doing, and almost everyone on my twitter and facebook feeds seem to think the same.
If you can be bothered, just read some replies to the tweets, majority from normal people.
But the guy himself politicized it first. What about him using his sons health to make a political point? I agree with what he told Boris. But, if one of my kids was in hospital I wouldn’t dream of scoring political points on social media. He should be ashamed of himself.
As I said you’re entitled to your view.
Surely though the Primer Minister being caught, once again, blatantly lying this time to a member of the publics face is the bigger news story no?
But it's not one she's focused her attention on, instead she thinks the guy's political background is the main story.
It’s not the one you have focused your attention on either.
Well it's kind of hard to when the senior political editor of the BBC deems it not newsworthy.
We all know Boris is a lying cnut AND is not fit for office. I’m also not keen on Kuenssberg either. But objectively speaking she’s done nothing wrong in this case and you get nasty tw@ts on Twitter from all over the political spectrum, hardly the Beebs fault. I think people are being way too sensitive here.
I'm not really sure why she had to direct people to the guys in question's Twitter. Mentioning he was a Labour activist is fine - when you have a large following you're inevitably going to cause a pile-on that person may not wish for, and so you need to use social media responsibly.
Then she should know better!
Apparently translates to a 32 seat majority for the Conservatives.
Yeah our system is so fecked. That polling would give the Lib Dems about 50 seats and Labour about 200. The Greens with a higher vote percentage than the SNP would probably get 1 seat and the SNP about 50. Brexit party could get 15% of the vote and zero seats.
We really need proportional representation already.
Because that is where the guy had published his explanation. She was quoting him. This is pretty basic journalistic stuff.
He published it on his own personal account. Did he at any point wish for a prominent BBC journalist to frame that tweet? I get that social media's a very open platform and sometimes what you say will go viral - but if you're someone with a lot of followers you should potentially think twice before highlighting someone's content to that degree.
He published it on a public platform! His words were in the public domain. You could use them. I could use them. A bbc journo wanting to quote them as she covered the story - she could use them too. This is such a trivially basic point about what journalism is.
I saw this on twitter with somebody replying: "So the real question is, would Corbyn support a Swinson government?"
You are aware he's found himself getting targeted by a considerable number of racists, right? Do you think he'd have received this much vitriol of his quote hadn't been frame tweeted? Was that absolutely necessary to conveying the story?
Hopefully he won't support that lying scumbag who is responsible for the suffering of so many poor and disabled people and would do it again in a heartbeat.I saw this on twitter with somebody replying: "So the real question is, would Corbyn support a Swinson government?"
A bit harsh on Swinson.
It's true though isn't it. She helped UC get pushed through and she supported austerity and makes no apologies for it so we can assume she'd do it again.
I actually thought you were referring to Johnson.
She's an unpleasant person though, I agree. There isn't much she wouldn't do to further her career.
Then you prefer a hard-right Tory govt in place and quasi-fascism along with no-deal Brexit?
Not my words by the way, the words of Labour supporters in here who feel that every vote for LibDems is essentially a vote for a Tory govt.
Wouldn't it be funny if the shoe was on the other foot?
I mean everyone already agreed that Johnson is scum. Swinson has gotten away with a lot.
Quoting his own words on why he confronted the PM was absolutely necessary in covering the story. Of course it was. That’s the why in how who what. To not use his own words, but to have speculated, would have been the scandal.
And I’m sorry he’s been targeted. But the journalists first responsibility is to get the facts out.
I cannot believe your line is she should not have reported his publicly stated reasons in his own words, for fear of what people might say. That doesn’t sound like the actions of a journalist does it?
Last edited:
I'd prefer lib Dems to Tories but they aren't much better.
It's not funny choosing between 2 different types of scum, no.
She can quite reasonably report his words without directly linking to his Twitter account.
Which is exactly why we don't need PR.
I'd rather a populist right-wing party get solid representation in parliament under a PR system than run the risk of them getting a majority with 35% of the vote.
Because people’s votes shouldn’t count? I hate Farage with an absolute passion, but I hate the idea of his supporters being denied a voice even more.
He confronted the PM because he’s not satisfied with the service of his daughter has been getting from the NHS. He didn’t mention that his views are linked to being a labour activist. Why is this the story? Please explain.
Also the PM lied again yesterday. Why is that not the core story being reported.
Why does Kluenssberg not divulge the political leanings of every single person she writes about or interviews? Why not?
Kluenssberg issued 3 tweets on a story about the PM visiting a hospital, chronic NHS underfunding and him making a barefaced lie (again) that press were not present. 2 out of 3 tweets were about a the identity and political persuasion of a member of public talking to the PM. That’s absurd overload. I dont remember her revealing similar information when people shouted at BJ in Yorkshire last week? Again why not?
None of the above sounds like the actions of an impartial journalist to me.
It’s clear that unlike Mr Omer, your opinion is polluted because of your political persuasions.
Last edited:
That’s silly. His twitter account is the primary source.