Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Davif Cameron Admits Manipulation Of BBC Output
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Turk182
Apr 29, 2012, 5:20:39 AM4/29/12
to
I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, spewing buzz words at Andrew
Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
Murdochs.
Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
newspaper owners too.
He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
approximate
Why?
Why BBC Editors?
How would the lobbying of BBC editors affect the decisions they
make? How would the lobbying of BBC editors alter or adjust the
output of BBC Radio and TV?
We may understand why the newspapers are pressured to change their
tune - as they often declare their support for one party or another!
Bit the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
That means giving proportionate amounts of time to differing
viewpoints, and then any lobbying is delivered directly to the public
- NOT the programme makers!
Cameron has admitting the BBC is capable of changing it's output to
adhere to Tory or Government lines - something we all knew anyway, but
rarely admitted by the BBC or the government. If Cameron is telling
the truth, the BBC can no longer claim to be impartial. If Cameron
can go up and lobby editors - why can't everyone?
Turk182
Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
Murdochs.
Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
newspaper owners too.
He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
approximate
Why?
Why BBC Editors?
How would the lobbying of BBC editors affect the decisions they
make? How would the lobbying of BBC editors alter or adjust the
output of BBC Radio and TV?
We may understand why the newspapers are pressured to change their
tune - as they often declare their support for one party or another!
Bit the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
That means giving proportionate amounts of time to differing
viewpoints, and then any lobbying is delivered directly to the public
- NOT the programme makers!
Cameron has admitting the BBC is capable of changing it's output to
adhere to Tory or Government lines - something we all knew anyway, but
rarely admitted by the BBC or the government. If Cameron is telling
the truth, the BBC can no longer claim to be impartial. If Cameron
can go up and lobby editors - why can't everyone?
Turk182
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 5:36:27 AM4/29/12
to
On 29/04/2012 10:20, Turk182 wrote:
> I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, spewing buzz words at Andrew
> Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
>
> The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
> defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
> Murdochs.
>
> Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
> newspaper owners too.
>
> He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
> approximate
>
> Why?
>
> Why BBC Editors?
>
> How would the lobbying of BBC editors affect the decisions they
> make? How would the lobbying of BBC editors alter or adjust the
> output of BBC Radio and TV?
>
> We may understand why the newspapers are pressured to change their
> tune - as they often declare their support for one party or another!
>
> Bit the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
"supposed to be".
> I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, spewing buzz words at Andrew
> Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
>
> The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
> defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
> Murdochs.
>
> Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
> newspaper owners too.
>
> He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
> approximate
>
> Why?
>
> Why BBC Editors?
>
> How would the lobbying of BBC editors affect the decisions they
> make? How would the lobbying of BBC editors alter or adjust the
> output of BBC Radio and TV?
>
> We may understand why the newspapers are pressured to change their
> tune - as they often declare their support for one party or another!
>
> Bit the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
That means that is a legal duty to be politically impartial.
Despite that, it is not impartial; it is markedly biased to the left. That is
not even disputed, with senior BBC management having *admitted* it, but (as
yet) having done nothing to address the charter breach.
Mentalguy2k8
Apr 29, 2012, 7:10:04 AM4/29/12
to
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:251e1f6f-726e-49fe...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
the left for years and years.
I expect Cameron was trying (and failing) to persuade the BBC to give some
airtime to some Tory policies that are working, rather than fill their
"news" programmes with endless negative slant against the Tories, along with
tame interviews with Labour politicians who appear to have all the answers.
You can't complain about Cameron trying to get a fair crack of the whip from
the BBC, their left-bias is ingrained and exhaustively documented. Moan at
*them*, not him.
abelard
Apr 29, 2012, 8:28:30 AM4/29/12
to
it is impossible to give equal time to lefties...*and* simultaneously
be 'objective' or to talk sense...
any more than it is to give equal time to astrology in science items..
this is a major problem with the nonsense of 'equal time'....
socialism is a religious cult...it isn't genuine politics
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vmsmith
Apr 29, 2012, 9:13:47 AM4/29/12
to
particpants as Tory twits. So sad.
abelard
Apr 29, 2012, 9:19:14 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:13:47 -0500, vmsmith <laug...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>The blabbering about the 'leftism' of the BBC in this thread so marks its
>particpants as Tory twits. So sad.
'it weren't us guv'
>particpants as Tory twits. So sad.
Turk182
Apr 29, 2012, 9:20:59 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 2:13 pm, vmsmith <laugh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well it's interesting because I had extensive connections with the BBC
throughout Labour's period in power. The managers and editors were
constantly groaning about the level of interference from Labour MPs
and government departments, and the well documented behaviour of
Alistair Campbell, which amounted to wholesale bullying of, and
threats to, the BBC is legendary.
Gilligan of course was thrown out on Labour orders for telling the
truth!
Turk182
throughout Labour's period in power. The managers and editors were
constantly groaning about the level of interference from Labour MPs
and government departments, and the well documented behaviour of
Alistair Campbell, which amounted to wholesale bullying of, and
threats to, the BBC is legendary.
Gilligan of course was thrown out on Labour orders for telling the
truth!
Turk182
charlie61Ltd
Apr 29, 2012, 9:30:52 AM4/29/12
to
JohnR
Apr 29, 2012, 9:32:28 AM4/29/12
to
how left or otherwise they might be, only how sensible. The BBC Achilles
is the licence fee.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/08/mehdi-hasan-bbc-wing-bias-corporation
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 9:40:09 AM4/29/12
to
left-wing bias is too difficult for you to understand?
>
JohnR
Apr 29, 2012, 10:05:37 AM4/29/12
to
great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
undermines your whole assertion.
If you're talking about stupidity in the form of political correctness
and endorsing the establishment status quo then I agree they're biased.
Liberal is not left wing.
Tim Richards
Apr 29, 2012, 10:07:12 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:36:27 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
massively inflated the performance of Labour, putting the gap between
the parties as little more than neck-and-neck when, as history shows,
Labour were trounced.
wrote:
>
>"supposed to be".
>
>That means that is a legal duty to be politically impartial.
>
>Despite that, it is not impartial; it is markedly biased to the left. That is
>not even disputed, with senior BBC management having *admitted* it, but (as
>yet) having done nothing to address the charter breach.
Most memorably in the 1983 General Election where the BBC "exit polls"
>"supposed to be".
>
>That means that is a legal duty to be politically impartial.
>
>Despite that, it is not impartial; it is markedly biased to the left. That is
>not even disputed, with senior BBC management having *admitted* it, but (as
>yet) having done nothing to address the charter breach.
massively inflated the performance of Labour, putting the gap between
the parties as little more than neck-and-neck when, as history shows,
Labour were trounced.
abelard
Apr 29, 2012, 10:29:21 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR <repr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>undermines your whole assertion.
rotfl...
so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
only a socialist could believe such tripe
>If you're talking about stupidity in the form of political correctness
>and endorsing the establishment status quo then I agree they're biased.
>
>Liberal is not left wing.
wrote:
>Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>undermines your whole assertion.
so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
only a socialist could believe such tripe
>If you're talking about stupidity in the form of political correctness
>and endorsing the establishment status quo then I agree they're biased.
>
>Liberal is not left wing.
Robert Carnegie
Apr 29, 2012, 10:22:28 AM4/29/12
to
Newspapers and broadcasters have no business committing
themselves to support one or another political party,
or telling their readers who to vote for, but I suppose
it can't be stopped.
Parliamentary political parties themselves are, like
so much else, conspiracies against the public, that in
this case made the mistake of voting for their members.
But that can't be avoided, either. At least it can
be conducted in a public and regulated way.
Government has resented political independence in the
BBC (such as there was) at least since the General Strike.
Apparently we nearly had Winston Churchill running it.
themselves to support one or another political party,
or telling their readers who to vote for, but I suppose
it can't be stopped.
Parliamentary political parties themselves are, like
so much else, conspiracies against the public, that in
this case made the mistake of voting for their members.
But that can't be avoided, either. At least it can
be conducted in a public and regulated way.
Government has resented political independence in the
BBC (such as there was) at least since the General Strike.
Apparently we nearly had Winston Churchill running it.
JohnR
Apr 29, 2012, 10:38:05 AM4/29/12
to
On 29/04/2012 15:29, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>> undermines your whole assertion.
>
> rotfl...
> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>
wait for it. . . .
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>> undermines your whole assertion.
>
> rotfl...
> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>
> only a socialist could believe such tripe
>
like you renders the word utterly meaningless.
abelard
Apr 29, 2012, 10:41:40 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:38:05 +0100, JohnR <repr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
yeah, anything you don't want to accept must be because everyone
but cult socialists like you are mad...
you're exactly equivalent to jehovah's witnesses or jihadis hoping
for half a gross of virgins!
wrote:
but cult socialists like you are mad...
you're exactly equivalent to jehovah's witnesses or jihadis hoping
for half a gross of virgins!
Guy Barry
Apr 29, 2012, 10:30:04 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 3:07 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Most memorably in the 1983 General Election where the BBC "exit polls"
> massively inflated the performance of Labour, putting the gap between
> the parties as little more than neck-and-neck when, as history shows,
> Labour were trounced.
I can't find any evidence for this. On the contrary, this post
> Most memorably in the 1983 General Election where the BBC "exit polls"
> massively inflated the performance of Labour, putting the gap between
> the parties as little more than neck-and-neck when, as history shows,
> Labour were trounced.
suggests that the BBC got the 1983 result almost spot-on:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=47437.0
Some of exit polls in subsequent elections exaggerated Labour support
- notably 1992, where the BBC initially predicted a hung parliament -
but the gap in 1983 was so wide that it's hard to imagine that anyone
would have predicted anything other than an outright Tory victory.
The main polling issue in 1983 was whether Labour would come second or
third in terms of share of the vote (they finished only 2% ahead of
the SDP/Liberal Alliance).
--
Guy Barry
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 10:50:53 AM4/29/12
to
On 29/04/2012 15:29, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>> undermines your whole assertion.
>
> rotfl...
> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>
> only a socialist could believe such tripe
And apparently, his assertion is "proven" by the "fact" that "lot's of left
> wrote:
>
>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>> undermines your whole assertion.
>
> rotfl...
> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>
> only a socialist could believe such tripe
leaning commentary *knows* the BBC isn't [left-wing]". [my emphasis]
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 10:51:26 AM4/29/12
to
abelard
Apr 29, 2012, 10:55:13 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:50:53 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
if only the left could comprehend satire, the whole cult would
collapse in an instant!
wrote:
collapse in an instant!
JohnR
Apr 29, 2012, 11:05:04 AM4/29/12
to
undermined by the fact the same management have actually stated it isn't
but admitted it was.
I suppose it's difficult to navigate the concept using binary processing
but read what those involved have said, all of what they have actually
said. Not just your selective misinterpretation.
The BBC is PC and liberal. Just because it isn't right wing does not
make it left wing, the irritation that it isn't right wing nut is where
your problem with the BBC lies.
Guy Barry
Apr 29, 2012, 11:29:32 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 3:51 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> They were 100% certain in 1992 that John Major had lost and Neil Pillock had won.
No, they thought there was going to be a hung parliament and weren't
> They were 100% certain in 1992 that John Major had lost and Neil Pillock had won.
sure who had won, as the following clip shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyvifYlqihA
In fact they suggested that the most likely result was a Tory
administration, but with the Tories short of an overall majority.
They were wrong, but not as wrong as you suggest.
--
Guy Barry
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 11:40:17 AM4/29/12
to
On 29/04/2012 16:05, JohnR wrote:
> On 29/04/2012 15:50, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/04/2012 15:29, abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>>>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>>>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>>>> undermines your whole assertion.
>>>
>>> rotfl...
>>> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>>>
>>> only a socialist could believe such tripe
>>
>> And apparently, his assertion is "proven" by the "fact" that "lot's of
>> left leaning commentary *knows* the BBC isn't [left-wing]". [my emphasis]
>
> Your beloved admission from the management that the BBC is left wing, is
> undermined by the fact the same management have actually stated it isn't but
> admitted it was.
"Undermined" by the BBC's admission that they'd been lying when they claimed
> On 29/04/2012 15:50, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/04/2012 15:29, abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>>>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>>>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>>>> undermines your whole assertion.
>>>
>>> rotfl...
>>> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>>>
>>> only a socialist could believe such tripe
>>
>> And apparently, his assertion is "proven" by the "fact" that "lot's of
>> left leaning commentary *knows* the BBC isn't [left-wing]". [my emphasis]
>
> Your beloved admission from the management that the BBC is left wing, is
> undermined by the fact the same management have actually stated it isn't but
> admitted it was.
not to be left-wing biased?
How would that work (on planet Earth, I mean)?
> I suppose it's difficult to navigate the concept using binary processing but
> read what those involved have said, all of what they have actually said. Not
> just your selective misinterpretation.
> The BBC is PC and liberal. Just because it isn't right wing does not make it
> left wing,
> the irritation that it isn't right wing nut is where your problem with the BBC lies.
It once WAS politically neutral, sit isn';t too much to ask.
As for your nonsense about PC and "liberalism" not being left-wing...
If they're not left-wing, what are they?
Mike Brown
Apr 29, 2012, 11:55:03 AM4/29/12
to
On 29/04/2012 10:20, Turk182 wrote:
> I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron
On Radio 4?
--
mb
Turk182
Apr 29, 2012, 12:22:17 PM4/29/12
to
Marr:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01hbrjx/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_29_04_2012/
Turk182
JohnR
Apr 29, 2012, 12:31:16 PM4/29/12
to
If you label PC left wing (a quite ridiculous doctrine of tolerance
above reason), then that makes right wing a doctrine of intolerance and
hatred above reason. Hmm, I take your point.
DVH
Apr 29, 2012, 1:27:42 PM4/29/12
to
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:251e1f6f-726e-49fe...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
> approximate
>
> Why?
>
> Why BBC Editors?
I think your quotes are both selective and inaccurate.
> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
> approximate
>
> Why?
>
> Why BBC Editors?
"Did I spend a lot of time with the BBC... with political editors... people
who are actually watched by millions of people on the television every
night, to try and convince them that I had the right policies..."
charlie61Ltd
Apr 29, 2012, 2:18:47 PM4/29/12
to
For instance I am only harassed by the State during the week not a
weekends any more.
What kind of fascist State can only afford to assault it's citizens
during the week.
You put the thugs on five day week and who knows where it will end -
it's a slippery slope I can tell you.
Next they might revert back to justice and the rule of law as a cheap
option and things really will begin to fall apart then.
God help us if they have to start telling the truth - where will it
end.
DVH
Apr 29, 2012, 2:25:01 PM4/29/12
to
"charlie61Ltd" <char...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:4h0rp7tvsofn9mpu7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:27:42 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:251e1f6f-726e-49fe...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
>>> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
>>> approximate
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Why BBC Editors?
>>
>>I think your quotes are both selective and inaccurate.
>>
>>"Did I spend a lot of time with the BBC... with political editors...
>>people
>>who are actually watched by millions of people on the television every
>>night, to try and convince them that I had the right policies..."
>>
>
> I blame the cut backs on this.
> For instance I am only harassed by the State during the week not a
> weekends any more.
> What kind of fascist State can only afford to assault it's citizens
> during the week.
> You put the thugs on five day week and who knows where it will end -
> it's a slippery slope I can tell you.
Slippery slope arguments lead you into epistemological cul-de-sacs. I blame
>
>>
>>"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:251e1f6f-726e-49fe...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
>>> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
>>> approximate
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Why BBC Editors?
>>
>>I think your quotes are both selective and inaccurate.
>>
>>"Did I spend a lot of time with the BBC... with political editors...
>>people
>>who are actually watched by millions of people on the television every
>>night, to try and convince them that I had the right policies..."
>>
>
> I blame the cut backs on this.
> For instance I am only harassed by the State during the week not a
> weekends any more.
> What kind of fascist State can only afford to assault it's citizens
> during the week.
> You put the thugs on five day week and who knows where it will end -
> it's a slippery slope I can tell you.
the French.
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 2:36:52 PM4/29/12
to
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 2:38:09 PM4/29/12
to
But still, it's so much easier for you to deal in fabrication, isn't it?
Tim Richards
Apr 29, 2012, 2:40:02 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:25:01 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>Slippery slope arguments lead you into epistemological cul-de-sacs. I blame
>the French.
>
Ha! Cul-de-sacs, French..........don't think I didn't see what you
>
>Slippery slope arguments lead you into epistemological cul-de-sacs. I blame
>the French.
>
did there :-)
charlie61Ltd
Apr 29, 2012, 2:50:10 PM4/29/12
to
considered that angle. A religious war like in the Da Vinci Code.
The BBC are behind it and now they are league with the Vatican.
They have cut back on the pensions as well - I feel sorry for all the
poor chaps who were being blackmailed by Special Branch and were
redeployed into crappy industrial jobs to spy on the workforces.
Are they still there?
I suppose now somebody caught engaged in some innocent criminal act
and who gets dragged into West End Central is told - listen sunshine
with the demise of manufacturing industry you are going to have to
become an MP or a BBC employee.
It's that or we will deport you on a dodgy extradition warrant to
Libya.
Turk182
Apr 29, 2012, 3:11:57 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 6:27 pm, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> "Turk182" <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote in message
"spent a lot of time with the BBC ....with political editors....".AND
" ...people who are actually watched by millions"
"to try and convince them that I had the right policies"
WHY? Why would it help Cameron to CONVINCE editors nad presenters
OFF AIR?
I think it's you who are suffering with word blindness!
Turk182
> "Turk182" <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote in message
" ...people who are actually watched by millions"
"to try and convince them that I had the right policies"
OFF AIR?
I think it's you who are suffering with word blindness!
Turk182
charlie61Ltd
Apr 29, 2012, 3:41:33 PM4/29/12
to
completely at odds with everyday reality.
Alex Heney
Apr 29, 2012, 3:55:51 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 02:20:39 -0700 (PDT), Turk182
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, spewing buzz words at Andrew
>Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
>
>The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
>defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
>Murdochs.
>
>Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
>newspaper owners too.
>
That was for the benefit of the very few people such as yourself.
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, spewing buzz words at Andrew
>Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
>
>The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
>defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
>Murdochs.
>
>Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
>newspaper owners too.
>
For the rest of us, that was so utterly obvious it didn't need any
explaining.
>He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
>effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
>approximate
>
>Why?
That is a major part of what they *all* do.
>
>Why BBC Editors?
Because the BBC is one of the largest and most influential media
outlets.
>
>How would the lobbying of BBC editors affect the decisions they
>make? How would the lobbying of BBC editors alter or adjust the
>output of BBC Radio and TV?
>
>We may understand why the newspapers are pressured to change their
>tune - as they often declare their support for one party or another!
>
>Bit the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
>
>viewpoints, and then any lobbying is delivered directly to the public
>- NOT the programme makers!
Only at election times.
At other times, they can be as partial as they like.
>
>Cameron has admitting the BBC is capable of changing it's output to
>adhere to Tory or Government lines - something we all knew anyway, but
>rarely admitted by the BBC or the government.
I have never seen or heard it denied by either party, and anybody with
any sense or intelligence whatsoever would expect it to be the case.
> If Cameron is telling
>the truth, the BBC can no longer claim to be impartial. If Cameron
>can go up and lobby editors - why can't everyone?
Everyone who is in a high enough position to have access does so.
Including the leaders (and other high up members)_ of all the main
political parties.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm no stranger, just a friend you haven't met...
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
DVH
Apr 29, 2012, 3:55:56 PM4/29/12
to
news:bc51637b-1c8f-47f5...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Politicians brief the lobby press off air all the time. There are regular
sessions meant to educate hacks about this or that policy. Correspondents
regularly get schmoozed in the various departments... given lunch, leaflets
and made to feel special.
sessions meant to educate hacks about this or that policy. Correspondents
regularly get schmoozed in the various departments... given lunch, leaflets
and made to feel special.
JohnR
Apr 29, 2012, 3:57:27 PM4/29/12
to
doing or should be doing?
More religion? bigotry? intolerance? islamophobia? war mongering?
Is the complaint that it isn't like the Fox "news" network?
The BBC is a fairly youth centred PC liberal media outlet. I really
don't understand what exactly you're complaining about.
charlie61Ltd
Apr 29, 2012, 4:18:30 PM4/29/12
to
that way it does a considerable disservice to the people of this
country.
Pressure is applied every day even by direct phone calls from
ministers.
It is doubtful whether certainly the 2nd Gulf War would have taken
place if the BBC had not acquiesced in propagating the fake stories.
Even Afghanistan would have benefited from considerable more cynicism
about the reasons for going in.
As to the 1st Gulf war the stories were quite simply fake and known to
be fake by the BBC because they were made aware of the truth.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 29, 2012, 4:17:49 PM4/29/12
to
In article
<f9284ed6-df58-42ff...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, on
Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
I neither remember nor care what the exit polls said in 1983 or 1992.
If, however, they were wildly out, that doesn't indicate any bias - in
any direction - on the part of the BBC; it only indicates how useless
exit polls are.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I am what I am - I am my own special creation;
I am what I am, and what I am needs no excuses.
<f9284ed6-df58-42ff...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, on
Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
If, however, they were wildly out, that doesn't indicate any bias - in
any direction - on the part of the BBC; it only indicates how useless
exit polls are.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I am what I am - I am my own special creation;
I am what I am, and what I am needs no excuses.
DVH
Apr 29, 2012, 4:21:01 PM4/29/12
to
news:438rp7pem3s5j8ge3...@4ax.com...
I'm no fan of the BBC. I'm not even a fan of the lobby system.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apr 29, 2012, 4:21:06 PM4/29/12
to
In article
<63a9c050-6a4e-46a0...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, on
Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Turk182 <digital...@aol.com> wrote
Yes, BBC1, that well-known arm of Radio 4.
(But there's no point repeating this point; Turk182 has the R4 newsgroup
on speed-dial whenever he's in a ranting mood. I suspect the readers of
uk.legal are just as cross - I don't take that 'group, but I can't
imagine this sort of thing is on-topic there either. I'd killfile him,
but usually his trolls raise replies that that wouldn't catch.)
<63a9c050-6a4e-46a0...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, on
Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Turk182 <digital...@aol.com> wrote
(But there's no point repeating this point; Turk182 has the R4 newsgroup
on speed-dial whenever he's in a ranting mood. I suspect the readers of
uk.legal are just as cross - I don't take that 'group, but I can't
imagine this sort of thing is on-topic there either. I'd killfile him,
but usually his trolls raise replies that that wouldn't catch.)
charlie61Ltd
Apr 29, 2012, 4:44:08 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:55:51 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
And thus we take another step along the road to a totalitarian State
where the voices of the ordinary man and woman are unimportant and
they can be left to rot in their tower blocks and any voices of
dissent can be crushed - in one way or another.
wrote:
where the voices of the ordinary man and woman are unimportant and
they can be left to rot in their tower blocks and any voices of
dissent can be crushed - in one way or another.
JNugent
Apr 29, 2012, 7:57:12 PM4/29/12
to
> More religion?
Did anyone ask for that?
> bigotry? intolerance?
You have asked for those, have you?
> islamophobia? war mongering?
The Beeb certainly did a bit of the latter when Blair/Brown invaded Iraq.
> Is the complaint that it isn't like the Fox "news" network?
own charter: politically neutral (which means that no-one should be able to
discern any party political preference on the part of the BBC).
> The BBC is a fairly youth centred PC liberal media outlet. I really don't
> understand what exactly you're complaining about.
to the left that your perception of the location of the centre is hopeless.
Frederick Williams
Apr 30, 2012, 4:01:20 AM4/30/12
to
Turk182 wrote:
>
> I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, [...]
'Admitting manipulation' or 'trying to convince'? I have no sympathy
for either Cameron or the BBC, but your subject header is over-egging
the pudding.
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
>
> I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, [...]
'Admitting manipulation' or 'trying to convince'? I have no sympathy
for either Cameron or the BBC, but your subject header is over-egging
the pudding.
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
Guy Barry
Apr 30, 2012, 6:05:17 AM4/30/12
to
On Apr 29, 9:17 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> I neither remember nor care what the exit polls said in 1983 or 1992.
> If, however, they were wildly out, that doesn't indicate any bias - in
> any direction - on the part of the BBC; it only indicates how useless
> exit polls are.
True enough. I was correcting an earlier poster's factual error.
There'd be precious little point in manipulating the result of an exit
poll in any case, since it has no bearing on anyone's vote.
--
Guy Barry
wrote:
> I neither remember nor care what the exit polls said in 1983 or 1992.
> If, however, they were wildly out, that doesn't indicate any bias - in
> any direction - on the part of the BBC; it only indicates how useless
> exit polls are.
There'd be precious little point in manipulating the result of an exit
poll in any case, since it has no bearing on anyone's vote.
--
Guy Barry
JNugent
Apr 30, 2012, 6:14:28 AM4/30/12
to
Vince
Apr 30, 2012, 7:50:18 AM4/30/12
to
> "vmsmith" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.L...@ue.ph...
> The blabbering about the 'leftism' of the BBC in this thread so marks its
> particpants as Tory twits. So sad.
I just assumed that they had got their left/right mixed up (it's a well
known condition).
> The blabbering about the 'leftism' of the BBC in this thread so marks its
> particpants as Tory twits. So sad.
I just assumed that they had got their left/right mixed up (it's a well
known condition).
Guy Barry
Apr 30, 2012, 7:51:18 AM4/30/12
to
to get the result as accurate as possible, since it makes them look
pretty stupid if they're subsequently proved wrong. Look at what
happened with the US broadcasters in 2000.
I remember the BBC cock-up in 1992 particularly vividly, since they
continued to factor their exit poll results into their seat
predictions even after it should have become clear that the Tories
were going to gain an overall majority. They were so confident that
their exit poll was right that at first they seemed to disbelieve the
actual results that were coming through. I was listening to Radio 4's
coverage on the night (presented by the late Brian Redhead) and when
the Basildon result came through, which was the first key marginal,
they tried to put the Tory victory down to local factors rather than
accept that it might be part of a trend.
I've never liked exit polls much anyway - they spoil the election
coverage for me. I like hearing the story unfolding over the course
of the night and making my own predictions. It's like giving away the
end of a film before showing it, or telling people the result of a
football match before broadcasting a recording. They ought to use the
equivalent of that time-honoured formula "if you don't want to know
the result, look away now" :-)
--
Guy Barry
JohnR
Apr 30, 2012, 8:14:20 AM4/30/12
to
don't think my views can be easily labelled anyway, I don't have strong
convictions on anything other than injustice which tends to pitch me
against the rightard mentality but that isn't exclusive by any stretch.
Turk182
Apr 30, 2012, 1:00:27 PM4/30/12
to
which way they lean, but our political elite are skewing the media and
business for their own personal and party ambitions.
What really concerns me is how fake data is being created in every
area of our life:
In health, where IAPT are generating fake and flawed results.
In schools, where the premier acadamies are faking data to mislead on
attendance and results.
In science, where pressure is exerted to arrive at government friendly
conclusions etc etc.
Then, having been given their dossier of fake data, the Prime Minister
of the day arrives on the doorstep of a BBC editor, presenter or
newspaper owner, to batter them with the fake statistics, in order to
influence what they say, broadcast or print.
This is where we are in Britain; and the public suffers as our path in
history is diverted through a wasted excursion into brambles and quick-
sand.
The whole set-up is a dodgy dossier of fake, worthless, paper
achievement - just like our banks!
Turk182
JohnR
Apr 30, 2012, 1:06:23 PM4/30/12
to
very real.
Joe
Apr 30, 2012, 1:25:47 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:14 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On 30/04/2012 11:05, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> > > There'd be precious little point in manipulating the result of an
> > > exit poll in any case, since it has no bearing on anyone's vote.
> >
> > But it can indicate a certain... eagerness...
>
> Eagerness for what? I'd have thought that broadcasters would be eager
> to get the result as accurate as possible, since it makes them look
> pretty stupid if they're subsequently proved wrong.
And there you see the problem of bias. We cannot take in more than a
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:14 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On 30/04/2012 11:05, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> > > There'd be precious little point in manipulating the result of an
> > > exit poll in any case, since it has no bearing on anyone's vote.
> >
> > But it can indicate a certain... eagerness...
>
> Eagerness for what? I'd have thought that broadcasters would be eager
> to get the result as accurate as possible, since it makes them look
> pretty stupid if they're subsequently proved wrong.
tiny fraction of the information our senses deliver, so from birth we
learn to screen it, to cut out the irrelevancies. Mostly it is an
unconscious process, but it cannot avoid being coloured by our beliefs.
The people you describe really were trying to predict the result as
accurately as they knew how, but the way they went about it resulted in
inaccuracy. To improve accuracy, you want to ignore the obvious errors,
and report only the results which are 'good'. If a datum deviates too
far from the expected value, there must be an error, and the datum is
invalid. Read any statistician's report on the techniques used to
discard erroneous data, to 'improve' the quality of what is left.
The danger is that justifications for dropping 'erroneous' data must
come partly from personal beliefs, and that's what we call 'bias'.
Nobody can see their own bias, this is the problem. Organisations tend
to recruit 'people like themselves', and this doesn't help at all.
Just read an advertisement for a public-sector job to see the kind of
person they're looking for. Why would you join an organisation where
you obviously don't fit in, and would be unlikely to be promoted? And it
takes a pretty big mind to accept that a view that is different from
your own is not necessarily wrong. Not many people seem able to do that.
You can't find out how everybody voted, so you pick the wards that you
canvass rather carefully, and you also pick the people you ask by some
criteria. To get the best accuracy, you need to ask people who are
precisely representative of the whole country, and you need to choose
them before you know the result.
Exit polls have their own problems. Why should anyone asked answer at
all, and if they do, why should they tell the truth? People who answer
at all are by definition a self-selecting group, something that all
statisticians rightly detest. And why tell the truth? The thing about
secret ballots is that they are, well, secret. Why would you come out
of one and tell the first person you meet how you voted? And he's from
the BBC... you really don't want to stand up in front of the country
and admit you voted Conservative, do you, even if you can't see an
obvious camera? The BBC man will sneer at you, and obviously nobody
who's anybody votes Conservative.
--
Joe
Alex Heney
Apr 30, 2012, 4:59:45 PM4/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:44:08 +0100, charlie61Ltd <char...@mail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>>> If Cameron is telling
>>>the truth, the BBC can no longer claim to be impartial. If Cameron
>>>can go up and lobby editors - why can't everyone?
>>
>>Everyone who is in a high enough position to have access does so.
>
>
>>
>>Including the leaders (and other high up members)_ of all the main
>>political parties.
>
>And thus we take another step along the road to a totalitarian State
>where the voices of the ordinary man and woman are unimportant and
>they can be left to rot in their tower blocks and any voices of
>dissent can be crushed - in one way or another.
Do you believe that had the slightest relevance to anything I had
said?
Because it certainly didn't.
Quite apart from being a stupidly false statement anyhow.
wrote:
<snip>
>>> If Cameron is telling
>>>the truth, the BBC can no longer claim to be impartial. If Cameron
>>>can go up and lobby editors - why can't everyone?
>>
>>Everyone who is in a high enough position to have access does so.
>
>
>>
>>Including the leaders (and other high up members)_ of all the main
>>political parties.
>
>And thus we take another step along the road to a totalitarian State
>where the voices of the ordinary man and woman are unimportant and
>they can be left to rot in their tower blocks and any voices of
>dissent can be crushed - in one way or another.
said?
Because it certainly didn't.
Quite apart from being a stupidly false statement anyhow.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Some things have got to be believed to be seen.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Turk182
May 1, 2012, 4:11:06 AM5/1/12
to
On Apr 30, 9:01 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
can. We are talking about a truly magnificent broadcasting 'beast' -
but the elephant in the room, which is almost never discussed within
BBC walls, is that although 'impartiality' is achieved withing their
definition, it is achieved under the bright floodlights of the
politcial 'policemen' who regulalry enter BBC premises and excercise
an apparent 'right' to 'counsel' editorial staff about their decision
making.
In the background, and extremely protected from view, is a weight
hanging over the heads of staff that there will be problems (which
could affect their careers) if so-and-so takes his grievance about an
individual editor (or manager) to a higher level. The BBC rocks the
boat, but only when the boat says "rock me" so it looks like you're
giving them a hard time.
It's a fake contest, rather like PMQ's, which is noisy and cage
rattling, but very much designed for the spectators - to fool everyone
that we are all wildly opposed to one another and 'fighting it out' on
behalf of the public.
Imagine a house built on a hill. Imagine that the house was not
levelled and so remains tilted on the hillside. Imgagine placing a
pool table on the floor and watching the balls always roll into one
corner. The is the problem the BBC have with impartiallity. Their
'pool table' is true to the floor, but their empire has not been
constructed on flat land.
The BBC is the conduit into the British psyche by the British
political class. The bulk of broadcasting by the BBC is safe, non
cage rattling, non-campaigning, non boat rocking - and is aimed at
swathes of ordinary people who want a bit of soothing background noise
in their life.
A tiny percentage of BBC output (some R4 output and late night BBC1
and BBC2 output) reveals some of the more challenging aspects
concerning our democracy. Late night = small audience. Question
Time, This Week, Jeremy Paxman etc although stimulating politically,
willl often leave you to wake up the next day saying, "I wish I had
gone to bed earlier".
The politicians have made it clear to the BBC that they don't want the
tranquility of people's lives to be impaired by worrying interrogation
of MP's at mass audience times.
Radio 4, is a godsend for thinking people although even here, we must
consider their audiences as relatively small in BBC audience share
terms.
The Today programme is not the BBC, but it is how the BBC reassures
the thinking man of the BBC's independence. But as the Radio 4 day
continues, such orchestrated insurrection is quickly dispensed with.
The BBC's retirement audience is high in the morning, but the working
man has little more than 15 minutes each morning to listen to the
radio, so even he misses most of the squawking and groans of a
battling Humphries and guest.
Do I love the BBC? - at times. But we have to remember that this
bulky broadcaster remains there to give people a more politically led
output than commercials would achieve. It is a way in to people's
heads by parliament, but it does this is a heavily disguised robe.
The BBC has been built on a hill. The only way to level the ground, is
for the BBC to remove low level bullying by the modern day Campbell's
(and Cameron who has his own way of taking people aside and telling
them what is black, and what is white).
The trouble is, that if the MP's see the BBC getting off the lead, the
BBC will be re-structured to create an even more hidden line of
'accoutability'. Many BBC staff will tell you that they work with no
political interference, yet those same people know all too well, that
there is a BBC way. A lot of the editing takes place simply when the
announcer says this kind of thing: "That's all we have time for, we
have to move on because there is a man here who is going to tell us
how he has grown the tallest rubber plant in Britain" .
There is a 'groundhog day' feel about the BBC. The announcers will
tell you something as if it has just been invented, even though they
and the BBC in general, have been telling us the same story for 20
years. This lack of aquired knowledge, means the audience get stuck
in a time warp or reality, which never progresses or moves on, or
builds on the lessons of the past.
My one biggest criticism of the BBC, is that it will often leave the
audince feeling that there is nothing they can do, and that "nothing
ever changes".
Turk182
wrote:
> Turk182 wrote:
>
> > I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, [...]
>
> 'Admitting manipulation' or 'trying to convince'? I have no sympathy
> for either Cameron or the BBC, but your subject header is over-egging
> the pudding.
I do have sympathy for the BBC, because if they can't hack it, nobody
>
> > I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, [...]
>
> 'Admitting manipulation' or 'trying to convince'? I have no sympathy
> for either Cameron or the BBC, but your subject header is over-egging
> the pudding.
can. We are talking about a truly magnificent broadcasting 'beast' -
but the elephant in the room, which is almost never discussed within
BBC walls, is that although 'impartiality' is achieved withing their
definition, it is achieved under the bright floodlights of the
politcial 'policemen' who regulalry enter BBC premises and excercise
an apparent 'right' to 'counsel' editorial staff about their decision
making.
In the background, and extremely protected from view, is a weight
hanging over the heads of staff that there will be problems (which
could affect their careers) if so-and-so takes his grievance about an
individual editor (or manager) to a higher level. The BBC rocks the
boat, but only when the boat says "rock me" so it looks like you're
giving them a hard time.
It's a fake contest, rather like PMQ's, which is noisy and cage
rattling, but very much designed for the spectators - to fool everyone
that we are all wildly opposed to one another and 'fighting it out' on
behalf of the public.
Imagine a house built on a hill. Imagine that the house was not
levelled and so remains tilted on the hillside. Imgagine placing a
pool table on the floor and watching the balls always roll into one
corner. The is the problem the BBC have with impartiallity. Their
'pool table' is true to the floor, but their empire has not been
constructed on flat land.
The BBC is the conduit into the British psyche by the British
political class. The bulk of broadcasting by the BBC is safe, non
cage rattling, non-campaigning, non boat rocking - and is aimed at
swathes of ordinary people who want a bit of soothing background noise
in their life.
A tiny percentage of BBC output (some R4 output and late night BBC1
and BBC2 output) reveals some of the more challenging aspects
concerning our democracy. Late night = small audience. Question
Time, This Week, Jeremy Paxman etc although stimulating politically,
willl often leave you to wake up the next day saying, "I wish I had
gone to bed earlier".
The politicians have made it clear to the BBC that they don't want the
tranquility of people's lives to be impaired by worrying interrogation
of MP's at mass audience times.
Radio 4, is a godsend for thinking people although even here, we must
consider their audiences as relatively small in BBC audience share
terms.
The Today programme is not the BBC, but it is how the BBC reassures
the thinking man of the BBC's independence. But as the Radio 4 day
continues, such orchestrated insurrection is quickly dispensed with.
The BBC's retirement audience is high in the morning, but the working
man has little more than 15 minutes each morning to listen to the
radio, so even he misses most of the squawking and groans of a
battling Humphries and guest.
Do I love the BBC? - at times. But we have to remember that this
bulky broadcaster remains there to give people a more politically led
output than commercials would achieve. It is a way in to people's
heads by parliament, but it does this is a heavily disguised robe.
The BBC has been built on a hill. The only way to level the ground, is
for the BBC to remove low level bullying by the modern day Campbell's
(and Cameron who has his own way of taking people aside and telling
them what is black, and what is white).
The trouble is, that if the MP's see the BBC getting off the lead, the
BBC will be re-structured to create an even more hidden line of
'accoutability'. Many BBC staff will tell you that they work with no
political interference, yet those same people know all too well, that
there is a BBC way. A lot of the editing takes place simply when the
announcer says this kind of thing: "That's all we have time for, we
have to move on because there is a man here who is going to tell us
how he has grown the tallest rubber plant in Britain" .
There is a 'groundhog day' feel about the BBC. The announcers will
tell you something as if it has just been invented, even though they
and the BBC in general, have been telling us the same story for 20
years. This lack of aquired knowledge, means the audience get stuck
in a time warp or reality, which never progresses or moves on, or
builds on the lessons of the past.
My one biggest criticism of the BBC, is that it will often leave the
audince feeling that there is nothing they can do, and that "nothing
ever changes".
Turk182
Guy Barry
May 1, 2012, 10:09:05 AM5/1/12
to
On Apr 30, 6:25 pm, Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:
> Exit polls have their own problems. Why should anyone asked answer at
> all, and if they do, why should they tell the truth? People who answer
> at all are by definition a self-selecting group, something that all
> statisticians rightly detest. And why tell the truth? The thing about
> secret ballots is that they are, well, secret. Why would you come out
> of one and tell the first person you meet how you voted? And he's from
> the BBC... you really don't want to stand up in front of the country
> and admit you voted Conservative, do you, even if you can't see an
> obvious camera? The BBC man will sneer at you, and obviously nobody
> who's anybody votes Conservative.
Well it wasn't the BBC conducting the poll, it was NOP. I think the
> Exit polls have their own problems. Why should anyone asked answer at
> all, and if they do, why should they tell the truth? People who answer
> at all are by definition a self-selecting group, something that all
> statisticians rightly detest. And why tell the truth? The thing about
> secret ballots is that they are, well, secret. Why would you come out
> of one and tell the first person you meet how you voted? And he's from
> the BBC... you really don't want to stand up in front of the country
> and admit you voted Conservative, do you, even if you can't see an
> obvious camera? The BBC man will sneer at you, and obviously nobody
> who's anybody votes Conservative.
best I can do is to quote from the 1992 Nuffield election guide by
David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh:
"The failure of the exit polls is different from that of the earlier
surveys. The exit polls conducted on April 9 were on a random not a
quota basis and there could be no question of late swing, since the
voters were interviewed after they had voted. [...] The nationwide
surveys conducted separately both for the BBC and ITN each suggested a
4 percent lead for the Conservatives [...] But on the night BBC and
ITN ignored these nationwide surveys [...] and relied on the findings
of their separate polls in marginal seats, which indicated a much
closer race."
So yes, it does seem as though both the BBC and ITN wanted to portray
the contest as being closer than it actually was. I'm not sure why -
maybe they thought it would make for a more exciting broadcast.
Certainly I tuned in at 10pm on the Thursday expecting a hung
parliament and was rather disappointed when the actual result was
finally revealed.
Twenty years later, I discover there's nothing particularly exciting
about a hung parliament either :-)
--
Guy Barry
Mike Brown
May 1, 2012, 5:00:14 PM5/1/12
to
On 01/05/2012 09:11, Turk182 wrote:
> My one biggest criticism of the BBC, is that it will often leave the
> audince feeling that there is nothing they can do, and that "nothing
> ever changes".
I feel exactly the same way after noticing your posts.
> My one biggest criticism of the BBC, is that it will often leave the
> audince feeling that there is nothing they can do, and that "nothing
> ever changes".
--
mb
AC
May 6, 2012, 6:43:49 AM5/6/12
to
abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:38:05 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
>> like you renders the word utterly meaningless.
>
> yeah, anything you don't want to accept must be because everyone
> but cult rightards like you are mad...
> you're exactly equivalent to jehovah's witnesses or jihadis hoping
> for half a gross of virgins!
>
Works both ways, right?
--
AC
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:38:05 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/04/2012 15:29, abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>>>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>>>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>>>> undermines your whole assertion.
>>>
>>> rotfl...
>>> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>>>
>> wait for it. . . .
>
>> On 29/04/2012 15:29, abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 15:05:37 +0100, JohnR<repr...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet lot's of left leaning commentary knows the BBC isn't, which says a
>>>> great deal about the BBC's management and their admissions. It simply
>>>> indicates the fact that management are not left leaning, which
>>>> undermines your whole assertion.
>>>
>>> rotfl...
>>> so the fact that bbc leaders say it is left leaning means it isn't!!!
>>>
>>
>>> only a socialist could believe such tripe
>>>
>> the really funny thing is that being called a socialist by a wing nut
>>> only a socialist could believe such tripe
>>>
>> like you renders the word utterly meaningless.
>
> yeah, anything you don't want to accept must be because everyone
> but cult rightards like you are mad...
> you're exactly equivalent to jehovah's witnesses or jihadis hoping
> for half a gross of virgins!
>
Works both ways, right?
--
AC
JohnR
May 6, 2012, 5:47:39 PM5/6/12
to
the wing nuts muddles.
Doug
May 7, 2012, 2:35:43 AM5/7/12
to
On Apr 29, 10:20 am, Turk182 <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote:
> I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, spewing buzz words at Andrew
> Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
>
> The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
> defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
> Murdochs.
>
> Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
> newspaper owners too.
>
> I have just seen David 'Ice Man' Cameron, spewing buzz words at Andrew
> Marr, who responded by twitching and gyrating in excitement.
>
> The slick media PR pro Cameron, may regret how he presented his
> defence against the allegation that he is too chummy with the
> Murdochs.
>
> Cameron explained that he had not only lobbied Murdcoh, but other
> newspaper owners too.
>
> He then said, I have spent 'far too much time" (or words to that
> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
> approximate
>
> Why?
>
> Why BBC Editors?
>
> effect) "convincing BBC Editors that what we are doing is rigtht" -
> approximate
>
> Why?
>
> Why BBC Editors?
>
> How would the lobbying of BBC editors affect the decisions they
> make? How would the lobbying of BBC editors alter or adjust the
> output of BBC Radio and TV?
>
> make? How would the lobbying of BBC editors alter or adjust the
> output of BBC Radio and TV?
>
> We may understand why the newspapers are pressured to change their
> tune - as they often declare their support for one party or another!
>
> Bit the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
>
> That means giving proportionate amounts of time to differing
> viewpoints, and then any lobbying is delivered directly to the public
> - NOT the programme makers!
>
> tune - as they often declare their support for one party or another!
>
> Bit the BBC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL.
>
> That means giving proportionate amounts of time to differing
> viewpoints, and then any lobbying is delivered directly to the public
> - NOT the programme makers!
>
> Cameron has admitting the BBC is capable of changing it's output to
> adhere to Tory or Government lines - something we all knew anyway, but
> rarely admitted by the BBC or the government. If Cameron is telling
> adhere to Tory or Government lines - something we all knew anyway, but
> the truth, the BBC can no longer claim to be impartial. If Cameron
> can go up and lobby editors - why can't everyone?
>
The BBC has always been subject to government censorship and therefore
> can go up and lobby editors - why can't everyone?
>
cannot be considered impartial.
From the BBC charter...
"54.Approvals and directions
(1)Where, under this Charter, any act or thing is required to be done
with the approval of any Government Minister—
(a) the approval must be given in writing;
(b) the approval may be given absolutely or subject to such terms and
conditions as the Minister thinks fit (having consulted the BBC); and
(c) may be revoked or varied (in which case paragraphs (a) and (b)
apply as they applied to the giving of the original approval).
(2) Where, under this Charter, any Government Minister has power to
give a direction to theBBC—
(a) the direction must be given in writing;
(b) the power includes a power to revoke or vary the direction
(subject to any conditions or limitations that are applicable to the
power concerned)."
There have been many examples of BBC censorship in the past, one
example being Northern Ireland reporting...
"During The Troubles in Northern Ireland the BBC, ITV and Channel 4
regularly stopped or postponed the broadcast of documentaries relating
to Ireland. A Real Lives documentary for the BBC, "At the Edge of the
Union" was temporarily blocked in August 1985 by direct government
intervention from the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan which led to a
one-day strike by the National Union of Journalists to defend the
independence of the BBC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom
-- .
One person's managed democracy is another person's regime,
where rights are replaced by concessions.
0 new messages