Bbc : Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Tyke02]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

So the Beeb are perfectly unbiased not reporting that Amanda Pritchard's worrying comment, or most of the media's interpretation of it, was wrong, but right to report, on their main  news page, that  a footballer has Long Covid ?

All that was left to report once Sky and all had changed what they were saying was that they had admitted to previously misrepresenting it.  That's hardly front page news. You seem to be making a determined effort not to understand this.

 

There may well be evidence somewhere of BBC bias but this isn't it.

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

can remember hearing an interview on R4's Today (my old car only got FM so I had to listen to the Beeb when in there...) where a French politician from Macron's ruling party was being asked about vaccine passports. She said "we need them to protect people if, for example, they are visiting a museum".

The BBC interviewer just accepted that and never asked her any questions, such as how do vaccine passports protect people if the vaccines do not actually stop transmission of Covid ? Nor did she ask her why vaccinated people should be concerned about catching Covid if the vaccines work ? Which, by definition, you must think or you would not have introduced vaccine passports. etc etc  It was absolutely pathetic and I was shouting at the radio..... It was typical of the Beeb and much MSM, all that subliminal "information" they're putting over without doing so openly. It's no wonder so many people actually wanted, for example, vaccine passports despite the fact they were obviously a useless idea from the very start. 

Sarah Hartley Brewer would have had her (the French Politician) for breakfast.

As I said, I don't see a way to verify the content of one of your half remembered radio snippets.

[Chekhov]

21 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

There may well be evidence somewhere of BBC bias but this isn't it.

As I said, I don't see a way to verify the content of one of your half remembered radio snippets.

That's convenient.

 

>>There may well be evidence somewhere of BBC bias but this isn't it.<<

 

Not for you there isn't, there are none so blind.....

Tell me Tykes, why was  story about a footballer with Long Covid worthy of being on the front page of BBC News ?

Edited December 2, 2022 by Chekhov

[Tyke02]

17 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I will also remember when he was disputing that statistic that many people died of Covid not with Covid because they had existing conditions. He gave the example of his uncle (it's always someone's uncle isn't it...) who technically had an existing condition but since it was only Diabetes (or something like that) "he could still run marathons". He then "left that hanging" (that therefore nobody with an existing condition was more likely to die of Covid than people with none), which is statistically in error by a long way.

Saying that some people with comormidities are in general good health and expected to have a normal lifespan is not the same as saying that is the case for everyone with comorbidities. That's obvious isn't it? You are reading something into what he said that wasn't there.

[Tyke02]

21 minutes ago, trastrick said:

So that's the explanation! 

 

" ***** up, or conspiracy? A binary choice?

 

So political bias has nothing to do with it?

 

Good to know! 

 

It wasn't an exclusive statement as you can tell by the word "often".  We (or at least I) wasn't talking about an instance of political bias, as all major parties took a similar line on Covid. 

 

Some have said there is a conspiracy by the government to use the media to play up the risks of Covid,, that's what I was referring to.  But you knew that really.

[Chekhov]

22 minutes ago, Tyke02 said:

Saying that some people with comormidities are in general good health and expected to have a normal lifespan is not the same as saying that is the case for everyone with comorbidities. That's obvious isn't it? You are reading something into what he said that wasn't there.

Breakdown in communication here, I am saying that. He - Tim Harford - was implying it was not that significant.

 

Pardon me, could you please answer this question ? :

Tell me Tykes, [if the Beeb were not biased in their reporting about Covid] why was  story about a footballer with Long Covid worthy of being on the front page of BBC News ? [whilst Pritchard's poor use of Covid statistics was not even on the BBC site at all]

Edited December 1, 2022 by Chekhov

[Tyke02]

18 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

That's convenient.

 

There may well be evidence somewhere of BBC bias but this isn't it.

 

Not for you there isn't, there are none so blind.....

Tell me Tykes, why was  story about a footballer with Long Covid worthy of being on the front page of BBC News ?

There's no point in coming up with hearsay if you haven't got anything verifiable. 

 

If you have a link for the story you mentioned I'll be happy to read it and comment. 

 

 

[Tyke02]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Breakdown in communication here, I am saying that. He - Tim Harford - was implying it was not that significant.

 

Pardon me, could you please answer this question ? :

Tell me Tykes, [if the Beeb were not biased in their reporting about Covid] why was  story about a footballer with Long Covid worthy of being on the front page of BBC News ? [whilst Pritchard's poor use of Covid statistics was not even on the BBC site at all]

No breakdown there.  You are saying he was implying that it was not that significant. I happened to hear that programme too and did not draw that conclusion; I think you are reading too much into it because you are desperately seeking anything that could be said to show bias.  In fact I think I have that podcast on my phone so I might give it another listen.

 

 You are getting a bit needy requiring a response in less than half an hour.  Some of us have a life you know.  It is also a bit rich when you are less than assiduous in responding to the questions in my posts.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Tyke02

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, Tyke02 said:

It wasn't an exclusive statement as you can tell by the word "often".  We (or at least I) wasn't talking about an instance of political bias, as all major parties took a similar line on Covid. 

 

Some have said there is a conspiracy by the government to use the media to play up the risks of Covid,, that's what I was referring to.  But you knew that really.

Lame! 

 

Well, "we" were talking about "BBC biased broadcasting" on this thread.

 

Yeah, the old "some have said", strawman in noted!

 

As for this gem:

 

These sorts of things can often be explained by **** up (as above) or conspiracy, and I see many on social media have gone the latter route.  Two things suggest to me that it wasn't conspiracy are:

• that with the Nov 2020 and 2021 data freely available it would be immediately obvious the 14x is wrong for November
•  

Immediately obvious to whom exactly?

 

You believe that their gullible great unwashed audience rush to the internet every time they are presented with news, analysis, opinion, discussions and news of political issues of the day on BBC to check the validity of their presentations?

 

How many bother to check the "corrections" to major stories they were given in the past, even if they could find them?

 

That's a bridge too far!

 

Even for you! 

 

Fact is, unlike the past where news media strove to inform the entire cross section of the public, today's news is packaged like sausage, and aimed at their favorite political demographic! No conspiracy theory required to explain it.

 

(In the case of the BBC, it is aimed at their fans like you, who will go to great lengths to defend them!)  

 

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2022 by trastrick

[Tyke02]

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

Lame! 

You sound like a US teenager.

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

Yeah, the old "some have said", strawman in noted!

I could have named some, but no point in rattling their cages.

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

hese sorts of things can often be explained by **** up (as above) or conspiracy, and I see many on social media have gone the latter route.  Two things suggest to me that it wasn't conspiracy are:

• that with the Nov 2020 and 2021 data freely available it would be immediately obvious the 14x is wrong for November
•  

Immediately obvious to whom exactly?

Well it was immediately obvious based on a misleading selective quotation to journos at Sky, ITV, Daily Mail and Telegraph, and many people on Twitter the same day.  Most people as you say do not go look at stuff, but enough journos do that it would be naïve for anyone to make a claim like the one specified (year to Nov 21) without expecting it to be exposed pretty quickly. 

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

You believe that their gullible great unwashed audience rush to the internet every time they are presented with news, analysis, opinion, discussions and news of political issues of the day on BBC to check the validity of their presentations?

No, for reasons given above, this is irrelevant.

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

How many bother to check the "corrections" to major stories they were given in the past, even if they could find them?

In this case unnecessary, as the original stories were modified by the authors as soon as their error was noticed.  Some residents didn't seem to notice though, I admit.

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

Fact is, unlike the past where news media strove to inform the entire cross section of the public, today's news is packaged like sausage, and aimed at their favorite political demographic!

Sure there are partisan media, with extremes at each end of the political scale whose output is more ideological than logical and evidence based. It is a spectrum though, with more objectivity in the middle ground (or at least equal levels of criticism from the extremes).  

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

In the case of the BBC, it is aimed at their fans like you, who will go to great lengths to defend them

I am not defending them, but asking for evidence supporting claims that they have biased reporting on covid.  I have no problem with justified criticism of the BBC, but unless the evidence supports the assertion I'm likely to call it out.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Tyke02

[Mister M]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Lame! 

 

Well, "we" were talking about "BBC biased broadcasting" on this thread.

 

Yeah, the old "some have said", strawman in noted!

 

As for this gem:

 

These sorts of things can often be explained by **** up (as above) or conspiracy, and I see many on social media have gone the latter route.  Two things suggest to me that it wasn't conspiracy are:

• that with the Nov 2020 and 2021 data freely available it would be immediately obvious the 14x is wrong for November
•  

Immediately obvious to whom exactly?

 

You believe that their gullible great unwashed audience rush to the internet every time they are presented with news, analysis, opinion, discussions and news of political issues of the day on BBC to check the validity of their presentations?

 

How many bother to check the "corrections" to major stories they were given in the past, even if they could find them?

 

That's a bridge too far!

 

Even for you! 

 

Fact is, unlike the past where news media strove to inform the entire cross section of the public, today's news is packaged like sausage, and aimed at their favorite political demographic! No conspiracy theory required to explain it.

 

(In the case of the BBC, it is aimed at their fans like you, who will go to great lengths to defend them!)  

 

 

 

 

Hi trastrick 

 

Nice to see you've got over your embarrassment of criticising the TV show you saw hosted by the scientist Brian Cox, only to be told on here, that it was in fact hosted by the actor Brian Cox.

 

 'gullible great unwashed audience'  

I have you down as gullible and unwashed, but definitely not the audience if your recent embarrassment is anything to go by.