BBC ban Indy Supporters - Politics - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

BBC ban Indy Supporters


stocky

Recommended Posts

The fact that after 8 hours nobody has commentated kinda proves my earlier point regarding apathy

I realise the board traffic is less than a few years ago but still

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

The fact that after 8 hours nobody has commentated kinda proves my earlier point regarding apathy

I realise the board traffic is less than a few years ago but still

You're right about apathy, but then it's hardly big news that the BBC has a unionist bias. This is just a former insider confirming it (Derek Bateman already broke this 'news' years ago).

I've always wondered if James Cook was on 'the list'. He chaired the BBC referendum debates, and as i recall was even-handed when compared to the likes of Dimbleby on QT. It seems afterwards he was seconded to America to report on Trump, and Hollywood celebrities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, we do all know this.   However Hardeep mentions that the blacklist is on an email.   Should be easy to verify with a Freedom of Info request then.

Oh I forgot; the BBC is exempt, doh.

('Didn't get the email' might be a figure of speech anyway.   The bias is so ingrained.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it does sound dodgy even if not entirely surprising but why is no one ever challenged on this? Why isn't someone pressing the BBC on this?

It maybe can't be the SNP because any attempt of that sort would generate howls of outrage that the big bad state (Scottish Govt) was trying to suppress journalistic independence, whereas it seems it's OK for the big bad BBC to suppress voices for Scottish independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

The fact that after 8 hours nobody has commentated kinda proves my earlier point regarding apathy

I realise the board traffic is less than a few years ago but still

A lot of people are probably exhausted with politics after about 4 years with 2 general elections, a Holyrood election and 2 referenda in 4 years. And there is not any immediate opportunity to make any significant political steps forwards to independence right now. 

But when the time comes, I'd guess a lot of people will rally to the cause.

It is a bit disturbing though, I always think, the media bias angle, that more people (including neutrals) are not uncomfortable about the bias or concerned to resolve it. Even if you are a unionist, do you really want to live in a society where the state broadcaster suppresses a political point of view? Of those who are unconcerned, one lot denies bias and the other lot are adamant that the BBC should be pro-british - fair enough but if so the BBC should admit it. This issue has never gone away but not yet clear how it could be resolved, unless there is some kind of shake-up either of the media, formats, monitoring (of bias) or freedom of information etc.

If the 'suppression' is true then it would be a test case for 'moderate unionist' media types to speak out + there would be a case for mass refusal to pay licence fee and invest the revenue in new media outlets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There could be an 'email' that says 'something' but not necessarily with the words "don't use these guys". It could even be that it's not a complete ban but they just don't use 'opinionated' people for news output and that could include both forthright unionists and independence advocates (but quiet moderate don'trock the boat status quo unionists are OK). Who knows?

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Dave78 said:

You're right about apathy, but then it's hardly big news that the BBC has a unionist bias. This is just a former insider confirming it (Derek Bateman already broke this 'news' years ago).

I've always wondered if James Cook was on 'the list'. He chaired the BBC referendum debates, and as i recall was even-handed when compared to the likes of Dimbleby on QT. It seems afterwards he was seconded to America to report on Trump, and Hollywood celebrities.

 

I thought - and still think - James Cook was excellent during the IndyRef campaign. If people followed his output then I don't see how anyone could have thought he was biased one way or the other.

However, I suspect that for him and Laura Bicker - who went to Washington - that they got promotions off the back of their reporting during the referendum.

Interestingly, the pair of them didn't work for BBC Scotland although they and their team was based out of Pacific Quay, they were actually part of BBC News.  They - and I heard Cook describe it like this - were effectively BBC foreign correspondents in Scotland, ie., they would be providing content for the six-o-clock news rather than Reporting Scotland.   Don't ask me what the difference was or why it was fond this way, I guess its  due to internal structures in the BBC.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aaid said:

I thought - and still think - James Cook was excellent during the IndyRef campaign. If people followed his output then I don't see how anyone could have thought he was biased one way or the other.

However, I suspect that for him and Laura Bicker - who went to Washington - that they got promotions off the back of their reporting during the referendum.

Interestingly, the pair of them didn't work for BBC Scotland although they and their team was based out of Pacific Quay, they were actually part of BBC News.  They - and I heard Cook describe it like this - were effectively BBC foreign correspondents in Scotland, ie., they would be providing content for the six-o-clock news rather than Reporting Scotland.   Don't ask me what the difference was or why it was fond this way, I guess its  due to internal structures in the BBC.   

 

Interesting, cheers. 

Do you think the fact they weren't directly employed by BBC Scotland allowed them a greater degree of freedom, and less onus to tow the Pacific Quay editorial line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aaid said:

 

However, I suspect that for him and Laura Bicker - who went to Washington - that they got promotions off the back of their reporting during the referendum.

I

Is that really a promotion? I mean, it's good for their career and everything (going abroad seems to be part of serving your time as a political reporter). But isn't it also a convenient way of moving them out of the Scottish sphere of influence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Is that really a promotion? I mean, it's good for their career and everything (going abroad seems to be part of serving your time as a political reporter). But isn't it also a convenient way of moving them out of the Scottish sphere of influence?

Listen to this. 

http://www.apoliticalpodcast.com/15-james-cook/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Is that really a promotion? I mean, it's good for their career and everything (going abroad seems to be part of serving your time as a political reporter). But isn't it also a convenient way of moving them out of the Scottish sphere of influence?

What I take from aaid is that he was a general BBC News person who could be sent anywhere, including Scotland when a busy news period, and then somewhere else. If so then he was just moving on naturally and not necessarily a promotion or anything suspicious. Though it might have been 'convenient' in the sense that if you were BBS Scotland you might think you could handle Scottish News fine thank you very much without 'help' from 'outsiders'

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I thought Cook was good and didn't detect any bias but I also remember some time he was sent off somewhere (in a helicopeter?) to cover something not very important while there was a huge march/demo in Glasgow which the BBC chose to ignore, and realising that, of course, it's not just about individual presenters, but producers and directors those who decide what people cover and what coverage is shown and for how long...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, exile said:

What I take from aaid is that he was a general BBC News person who could be sent anywhere, including Scotland when a busy news period, and then somewhere else. If so then he was just moving on naturally and not necessarily a promotion or anything suspicious. Though it might have been 'convenient' in the sense that if you were BBS Scotland you might think you could handle Scottish News fine thank you very much without 'help' from 'outsiders'

 

 

 

Listen to the first 10 minutes or so of the podcast I linked to and he explains exactly what his role was and how it fitted into the wider BBC organisation and touches on allegations of bias.  If you have the time, listen to the lot as its all interesting stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aaid said:

Listen to the first 10 minutes or so of the podcast I linked to and he explains exactly what his role was and how it fitted into the wider BBC organisation and touches on allegations of bias.  If you have the time, listen to the lot as its all interesting stuff. 

Thanks, I've listened to the first 10 minutes so far. He mentions that he was never politically aligned so was more able to maintain objectivity (around 4:30) and the bit about being a sort of "foreign bureau" around 8 minutes.

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about bias comes in at 12:00. Cook says it's difficult to speak for BBC as a whole, not his role to defend them as whole nor will he criticise, as it's his employer.

He reckons his own team's output was clear, balanced, precise and not loaded. Says independence needed scrutiny, interrogation. Quotes Gordon Wilson that yes campaign didn't make a good enough credible economic argument. Says no giant unionist conspiracy. Says came under a lot of pressure from Labour party (Blair McDougall, Douglas Alexander) - as key part of Better Together. Some high up in Labour still believe the output was bias in favour of SNP/independence.

Presenter suggests maybe the burden of proof was more on the independence side than the status quo. Cook says we/the media could have done more, on interrogating where we would have been headed, under the status quo. Says I have no axe to grind on either side. My wife doesn't know how I voted in the referendum. So much of the coverage was about scrutinising the independence offer. Reflects again that they could have done more digging around where we were heading (under the status quo). But then there would have been different visions - Labour, Green, etc. (Liberals might have federal agenda.)...

Also refers to a TV debate occasion with the 16/17 year olds, explained how a couple of issues that had been perceived to be biased were just inadvertent inconsequential issues that were blown out of all proportion on social media; but there was no conspiracy. Also analyses some Jim Murphy incident that he had dewsscribed as 'chaotic'.

Says never felt physically threatened at any stage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At about 48 minutes he's asked what was the main thing happened in politics over his time. Says independence has moved from being peripheral - a romantic minority - to mainstream: the professionalism of the SNP's operation and the grasping of the agenda.

Also says he thinks the the political engagement stirred up by the referendum must be seen as a good thing - even though some thought divisive and upsetting  - he felt that it was a good thing even if it some people would say it sounds a 'Yessy thing to say'. Says he won't miss the nasty small minded attacks because of who you are and who you work for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slight deviation but that's two SNP-Bad stories in as many weeks that the Herald has had to either pull completely or print an apology for because they've both been untrue.

They printed an apology for the frontpage story and amended the online version about "Sturgeon calling in China deal planning" (She didn't).  Today, they've pulled a story from the website written over the weekend about Derek MacKay and Peter Murrell being cited in an upcoming courtcase(They aren't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
24 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Leonard and Rennie are agreeing with the SNP about the Brexit powers "offer" but you need to try quite hard to see anything about it on the BBC website. I would have thought that this would be newsworthy?

I thought so too.

Obviously not as newsworthy as Royal babies or  Ruth’s baby,  but maybe above the latest advert for Antiques Roadshow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...