I'm not pro Johnson though. Nor am I anti-Johnson.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'm not pro Johnson though. Nor am I anti-Johnson.
Hold on, he is at the centre of the story - quoting his words about the incident, which he has published himself to the world on twitter, is totally valid.
A new poll in Scotland shows a large majority wanting to stay as part of the UK
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...majority-scots-would-vote-remain-uk-according
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...majority-scots-would-vote-remain-uk-according
I'm not calling for to be strung up or anything, I just think in this day and age it isn't a sensible thing to do.
Putting aside your tedious ad hominem, you are just wrong about this, unsurprisingly. She quoted the incident, then what he said about the incident. He is at the centre of the story, so his tweets about the event are newsworthy. That he made the statement on twitter is neither here nor there, and that she chose to embed the tweet as a way of quoting, is also neither here nor there.
What exactly, in any of her tweets is inaccurate or out of context?
The BBC will chunk any complaints in the bin and you lot need to stop seeing conspiracies that aren't there.
It doesn't matter if it's sensible. It's her job.
I'm not commenting on this particular event, but Andrew Neil had an amusing way of inviting comments and complaints.
I’m getting gateway timeouts now when I try to make an online complaint
She's not gonna shag you mate.
Before!!!? Is this a parody? I got caught out with one of those before.
She lost all credibility a long long time ago.
Last edited:
Oh, its definitely biased towards the Conservatives now. David Cameron made sure of that. I suggest you look into the changes he made.
Prior to 2010 I'd say it had a slight left bias. Now its is extreme right.
I agree largely, but they are still very left leaning on most social issues.
Their treatment of Corbyn has been a disgrace since he came to power though. Watch how often they get someone in to tell us what Corbyn said, and how it was so scandalous. Rather than actually show what he said in his own words.
Then there's people like IDS, Davies, and the rest of the brexiteers, who get a really easy ride from the majority of interviewers.
I agree on the last point but I don't think that's intentional bias, I think it's a lack of high class interviewers, people with a grasp of technical detail.
I occasionally read The Telegraph's comments, mostly because they wind me the feck up, and the number of nutters there who think the BBC is biased even outweighs the number of people on here who think that. So on the whole, I guess they are probably doing the best they can.
Hey come on I was just saying a fact. You do love facts, don't you ?
Oh right so your not even listening to whats been discussed then. No one is saying Kaenssburg has lied or been inaccurate but that she has massively abuse the power she has as a political editor and is actively protecting Boris Johnstone.
I didn't know part of the job description for the BBC political editor was to post the twitter profiles of british citizens to their million plus followers online while sitting around the house. His tweets have nothing to do with story, let alone so indispensable to again actively report his account to over million people(The same goes for him being a Labour activist). Was the Itv tweet poor reporting for you ?
Kaenssburg is political editor for one of the largest news organisations in the world, that carries quite a bit of responsibility. (Just on a common sense level, the guy is in hospital with a sick child, he doesn't need a ton of abusive right wing tweets and possibly death threats)
Yeah saying one of the biggest news organisations in the world which is funded by the British tax payer won't give any attention to criticism/complaints isn't the own you think it is.
As for conspiracy theories.
Last edited:
Left leaning with comedy possibly. I could compromise there.
But the serious politics division is definitely right leaning. Some key structural changes haven't helped. But it's a concerted effort across most of the organisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/13/government-choose-bbc-board-john-whittingdale
Serious? As in system overload?! Wow. We are part of a movement
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.