#bbc impartiality

[voids-uk]

The leaked email that blows apart the BBC's impartiality claims over …

In the interests of not breaching copyright, I'll just post the beginning and end of the article, but it's worth a read, so please click through :)

A leaked internal email from a BBC executive editor reveals that the Corporation has issued prescriptive instructions to staff on how to cover the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The memo, titled ‘Covering the food crisis in Gaza’, amounts to a top-down editorial diktat that discards impartiality, elevates one side of a deeply contested narrative, and imposes a specific anti-Israel legal-political framing as settled fact. The existence of this email is a telling sign of how the Corporation works to ensure its journalists stick to its own ideological

The email, which was sent to BBC staff on Friday, begins by declaring that ‘the argument over how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant’ and instructs staff that ‘we should say’ the current distribution system ‘doesn’t work’. It explicitly favours a particular explanation of suffering in Gaza: one that blames the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a relatively new aid body established with US and Israeli cooperation, while glossing over the role of Hamas, the rulers of Gaza and a proscribed terrorist organisation under British law.

But the quantity of aid entering Gaza is not irrelevant. If Hamas is hijacking, obstructing, or reselling aid, as Israeli and independent reports suggest, and as documented footage and testimony have supported, then the location, handling, and efficacy of aid delivery become vital indicators of where the problem lies. Blaming Israel alone for the humanitarian breakdown while exonerating or ignoring Hamas is not responsible or fair journalism, especially as Israel argues it is going to extreme lengths to try to mitigate the jihadi terrorists’ efforts to persecute and deprive Gazan citizens.

The BBC’s memo labels the GHF system a failure and instructs staff to say so. Yet the evidence is far from conclusive. Hunger and deprivation levels in Gaza remain unclear, with wildly varying estimates depending on source and political posture.

............

In asserting the infallibility of its chosen narrative, the BBC omits basic journalistic standards: to interrogate all sides, to distinguish between fact and allegation, and to treat political and legal claims with appropriate scrutiny. Instead, it has opted to police language internally, enforce ideological conformity, and condemn without due diligence.

When the Corporation insists that only one party bears responsibility, and instructs its reporters accordingly, it is no longer informing the public. It is persuading them.

Why is it our national broadcaster seems so desperate to attack the one non-Israeli body which is doing the most to undermine the Hamas stranglehold over Gaza and its people? The closer the GHF and Israeli army get to finally defeating the terrorists, the more shrill the BBC’s insistence that the Jewish state is deliberately starving children. They have trouble believing a self-declared Islamic jihadist dictatorship might have designed this level of suffering and torture, but none in believing the Jewish democratic state did so.

The BBC is publicly funded and legally obligated to remain impartial. This latest leaked email suggests it is failing in that duty. As ever, there is virtually no chance the organisation will admit, redress or be penalised for this failing. They never are.

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

The BBC is already not being impartial during the UK election 2024

I shouldn't even be surprised but here we are. So much for any kind of journalistic standard.

Those of you who were around for the last election campaign may remember at that point a far-right party member's claim, which was repeated uncritically and as if it were factual by many media outlets, that he was 'assaulted' by 'a youth on a bicycle' throwing a yogurt at him while he innocently campaigned for his party, which was an example of political violence against his beliefs.

Except it turned out that there was CCTV in the area and no 'youth on a bicycle carrying yogurt' was seen.

What was in fact seen, was the man in question had brought a packed lunch with him for his day out, which contained... a yogurt. Which he either accidentally or deliberately spilled on himself while campaigning, and then took the opportunity to report to his party leadership and the media as an assault, which was then spread around as if factual and it definitely happened, inciting sympathy for the poor innocent far-right people.

Well folks. They're at it again this year.

Here's a fun uncritical headline from the BBC that dropped today:

"Reform election candidate 'attacked' in Cornwall"

What evidence is given for this attack, I hear you ask, given that the BBC has reported it as a factual event in the title?

Well, the chairman of Reform, the party in question, has claimed that it happened, and has made a social media video stating that it happened. Three days ago.

Here's how the article describes it:

"A statement from Reform UK said Mr Rubidge, 51, was handing out election leaflets in Event Square when he was verbally abused by a man believed to be in his 20s. The party said that, as Mr Rubidge tried to leave the scene after two other men turned up, he had a bag he was carrying grabbed off him by the first man.

He was eventually able to "wrestle the bag" back off the man, but he was punched and kicked multiple times, leaving him with injuries to his ligaments, Reform added. The incident left Mr Rubidge shaken and shocked, the party's statement said.

In his social media video, Mr Tice said he was "appalled" after hearing about the alleged incident. He said: "This is no way of having a democratic debate and discussion. "We can disagree, but we don't fight each other. That's not what our democracy is about."

He added Mr Rubidge did go back on the campaign trail for a further four hours on Saturday."

Nowhere in the article (archived ver. June 18th 2024) does the BBC make clear that this is not an impartial account of what has been determined to have actually happened, but rather, a biased account from a political party representative that has likely been crafted in conjunction with a PR specialist in order to stretch the truth as far as possible in order to present the campaigner as innocent, a victim, and suffering due to his innocent political beliefs that are UNDER ASSAULT by vicious strangers who are JUST INTOLERANT for no reason.

The article, of course, comes complete with a smiling image of the campaigner in question, looking as innocent as possible. The article is careful not to mention any of the content of the leaflets that the campaigner was handing out which may have caused some backlash if, perhaps, the camapigner was also shouting about some of the content of the leaflets while handing them out in a city center at midday on a Saturday: for context, Reform UK as a political party want to ban ALL immigration to the country, to deport international students even if they have already paid for their education in the UK, to remove all unemployment benefits from citizens who are struggling, to stop investing in any kind of renewable energy sources, to get rid of all diversity and inclusion practices, and to ban 'transgender ideology' including the admittance that trans people even exist from all schools and educational institutions. They also believe that 'the majority of mothers want to stay at home' instead of working.

Going back to the article, apparently the poor campaigner in question who was definitely ASSAULTED HORRIBLY and completely UNPROVOKED ended up with 'injuries to his ligaments'. This is a serious injury and would be quite debilitating to deal with and would require immediate treatment and some bed rest and gentle exercise for days therafter to aid recovery.

Interesting then, isn't it, that the campaigner in question was then able to then keep campaigning for a further four hours with such a horrendous injury?

The BBC and other media outlets need to realise that this isn't a fun RPG or game of who can present something the most quickly to 'win', accuracy be damned, or a situation where it's fine to save time doing your own research by just repeating a political organisation's press release about an incident as factual, verbatim.

This is a real election, the only election that will happen between now and 2029. The BBC is supposed to be impartial. Reporting an alleged assault as if it were factual and exactly as described by somebody with an interest in making it out to be as bad as possible, and trusting that all readers will be able to read between the lines of what is said and understand that your write-up of the event is actually just reporting what someone else SAID about the event rather than an unbiased record is at this point in time EXTREMELY irresponsible.

Journalists, your job, especially now, is to report what's happening to inform the public. You can report what someone THINKS is happening, but only if you make very clear that you are doing so, and ideally only report that within a larger piece that discusses just the facts of the situation. It's okay if details are unknown - it's better to note that than to put anything in, no matter if it's been fact-checked or not. The BBC is publicly funded, it and its staff don't need to be the first on the scene to react or comment on any given situation, it's not like anyone's going to get more funding or any reward for doing that.

You can't claim to be impartial on the one hand and on the other, uncritically report something that a political party has a vested interest to lie about as if it were definitely and wholly factual. And the BBC keeps doing this, as if there's no way anyone could ever lie about a situation in order to advantage themselves.

Wake up, BBC.

[ladymazzy]

Gary Lineker, Andrew Neil and the BBC’s Real Impartiality Crisis – Byline Times

Gary Lineker, Andrew Neil and the BBC’s Real Impartiality Crisis – Byline Times

Gary Lineker's treatment by the BBC over his asylum Tweet highlights media bias in UK.

From the article;

'In particular, Andrew Neil, who helped front multiple political programmes at the BBC over many years, before leaving to help launch GB News, was never subject to even a fraction of the scrutiny now being placed on Lineker. Neil, like Lineker, was a prolific user of Twitter and regularly shared his own views on everything from Brexit to climate change and the SNP.

At the same time, he was chairman of one of Britain’s leading right-wing magazines, the Spectator. Neil was allowed to keep his role at the magazine, which regularly caused significant controversy over its content on issues including race and religion, despite being in such a prominent position at the BBC.

And while he did once come under some internal pressure over a tweet he posted about the Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr, his use of the social media site was never the subject of a single tabloid splash or BBC bulletin.

In short, he was given a pass – in a way neither Lineker nor former BBC journalists like Lewis Goodall and Emily Maitlis ever were.'

[angelholme]

Last Night on BBC Election Coverage

The Facts :-

Tories picking up seats from areas that voted Leave.

Labour picking up seats from areas that voted Remain.

Labour losing votes to the Tories & to The Brexit Party (LITERALLY a party named after Brexit)

Every piece of evidence suggesting that almost every seat was decided on Brexit.

The BBC Coverage :-

It’s because Jeremy Corbyn is a Jew hating Communist, isn’t it?

[ladymazzy]

Evacuated Afghan women's team included 'false' footballers - BBC News

Evacuated Afghan women's team included 'false' footballers

Women footballers evacuated to the UK included some who were not the top players it was claimed.

This is honestly such a depressing, shameful read. And this look is not doing the bbc any favours when it comes to their so-called impartiality

The fact that a few of these women seeking asylum aren't actual footballers should not be seen as a problem; the problem is our cruel and racist asylum system that has closed all 'legal routes' into the country for the vast majority of people seeking asylum

But instead this investigation chooses to frame the few women fleeing a regime we know to be oppressive as somehow 'cheating the system'

I've no doubt that any footballers left behind are frustrated and terrified - but they shouldn't have had to compete for safe haven in the first instance

[thoughtlessarse]

The impartial BBC

How the BBC's flagship investigative news programme, Panorama, quoted Izzy Lenga, a Jewish Labour member, on antisemitism in the party:

I’m Izzy Lenga, I joined the Labour Party in 2015… The antisemitic abuse I received was what I was subjected to every single day… Telling me Hitler was right, telling me Hitler did not go far enough… In Labour Party meetings… we’ve seen people engage in Holocaust denial… and that’s terrifying for Jewish members… It absolutely breaks my heart to say but I do not think the Labour Party is a safe space for Jewish people any more.

What Izzy Lenga actually said:

I’m Izzy Lenga, I joined the Labour Party in 2015… When I was a student… being quite a high profile Jewish woman student, I was subjected to quite a lot of like nasty vitriol and abuse… The antisemitic abuse I received… was what I was subjected to every single day… Predictably a lot of it came from the far right… neo-Nazi abuse… telling me Hitler was right, telling me Hitler did not go far enough and even more… What absolutely baffled me, was at the same time, I was receiving… very similar and almost often the exact same tropes and anti-Semitic abuse… from the far left. In Labour Party meetings… we’ve seen people engage in Holocaust denial… and that’s terrifying for Jewish members… It absolutely breaks my heart to say but I do not think the Labour Party is a safe space for Jewish people any more.

So much for impartiality.

[angelholme]

Rock 'n' roll hero dies and 'lockdown decision day'

Some papers report the PM will unveil a new coronavirus warning system in his speech this evening.

So this is the usual bollocks about what the papers said, but something curious struck me.

The first headline is from The Daily Mail - and underneath it the BBC go out of their way to mention that Gordon Brown is at fault for something (according to Matt Hancock’s spokesman).

But if you go to the article itself - and this is an article in The Daily Mail, mind you, which is not known for being a paper full of left wing sympathisers and Labour supporters - you have to go a fair way down to find that quote.

Almost ALL of the article itself is about how Matt Hancock is in serious trouble with The Party, the Cabinet and the PM for his mishandling of the situation.

The article even talks about Miriam Margolyes before it talks about Gordon Brown, just to give you some idea of how far down that part of the story is.

And yet the BBC felt it necessary to slam Labour and the former Prime Minister - the former Labour Prime Minister - right under the picture of the front page.

It’s almost as if they didn’t want the Tory Party being the only one to come off badly, and they didn’t want their readers to come away with the idea that Matt Hancock was a total prick who was in over his head and the cause of over 30,000 deaths in this country and that it was - in fact - someone else’s fault. Someone who wasn’t a Tory MP at all. Someone from a completely different political party.

Curious, don’t you think?

[angelholme]

Just when you think the government cannot possibly be this stupid, it turns out they are.

According to their own official figures - 73,191 people were tested on the 30th of April.

Not 100,000 as their PR machine claim, but 73,191.

You've really got to wonder just what kind of fuckwhits are running the country when they cannot even doctor their own official figures to match the shit they are giving to the news.

On a related note - why is the BBC publishing government lies and not checking the official figures before printing misleading headlines? Shouldn't a fully independent news organisation that has no political bias do at least SOME research before putting out figures?