Scrutable

JQH wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:36 pm

Oborne demonstrates that there is clear brown water between "Right-wing" and "over priviliged festering lying wannabe dictator"

Yes. I think true small-c conservatives are not currently well-represented by the Conservative party.

True, part of what Blair has called the "politically homeless".

JQH wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:36 pm

Oborne demonstrates that there is clear brown water between "Right-wing" and "over priviliged festering lying wannabe dictator"

Yup, he's a Eurosceptic I have grown to respect.

It's OK, Oborne is wrong and imagined it all, just like the rest of us. The BBC is fiercely impartial, and proud of it.

Fran Unsworth, BBC director of news and current affairs, has told us so.

Conspiracy theories are much in vogue these days. But we are a large organisation that employs thousands of independently minded journalists. Our editors employ their judgments on their own programmes for their own audiences. These aren’t the ideal conditions for a conspiracy. And we would be particularly inept conspirators were we to produce and broadcast a two-hour leaders’ special debate – a debate in which the prime minister was robustly challenged by the public – run highlights of it on our evening bulletins, cover it in full online and yet rely on a clumsy one-second edit in a short news summary the next day as a means to convey our supposed support for the governing party.

Similarly, to suggest this is in some way linked to an editorial mistake made a fortnight previously by a different team in an office hundreds of miles away, in which an archive cenotaph clip was wrongly used in a news package (about an event broadcast in its entirety by us the day before) is fanciful.

Starting the Andrew Neil interviews of Party leaders before Johnson had agreed to appear could be explained by incompetence rather than conspiracy. Digging out old archive footage to use instead of footage of Johnson placing a wreath upside down, Farage's permanent seat on Question Time, Fiona Bruce making inaccurate statements to shut down an audience member's point and replacing audience laughter at the Dear Leader with applause is somewhat harder to so explain away.

JQH wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:35 pm

Starting the Andrew Neil interviews of Party leaders before Johnson had agreed to appear could be explained by incompetence rather than conspiracy. Digging out old archive footage to use instead of footage of Johnson placing a wreath upside down, Farage's permanent seat on Question Time, Fiona Bruce making inaccurate statements to shut down an audience member's point and replacing audience laughter at the Dear Leader with applause is somewhat harder to so explain away.

To say nothing of Kussenberg's claiming Corbyn was answering one question she asked, when the footage was of another

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ate-labour

The News at Six item included a clip of the Labour leader stating: “I am not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive.”

Kuenssberg had presented that as Corbyn’s response to a question put to him on whether he would be “happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack”, but the Trust concluded that Corbyn had been speaking in a different context.

The Labour leader had been responding to a question asking whether he would be happy to order police or military “to shoot to kill” on Britain’s streets – and not specifically regarding a Paris-style attack in the UK.

Never mind, I'm sure they'll show their impartiality by covering up Jeremy Corbyn's claim to watch the Queen's Speech "in the morning"...


Oh.

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:14 am

Never mind, I'm sure they'll show their impartiality by covering up Jeremy Corbyn's claim to watch the Queen's Speech "in the morning"...


Oh.

Oh good god. I just give up....

P.J. Denyer wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:31 am

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:14 am

Never mind, I'm sure they'll show their impartiality by covering up Jeremy Corbyn's claim to watch the Queen's Speech "in the morning"...


Oh.

Oh good god. I just give up....

When I've finished banging my head against the desk I may join you.

I haven't seen this story yet, but I'm assuming either Corbyn got caught in a pointless lie about what he likes to watch on television, or forgot when the Queen's speech is on. Either way it's now going to be milked ad nauseam, isn't it?

Putting aside the questions about the BBC's honesty and impartiality for a moment - important though they are - I think there is a parallel problem with our willingness to attach meaning to snatched images and soundbites. In an ideal world I think we would pay very little attention to Johnson's ineptitude with wreaths, Corbyn's elastic definition of "morning", Ed Milliband's struggles with a bacon sandwich, Michael Foot's donkey jacket (yes I really am that old), Teresa May's uncomfortable posture in photographs of EU meetings, and so on. None of these snatched moments tell us anything and it would be better if we were grown up enough to say "meh" to them (even if the impression conveyed by the snatched moment is one that we would like to go along with).

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:38 pm

Putting aside the questions about the BBC's honesty and impartiality for a moment - important though they are - I think there is a parallel problem with our willingness to attach meaning to snatched images and soundbites. In an ideal world I think we would pay very little attention to Johnson's ineptitude with wreaths, Corbyn's elastic definition of "morning", Ed Milliband's struggles with a bacon sandwich, Michael Foot's donkey jacket (yes I really am that old), Teresa May's uncomfortable posture in photographs of EU meetings, and so on. None of these snatched moments tell us anything and it would be better if we were grown up enough to say "meh" to them (even if the impression conveyed by the snatched moment is one that we would like to go along with).

Yes, I agree 100% and get very frustrated with the constant focus on these piffling ephemera at the expense of a sensible big-picture view.

Rolling 24-hour news probably made it worse, and social media (especially twitter) even worserer.

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:38 pm

Putting aside the questions about the BBC's honesty and impartiality for a moment - important though they are - I think there is a parallel problem with our willingness to attach meaning to snatched images and soundbites. In an ideal world I think we would pay very little attention to Johnson's ineptitude with wreaths, Corbyn's elastic definition of "morning", Ed Milliband's struggles with a bacon sandwich, Michael Foot's donkey jacket (yes I really am that old), Teresa May's uncomfortable posture in photographs of EU meetings, and so on. None of these snatched moments tell us anything and it would be better if we were grown up enough to say "meh" to them (even if the impression conveyed by the snatched moment is one that we would like to go along with).

True. I like to think I don't concentrate on these things (maybe fooling myself of course) but the media attention given to such trivia makes them important to far too many people who don't bother to dig behind the headlines.

In the mean time any Tory MP bring this up should be asked if this storm in a tea cup about the Queen's Speech compares to actually misleading the Queen.

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:38 pm

Putting aside the questions about the BBC's honesty and impartiality for a moment - important though they are - I think there is a parallel problem with our willingness to attach meaning to snatched images and soundbites. In an ideal world I think we would pay very little attention to Johnson's ineptitude with wreaths, Corbyn's elastic definition of "morning", Ed Milliband's struggles with a bacon sandwich, Michael Foot's donkey jacket (yes I really am that old), Teresa May's uncomfortable posture in photographs of EU meetings, and so on. None of these snatched moments tell us anything and it would be better if we were grown up enough to say "meh" to them (even if the impression conveyed by the snatched moment is one that we would like to go along with).

Hammer/nail.

Good to see A Neil ripping Johnson apart for refusing to be interviewed by him. And at least he was allowed to do that.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:01 pm

I haven't seen this story yet, but I'm assuming either Corbyn got caught in a pointless lie about what he likes to watch on television, or forgot when the Queen's speech is on. Either way it's now going to be milked ad nauseam, isn't it?

No - a contrived lie
He does watch it in the morning BUT what was missed out was that it is BOXING day morning
Believe it or not, he and his wife actually spend christmas afternoon, helping out at their local homeless shelter

Easily checked by talking to a member of the Islington labour party who does the same thing

Of course, this doesn't fit the "mould" that most of the media would have us believe so.....................

Gentleman Jim wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:42 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:01 pm

I haven't seen this story yet, but I'm assuming either Corbyn got caught in a pointless lie about what he likes to watch on television, or forgot when the Queen's speech is on. Either way it's now going to be milked ad nauseam, isn't it?

No - a contrived lie
He does watch it in the morning BUT what was missed out was that it is BOXING day morning
Believe it or not, he and his wife actually spend christmas afternoon, helping out at their local homeless shelter

Easily checked by talking to a member of the Islington labour party who does the same thing

Of course, this doesn't fit the "mould" that most of the media would have us believe so.....................

He was asked if he watched HM's Xmas message to the peasants. He replied "We have it on in the morning" not "We have it on the following morning."

If he'd said that and added that they would be helping at the Homeless centre Xmas day pm he would have won hands down.

The BBC being studiously balanced even as the figures they present suggest one party has a much smaller problem than the others. Can you guess which one?

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:43 am

The BBC being studiously balanced even as the figures they present suggest one party has a much smaller problem than the others. Can you guess which one?

for Labour, it said that it could not find any misleading claims in ads run over the period

Quite.

But political advertising is regulated outside of the ASA. And the electoral law that applies "doesn't require claims in political campaigns to be truthful or factually accurate," according to the House of Commons library.

Nice to know that they just lie and lie, f.ckers!

I'm surprised the "Nick Hancock's Aid Punched" dead cat that's successfully distracted attention from 4 year olds on the hospital floor hasn't had a mention yet. Leaving aside the fact that this lie eminated from 'senior' Conservative sources (because it was apparently more than one), and that those sources are being kept confidential despite the fact that they were peddling a lie, I find myself wondering; if the story had been real, if an unknown 'activist' had actually had a minor altercation with an equally unknown spad in a car park after an MP had driven off (please note, the MP wasn't involved) but if the parties had been reversed would this really have been considered newsworthy enough fir the chief political editors of BBC and ITN to have been tweeting about?

Incidentally, apparently Telegraph journalists also claimed someone had been arrested for the assault (see the footage of what did happen to get the full measure of how ridiculous that is) and helped spread and legitimise the equally false claim that the child on the hospital floor was fake. There was no excuse for either of these, a quick call to the Police would have fact checked the former while the latter was confirmed by the hospital itself when the story broke.

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:38 pm

Michael Foot's donkey jacket (yes I really am that old),

It's interesting that that bit of fake news is still circulating nearly 40 years later*.

For those less decrepit than snoozey after an Armistice Ceremony in 1981 the Times ran a sneering column accusing Foot of attending the ceremony in a coat "like a donkey jacket" which very quickly mutated into the "common knowledge" that Foot actually wore a donkey jacket because he hates our Glorious War Dead. Foot himself was an early opponent of appeasement, volunteered for military service in WW2 and it is suggested he may even have been a member of the Auxillary Units.

Here's a guy in a donkey jacket:-

Spoiler:


and here's Michael Foot "wearing" one:-

Spoiler:


So as you can see they are virtually identical.




*As an aside my google autosuggestions for "michael foo" (sic) were:-

Michael Foot
Michael Foot KGB
Michael Foot donkey jacket
Michael Foot MP
Michael Foot quotes
Michael Foot spitting image
Michael Foot spy

It's why I can't bring myself arouse more than a sad apathy at the current smears about Corbyn getting repeated verbatim as truth even on a liberal lefty holdout like here.

The "Donkey jacket" jibe wasn't literally true of course but he wore a short green coat when all the other men wore long, black formal coats, so he stood out as the odd man out. It was a careless gift to those who wanted to accuse him of failing to respect the occasion with due solemnity and they pounced.

It's not like he laid a wreath upside down but there it is.

Imagine if he had though

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:28 pm

The "Donkey jacket" jibe wasn't literally true of course but he wore a short green coat when all the other men wore long, black formal coats, so he stood out as the odd man out. It was a careless gift to those who wanted to accuse him of failing to respect the occasion with due solemnity and they pounced.

It's not like he laid a wreath upside down but there it is.

And I rember Jill Cragie, his wife, said at the time along the lines that MF was simply one of those people who managed to look scruffy in anything. I'm one, too.

Here, in fact.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/obituarie ... t-1-793225

A BBC reporter has apparently referred on air to "if [Boris Johnson] wins the majority that he so deserves".

https://dorseteye.com/all-pretence-has- ... -majority/

In isolation I can believe she misspoke, but when so many 'little' mistakes are made that fall in the same direction. Best case scenario it's institutional bias and they're unintentionally showing their own preference.