Checked the BBC news online at around 11 a.m on Saturday the 30th. Opened the politics page and saw headline was (again) some guff about Labour tackling it’s anti Semitic problem (so they should but scarcely headline material ). Just below that was something more interesting, ‘City to ‘thrive’ after Brexit say bosses’, a story apparently from the previous day although I’m certain it wasn’t there throughout Friday 29th April and I do check for news updates a lot every day. It seems to have materialised from the depths of some BBC cyber vault of stories they hope to suppress. Anyway, aside from the fact that if this had been a pro remain story it would have been elevated above Jeremy Corbyn’s laughable attempts to control his own party (bias with which we are all familiar) .The Brexit boss story was relegated to an even lowlier position on the business page where surely it should’ve been a leading story but no. The headline on the business page was : ‘Mobile roaming charges cut within EU’ (suprise, surprise) an article which praises the benevolence of the glorious EU for assisting mobile device addicts to download piccies etc from their phones whilst topping up their tans. Of course I realise that these charges are unfair and business people as well as holiday makers will benefit from the scrapping of roaming charges but the crux of the story was undoubtedly an appeal to younger people to vote in just to keep these measures in place. As, the BBC concede, this ‘scrapping’ is not an EU directive any government after Brexit could choose whether to keep the policy or not. I do think it’s sad that BBC think such a trivial issue can persuade people to vote in. In order to find the pro Brexit bosses story you had to scroll down a fair bit on the business page, it did not make it to the home page and it was not included in the televised midday news. Also, on politics page tucked on the right hand side there is a headline, ‘Farage blasts Vote Leave’ when you click on it the headline at the top of the article actually reads ‘EU referendum: Nigel Farage tells Leave campaigners to focus on migration.’, hang on isn’t there something of a discrepancy there? When you read the article there is no indication that Farage was blasting anyone. Could it be that BBC were using a misleading headline to imply divisions in the Brexit camp? Are there no depths to which BBC won’t sink just to get a remain vote?
After decades of listening to Today every morning, I am becoming ever more annoyed and – rather than break the radio – am having to change channels. This morning Sarah Montague harangued both Sir Martin Sorrell and then Priti Patel. They were continually interrupted while trying to make sensible points and in the Patel interview, taken out of context and belittled. BBC interviewers need to be reminded that they are interviewers not stars. It is the opinion of the interviewed that is important and their job is to make sure that this opinion comes across clearly. It is NOT their job to continually interrupt and demean anyone with a non Remain, Left Wing, London/Westminster centric view. The current situation with the Robinsons, Humpreys, Montagues, etc believing that they are the reason people listen must be changed. Lets get back to reporting the news not either making it or hiding anything they don’t approve of.
The BBC gave full coverage over a number of days recently regarding the Panama Tax Haven papers. However there has been absolute silence regarding the current Luxembourg trial of three whistleblower journalists regarding a similar scheme in Luxembourg during the time that Claude Junker was in charge. I feel that this is being deliberately ignored as it would prove embarrassing to the Remain campaign and expose just how corrupt a number of the EU elite are.
Reports about the OECD said that we’d be worst off if we left the EU implying families would lose £1200 per year. It was not explained that this actually meant we would be slightly less better off than we otherwise might if the worst case scenario came true but we would still be better off than now.
I believe the BBC has made a serious error not only of judgement but in terms of misleading the public over what they claim to be facts. Norman Smith (on the Victoria Derbyshire show on the BBC News Channel) presented a segment which he, and Victoria Derbyshire, claimed to be factual information on Immigration (based on information from the Office on National Statistics). A fact, as they should know, is something that is based on irrefutable and incontrovertible evidence which can not be countered. I point this out because the BBC did a segment a few weeks ago in which they interviewed illegal immigrants, some of many who have gone under the radar of the ONS and who haven’t been registered. Since the BBC know this, they cannot represent todays figures as facts. They are misleading the public under figures which they know to be inaccurate. I will send the above to the BBC but I know their response will be flimsy – it always is, they have a template for everything. I will also speak to Ofcom to find out whether the BBC is in breach of its remit. The BBC are guilty of pro EU bias, that we know, but to present flimsy figures as fact at a time when many people are hungry for information on this topic is abhorrent.
Nick Robinson, who up to now has been about the best of the BBC interviewers, attempted to ridicule Nigel Farage’s position on the EU by comparing us to Albania, which was strange. He also argued that because the international institutions favoured “Remain”, the other economic arguments were pointless. His role should have been to take a balanced view to counteract bias.
John Humphreys interviewed Ian Duncan Smith about Brexit. Mr.Humphrys assumed a role (and tone) which is best described as that of an Inquisitor General. He was so pro-Europe that it was almost shocking to listen to. I do not listen to Radio 4 on a regular basis but anytime I have tuned in, their left-wing bias is obvious and that is across the board i.e irrespective of what topic is under discussion.
George Aligia talks to Dominic Sandford (Home Affairs). Nice balanced piece up until George does the “REALITY CHECK” with Dominic. “.. if the UK left the EU in theory migration from the EU could be stopped. However, at the moment of leaving we would want to do a trade deal with the EU. When Switzerland for example, did they had to accept freedom of movement rules and now they have a higher proportion of EU citizens than we do. To get out of that they’d have to abandon their trade deal……” Absolutely no mention that we could have a trade deal not like Switzerland, he could have said we could have a unique deal, he could have said that without free movement our deal could be not as good as Switzerland etc.. The point is that the facts were not being presented.
The title and story are misleading. “Boris Johnson’s alleged smears” sets up an alternative dialogue, that a set of deliberate smears were allegations, as opposed to the reality of the allegations being of smearing. 1) This incorrect view is first encouraged in the initial section where the author describes Obama’s explanation in selected quotes where he refers to the 2nd, already present bust in the Whitehouse, but then totally misleadingly in the 7th paragraph says This implies – if not outright states – that the 2nd bust outside the treaty room, mentioned previously, had been moved downstairs from the Oval Office on Obama’s request, which is patently untrue, as the 2nd bust was already there and already had been when Obama came to office and simply stayed there, whereas the bust that Obama’s quote referred to had actually been removed and sent back, as Obama’s first executive order. The whole impression is to imply that Obama moved the bust from the Oval office to his private quarters, which is totally false, as in actual fact the treaty room bust stayed where it was and he removed the Oval Office one and sent it back. This is either a deliberate lie or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Any reader who did not know the truth would assume the author’s use of referred to the object of the previous paragraph, not a totally separate object (the Oval Office Bust) which is not previously introduced in the article, and is not mentioned till the very end. 2) This view is then reinforced later in paragraph 14, where the author states that but does not challenge the veracity of this claim, which is in fact a lie. Johnson’s claim is evidentially true, as history tells that the White House lied about the story in 2012, then when the British American Embassy was asked and admitted it had been sent back, the White House PR was forced to admit they had lied and had sent it back. This is also not mentioned anywhere in the article. 3) Incredibly in paragraphs 20-22, the author describes the White Houses initial denial in 2012, but then does not say anything about their later backtracking, when they forced to admit the claim was true. This is reinforced by the quote that suggests the bust had been moved, as suggested earlier, referring to a different bust. 4) The only clue that these suggestions are false are at the end, when the author states that a bust had been removed, but then he seeks to mislead the reader again, by quoting the White House Press Office, but failing to balance this misleading half-truth by mentioning that the loan on the Oval Officr bust had been extended and Obama had specifically asked for it to be removed. In conclusion, the article smears Johnson by consistently conflicting the different busts and giving the impression Obama had done no wrong. It includes claims that have since been debunked, without acknowledging that fact and attmepts to give the overall impression that Johnson’s accusation is untrue, when in fact it is totally true and is based on widely available and easily accessible information that has been known since 2012.
This is a little late in the day, but here goes. By the way I have gone through the complaints procedure all the way up to the BBC Trust. I have been given one final opportunity to make representations but I won’t bother because at the first tier of the complaint procedure the programme producer warned me that complaints such as mine rarely succeed further up the chain. On the 11th January 2016, there was a debate organized by the University of Cardiff between the First Minister, Carwyn Jones and Nigel Farage. It was a very interesting debate with Mr. Farage coming off best (in my opinion) as he often does. Nowhere was this debate reported by the BBC, so far as I could tell. When I lodged my complaint, I received an email with four links to BBC programmes. When I checked I found that the debate had indeed been reported, but only in Wales. My complaint was that the public was and remains hungry for the facts. This debate certainly provided facts and background which the BBC should have reported nationally, especially as it had been organized by a neutral body. My programme details are incorrect as I am not complaining about a particular programme but a general bias.
Humphry’s continued interruption of IDS was appalling. It was rude and meant that IDS could not get his points across. It never happens with Remain supporters. And this is but one (particularly bad) example of such behavior which we see all the time nowadays. Reith will be turning in his grave.
A totally one sided pro EU bias without humour set against a flippant scripted ridicule of some minor celebrities who support Brexit. Eddie Izzad was encouraged to give a resume of his pro EU views without challenge, comment or quip followed by a scripted attack on the Brexit view read out by the host. Clearly the BBC will take every opportunity to project their pro EU stance.
Some 12 minutes devoted to the Obamas visit to UK: with the Queen and Prince Philip at Windsor Castle (subliminally implying Royal assent to what Obama would say at a later press conference?); Obama in Downing St with his ‘best buddy’ the PM; a press conference at Number 10 at which Obama said (among other pro EU assertions) that the UK would be at the back of the queue (not how an American would put it – was he prompted by Number 10?) in any future trade deal with the US in the event of Brexit. Laura Kuenssberg (BBC Political Editor) ramming home the point made by Obama casting doubts over any future UK trade deal with US; Jon Sopel (BBC North America Editor) travelling from Saudi to London with the Obama entourage on Air Force 1 being told by an advisor that Obama would be forthright in his views on UK leaving EU at a press conference at Number 10: John Pienaar (BBC Deputy Political Editor) on crowds on Whitehall around Downing Street, likening them to a visit by a rock star. Boris Johnson was given no more than 30 seconds to respond to what Obama had to say on UK referendum.
Some observations of my experience with BBC complaints: I made a general complaint to the BBC about its lack of impartiality over its presentation of the Brexit campaign identifying clear bias towards the Remain campaign. I also pointed out as a concern, the BBC’s format of selective reporting using chosen opinion leaders, and I further went on to discuss the dominant use of editorial comment and opinions in BBC News in favour of just reporting the facts as a means of influencing public opinion. I received a very nice answer, which unfortunately didn’t acknowledge any of the concerns I raised, but described the BBCs high standards of impartiality and the great lengths they go to for balanced reporting. The sensation was rather like being covered in warm fudge. I am pleased that the BBC made such a detailed answer but it is clear that political and behavioural attitudes towards selected interests at the BBC are un-waivered and continue unabated despite of the News Night Jimmy Savile scandal, and other demonstrable examples of bias and self interest. which draw complaints towards our erudite and amazingly unaccountable broadcasting institution.
Obama visit. Pro-EU bias from BBC presenters. Classic inter-BBC discussion. At about 7.10am, 3-way chat between BBC presenters Sopel, Kuenssberg and Montague. Craftily scripted piece which gave 90% of discussion time to implying validity of Obama’s call for the UK to Remain. All 3 BBC presenters conveyed the global institutions in favour of Remain as speaking the unpalatable truth, without any attempt to recognise the self-interest, EU connections and faultlines in their arguments, nor the massive historical mistakes made by them, eg UK joining the euro. Having conveyed Remain as the voice of reason, supported by great pillars of global reliability, the BBC inserted snippets of objections from Leave. Done in such a way as to convey Leave as intolerant and indignant in the face of reason.
During Victoria Derbyshire’s program on the BBC News channel this morning she interviewed S Crabb about unemployment figures. She herself suggested that the reason for the increase in unemployment was fear of Brexit. This, of course is exactly what Crabb wanted to hear, so from that moment on the discussion was about how Brexit was causing unemployment and how irresponsible the government was for calling a referendum. Never at any point was any other possible reason for higher unemployment suggested: post xmas temporary staff leaving, immigration, seasonal factors ….. Nothing. So both interviewer and interviewee were as one. Brexit is the reason for the higher unemployment. Pro EU bias, whether prearranged with Crabb or not.
Yet MORE disgusting BBC biased questioning of my MP Mr. Zahawi. Your reporter was disgraceful towards him, then fawned at the other so called expert who was spouting lies and anti British propaganda. Totally unqualified and unquantified false claims. I despise your channel for your biased reporting on a daily basis, but this was too much. Where was the reporting of the Grassroots Out rally in Stoke on Trent? It had a fleeting, dismissive few seconds then spent many minutes talking to people in the street in Europe who have no relevance what so ever. Yet more BIAS. Roll on the day when we don’t have to fund your corrupt, biased, left wing ‘Corporation’.
Sarah Montague interviewing John Redwood in the radio car – sneering, aggressive, mocking, supercilious. She failed to land a punch, but was disrespectful and arrogant throughout.
Pro-EU bias against Vote Leave. Michael Gove was given 3 minutes uninterrupted to outline his general case for Brexit. Nick Robinson made a great play of such generosity. NR then fired a series of contentious and specific policy questions at MG. Given the complex and serious nature of the questions, as well as NR goading, MG was given between 5 and 15 seconds to reply on most occasions, before NR interrupted. On a few occasions, MG had 20 seconds or more, the most being 35 seconds on two occasions. None of the questions invited MG to assess the deep-seated weaknesses and absurdities within HM Treasury’s 200-page pro-EU propaganda report. Remain’s Dominic Grieve was later wheeled on. Not to justify the Remain case. Oh no. He was given 6 free hits at MG’s prior comments and was given 20, 20, 30, 30, 40 and 50 seconds. NR promised a reverse situation in days to come. It will be interesting to see if the Leave representative is afforded 6 free response hits of such timescales, and without and indignant BBC presenters interrupting.
Project Fear at the BBC. Today interviews of ex US Treasury Sec Larry Summers and Liam Fox, after 8 former US Secs wrote a letter to The Times supporting Remain. Summers was asked 6 questions, unbroken response times of 60, 60, 45, 35 and 60 secs. Fox was asked 4 questions with response times of 65, 30, 20 and 25 secs. Summers had almost twice as much speaking time as Fox, who was interrupted in 2 of his 4 questions. Sarah Montague’s tone was noticeably warm to Summers and frosty to Fox. And when Fox began to land some big hits and inconvenient truths about EU decline, he was stopped!
Anyone who had inadvertently fallen off the planet at the beginning of the week and came back at 1pm the 19th April 2006 in time to catch up on issues regarding the EU referendum broadcasted by the BBC News at 1 would be forgiven if they thought the UKs referendum was done and dusted and that the in campaign had won ..Accordingly political commentator for the BBC ,Norman Smith think it has . The first thing our Norman had to say was ” We got relatively few details from Michael Grove today, what Brexit might mean, he said instead, we got hope! Bob Hope, No Hope? why didn’t our Norman just come out and say it, the Brexit campaign haven’t a hope in hell of winning this referendum and be done with it! I have never heard of a so one-sided patronising narrative, Norman’s report starts at 4.35 if you can bear it http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0772xfj/bbc-news-at-one-19042016
This is about the BBC News Channel itself, no specific programme or date. BBC News Editor James Stephenson has promoted a known anti-UKIP staff member, Jasmine Williams, to the position of Deputy News editor for weekend news. In 2014, Williams (under her married name Jasmine Lawrence) tweeted the following on 21 May, 2014: #WhyImVotingUkip – to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views, totally under represented in politics today— Jasmine Lawrence (@journomummy) May 21, 2014 Screenshot and story here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635680/Top-BBC-editor-brands-Ukip-racist-sexist-Twitter-News-channel-boss-accused-bias-hours-election.html There can be no denying the fundamental connection between UKIP and the issue of the EU, so her views on UKIP must necessarily reflect her views on the EU. She will assuming her position in the last few weeks before the vote. The BBC have a double standard here. In the run-up to the last general election, the BBC removed Radio Bristol presenter John Darvall from his morning programme and moved him to a ‘less news-based’ slot in the afternoon simply because he was recently engaged to a Tory MP. Story is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11498823/BBC-Radio-DJ-vents-anger-after-being-ousted-for-getting-engaged-to-Tory-MP.html He had not publicly expressed any political opinions, yet was removed from his position, while Jasmine Williams has been reprimanded for publicly expressing political opinions and is instead promoted to an even higher position of responsibility and influence in BBC News. The double standard is clear.
50% of the programme devoted to promotion of the Remain campaign in the form of Osborne’s speech and the treasury lies in their 200 page document. Not to mention the NFU’s conference with over 75% of the article devoted to remain and 25% to leave. In all cases the BBC did not challenge any of the lies produced by the broadcast
There isn’t a gap on this site to complain about BBC bias on their news website. However, I am fed up with reading a pro EU headline as a main headline on the main page on the bbc news website almost everyday. Today it’s “EU exit would make UK poorer”. It’s always a quote from a pro-EU person but spread across the screen it is aimed at persuading people this is the case. If they ever use a brexit quote (rarely), it’s then totally trashed in the following paragraphs by arguments against brexit, almost likening it to madness. This doesn’t happen in the same way with their pro-EU quotes! I find it insulting to our intelligence if the BBC thinks this looks impartial – it is actually damaging it’s reputation as an independent news source; rather silly as it is so blatantly obvious what they are doing!!
Statement made by Yvette Cooper relating to the leave campaign and the single market. All the leave campaign has stated is a simple trading agreement and no5 part of the single market. There were other deceitful statements made but, it was all wilfully misleading and Andrew Marr did nothing to contradict what was said.
An explosive report by the EU border agency which confirmed in lurid detail Brexit claims about tge migrant crisis was almost completely ignored. In a neutral world it should have led every bulletin as it undoubtedly would have done it it’s conclusions had been the opposite.
Bias towards Remain. About 7.15am. Discussion between BBC presenters Nick Robinson and Ben Wright. BW reported Ken Clarke’s comments that a Leave vote would cause a Tory leadership crisis and damage UK stability. BW later threw in the standard Remain charge about economic risks, without assessing its credibility, and quoted the Remain assertion that Leave campaigners could not provide answers. Yet, Leave answers are well documented. Ignoring them completely gave undue partiality to one side. Boris Johnson was indeed quoted as refuting US hypocrisy over Obama intervention. But, as ever with the BBC, bias by omission meant no negative assessment of the Remain case was discussed throughout the piece.
Opening day of EU campaign. Unequal treatment of Leave. Nick Robinson interviewed Alastair Darling for Remain. 7 questions, 3 interruptions. No negative introduction and no accusations of scaremongering. Then John Humphrys interviewed Gisela Stewart for Leave. 7 questions, 9 interruptions. JH introduced the piece by asserting everyone would be bored already and asked GS if she was coming on to perpetuate Project Fear. Several times JH used the word scaremongering, then engaged in his own Project Fear by implying opinions on Brexit were facts, eg length of time for a Brexit deal to be negotiated.
The first 15 or so minutes concerning the labour leader was totally biased and one sided. There was no balance and the interviewees were given an easy ride by the presenter, unlike the constant interruptions that anyone faintly involved with the leave Campain has to put up with.
Sensational!! IMF – EU Exit could cause severe damage! Headline news, the BBC might say, but i haven’t seen a single pro leave story headlining the BBC – you may correct me if i am wrong. Add to that, headline news this morning – John Whittingdale, a Brexiteer, had a relationship with a sex worker. A story that was inconsequential at the time, so much so the media didn’t print as it was irrelevant but the BBC are all over it. Why? Is it because Mr Whittingdale has been attempting to reign in some of the BBC’s powers or is it because he is pro leave and they are attempting to discredit a high profile member of the leave campaign, force him into resignation so that he is replaced by a pro EU minister? Am i cynical? Maybe but the BBC hasn’t given me any reason to be otherwise. (And why do the BBC use the word ‘sex worker’ rather than prostitute? Is it because they shamelessly prostitute the EU to the UK public on mass and they don’t want to confuse the two? Something to think about.)
Debate between Chris Grayling and Peter Mandleson. Blatant and subliminal pro-EU bias. Evan Davis piece on Sealand was pure subliminal bias to convey Leave as wishing to create a UK detached and separate, in splendid isolation as a tiny island out to sea. Mandy given 50% more speaking time, Grayling interrupted constantly by Evan Davis, including 6 times in 90 seconds on one occasion. Expert Panel was 3:2 in favour of pro-EU, Mandy being allowed to challenge and disrupt one Brexit Panellist throughout their contribution. Of the 8 Audience Panel members invited to comment and vote on UK sovereignty, 2 were EU citizens (one self-declared as Irish and one clearly French). After, on the Newsnight Twitter, Ian Katz tweeted partial pro-EU comments and criticism of Grayling contributions, but no criticism of Mandy’s. IK is well known for his left wing pro-EU bias, of course.
The item to be discussed was the EU question, exit or not? I knew as this was the BBC that the only comments would be to deride, UKIP and those in the country genuinely wanting to exit Europe. The BBC were true to form, and at no time felt it necessary to balance the humour by presenting both opinions, which might have been more acceptable. It was obvious that as the government pay the BBC wages you would be biased against any other opinion. You do not speak for the country and are so out of touch with the feelings of the people. You seem to think that bullying works! Think again you will not change my vote to exit Europe as soon as possible to allow self government and financial growth to return to the Uk. I watch the BBC less and less as you do not speak fairly on many subjects.
Amber Rudd interview. Pro-EU bias by omission. Ms Rudd is a member of the Govt and a Remain campaigner. She was asked by Marr about the validity of issuing a £9.3m pro-EU leaflet. Yet, Marr failed to challenge her on any of the claims that leaflet makes. Of 15 questions asked of her by Marr, only 2 related to EU policy issues. Irish Border and Farming. Marr simply gave Rudd a free hit on both. She gave the exactly same robotic answer of “there will be a lot of uncertainty if we leave the EU”. Not one of Marr’s 15 questions attempted to scrutinise pro-EU claims. Disgraceful.
A good fair news report on the Dutch referendum, until guess what, the closing comment from the reporter concluded that it wasn’t a very good idea of the Dutch to vote against the treaty!
Subliminal pro-EU bias. Allison Pearson for Leave was constantly interrupted by Marr and ex BBC Presenter Flanders who’s pro-EU (surprised?). In contrast, the BBC allowed Our Steph a free shot. Nor did not Marr ask her why she got it so wrong over the euro, nor was she challenged over any of the highly dubious claims made by the InFacts site which she promotes. Nor was it disclosed to viewers that she now works for JPMorgan, who are donors to Remain. Nor were any awkward questions asked about JPM and conflicts of interest. Marr did manage to convey the subliminal message that Remain is to the advantage of younger (18-34) voters, by implying their futures would be adversely affected. No attempt was made to consider the mass unemployment of younger EU citizens, nor the potential superior futures for UK youngsters of a sovereign UK government trading with the whole globe, rather than shackle itself to a region in stark decline, for which UK youngsters will be expected to pay.
Typical BBC scaremongering aimed squarely at the footballing fraternity Says a Britex from the EU would prevent European footballers from playing in the premiership or the football league. its goes on to say rules governing working visas for elite players, conducted ahead of an expected referendum on EU membership in the next two years, suggests that a so-called “Brexit” could threaten a 20-year European influx which has arguably made the Premier League the world’s most attractive footballing competition … The news coverage on this feed lasted about three minutes , a ten second interview by the Sunderland manager Sam Allardyce at the end of the feed counter balanced the argument, although he didn’t say if it was a good thing or a bad thing if we left the EU….